1992-06-01

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should require the cessation of visits to harbours in the Victoria area of nuclear powered vessels or vessels that may be carrying nuclear weapons until a full public inquiry has been completed, including an environmental assessment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to ask the House to adopt this motion, a motion which calls for the government to require the cessation of visits to harbours in the Victoria area of nuclear powered vessels or vessels that may be carrying nuclear weapons until a full public inquiry has been completed including an environmental assessment.
This motion is of importance to the people in our area but it is also important, I believe, to the people of Canada because it represents a very important environmental issue and it represents a very important issue in terms of our national and international policies.
The effect of this motion could equally apply to other harbours in Canada and to other waters. However it is addressed in this way as I represent the Victoria area. I am familiar with the issues there. I wish to speak very specifically to the impact of these visits on the Victoria area and my recommendations to this House for dealing with the consequences of these visits.
I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of people of the Victoria area. All MPs in the area are in support of this motion and of its intent. Eight of the ten local councils have called upon the federal government to have a moratorium on these visits until there has been a full environmental assessment.
Recently the British Columbia legislature voted 51 to 1 in favour of declaring British Columbia a nuclear weapons free zone. If I may read the motion, it endorses in effect the motion I have before the House. The motion was adopted on April 24, 1992 by a vote of 51 to 1 and therefore included not only members of the government party, the New Democratic Party, but Liberals and Social Credit as well. In fact only one Social Credit member voted against the resolution. It read as follows:
Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia declare British Columbia a nuclear weapons free zone; and be it further resolved that this Assembly calls on the Government of Canada to conduct a full public environmental review of the dangers involved by the presence of nuclear weaponed and nuclear powered vessels in British Columbia's harbours and waterways.
This all-party support for the resolution coincided with the passage of similar resolutions by the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, the territories of Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as well as hundreds of municipalities across Canada.
I would acknowledge there are some in our area who have concerns about this resolution. They are particularly supportive of the visits to the Victoria area by U.S., French and British vessels. They are concerned that this kind of resolution or approach will inhibit the visits of foreign vessels to our harbours. They wish to have the visits continue because they believe it is an act of friendliness to our neighbours. As well the commerce that our area enjoys as a result of these visits is something they wish to continue.
Let it be said that for my part-I believe my colleagues and the municipalities in the area agree-we too would like to see the visits continued but only after there has been a proper environmental assessment of the impact

June 1, 1992
Private Members' Business
of the visits and there is an agreement worked out that there will be no nuclear weapons on board the vessels coming into our area as a matter of national and provincial policy.
Last week I met with the chamber of commerce which represents these views. It has done an outstanding job in welcoming sailors, officers and crews of the vessels that have come into Victoria harbour. I frankly believe that an accommodation can be worked out with the chamber on these issues. It certainly joins in its concern for the environmental issue and for the public concerns arising around that issue.
As well, as I will point out later in the debate, there have been significant foreign policy changes in the United States which should lead this government toward taking some new and fresh steps to resolve this issue and these very vital concerns of the people in our area.
I have met with the Naval Officers Association of Vancouver Island. In fact I am a member of the association. It has sent correspondence and conducted a number of discussions with me. Many distinguished naval officers, including retired naval officers, are concerned with this issue and have raised a number of important considerations.
What it boils down to is that there are two issues confronting the Government of Canada on these visits. The first is an environmental issue. The second is an issue of national policy.
Let me deal with the environmental issue first. There can be no dispute whatever from the government that the consequences of an accident in an urban area such as Victoria, or any other urban harbour in Canada, would be absolutely catastrophic. There can be no doubt about that proposition. A serious nuclear accident in a built-up area such as Victoria would be absolutely catastrophic. There is no amount of emergency preparedness that could properly respond to such a crisis. As well more minor accidents can still have a very serious deleterious effect on the environment in our area.
Our area is asking the House to provide for an environmental assessment of visits of particularly nuclear powered vessels coming into our area, primarily those of the U.S. navy but also of the British and French navies, and to look at the consequences even of carrying nuclear weapons into the area.
Let us focus on the nuclear power for a minute. There have been those who have studied this issue carefully and have concluded that not only are the consequences of an accident serious but the potential risks are real. Over the lifetime of nuclear power there have been sufficient numbers of accidents around the world that the risk of an accident either minor or major is significant. There are others who have studied the issue who say that that is not correct.
It is the view in our area-I believe it ought to be supported by members of Parliament in this House-that given the consequences of an accident there should be no gambling on the risks and that those risks should be carefully and thoroughly examined by a public environmental assessment.
This is not a particularly radical view. It is in fact the view of the government agency charged with responsibility for deciding whether or not an environmental assessment is necessary. I draw the attention of the House to a memorandum prepared by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office in August 1991. It was approved by the director general of operations, went to the government and was overruled by the government when it adopted an Order in Council waiving the necessity of environmental review.
Let me take this House through this memorandum. It
states the issue:
Whether to support National Defence's proposal to seek an Order
in Council approval for this activity,-
That is, port visits by nuclear powered vessels. It continues:
-rather than assess it in accordance with the EARP Guidelines
Order.
The memorandum points out:
The Deputy Minister of National Defence wrote, in February
1991, describing the sensitivity of this subject and suggesting the
adoption of the above strategy to avoid the possibility of a public
review.
The minister was asked to decide whether the initial assessment should be done by EARP, whether there should be a public review. DND persisted on the issue and FEARO, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, was considering whether or not Environment Canada had a different view.
It was clear that Environment Canada did in fact have a different view. It said:
June 1, 1992

EARP clearly applies to the decision to authorize port visits by these vessels. The visits constitute a physical activity that is confined to a few ports located on the east and west coasts, an activity that lends itself readily to initial assessment.
DND has the authority to approve the visits and would be initiating authority under EARP. However, the government was concerned there would be legal challenges to the order. A request was going forward to the government in respect of Dixon Entrance, so that DND coupled that request with an over-riding request in respect of all visits of nuclear powered vessels to harbours.
FEARO has strongly recommended to external affairs that the results of the analysis done by others to respond to the public request be made available to the standing committee of the House of Commons on the environment. It should be recommended that external affairs conduct an assessment in accordance with cabinet procedures that officials provide advice on the assessment procedure and that DND is fully aware of it.
The recommendation goes on to say:
National Defence's reluctance to conduct an initial assessment under the EARP needs to be questioned. It has come to our attention that the United States conducted an environmental review with extensive public involvement of an acoustic testing facility for nuclear submarines to be located at Behm Canal in Alaska, notwithstanding the obvious defence-related sensitivity of that facility. If such public consultation was possible for the United States in that situation, should it not be possible for Canada to do the same in this case, before National Defence takes its decision?
The memorandum goes on to say:
While FEARO recognizes there is some risk that opponents could seek a court judgment, we believe that the Point Aconi judgment offers some precedent to allow the National Defence Department to mount a successful argument.
The Order in Council approach is not risk-free-
It then concludes:
We reiterate our opinion that EARP applies to the decision to authorize the port visits, and that National Defence is the initiating department.
The memorandum re-states firmly the view and recommends that the minister re-state firmly the view that it would be preferable to follow the process rather than to avoid it.
Private Members' Business
No pressing security argument has been advanced for avoiding a public environmental assessment review of this issue. If any government authority proposed to put on land a nuclear power plant, there would be the most comprehensive review of that decision. It would be done nationally, provincially and locally.
What excuse can be given to the citizens of any community when a nuclear power plant is brought in by sea, for avoiding an assessment of the environmental impact of that decision? There can be none.
If the government proposes to raise security as an argument, let the government propose procedures for the security aspects of the case to be determined in camera. Let there be appointed an independent assessor who will have the confidence of the community, the Department of National Defence, External Affairs, and so forth, who can make an environmental review of the impact of this decision.
Our community calls on the House to request the government to ensure that such a review takes place.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to another document that has come to my attention. As the House will know, the New Zealand government is reviewing its policy. As well the Senate of Australia is reviewing the issues in that part of the world. In the course of the inquiries there, a secret U.S. Navy document has come to light which instructs commanders that they do not necessarily need to contact all the relevant authorities like foreign governments when a nuclear powered vessel has an accident in a foreign port. This would violate the terms of the basic agreement between the United States and foreign governments, and I assume the terms of the agreement between Canada and the United States in respect of these visits.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary who will be speaking on behalf of the government to move quickly on this and to look into this particular document.
Let me conclude my remarks by addressing the second issue, which is the issue of national policy.
It is my view and I hope the view of this House-it is certainly the view of the B.C. legislature and 68 per cent of the people of British Columbia according to a recent public opinion survey-that Canada should be a nuclear weapons-free zone.

Private Members' Business
The government makes the argument that we are somehow protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella as part of our collective security arrangements with the United States and through NATO. So I may say do the Liberal opposition. The Liberals as well as the government make the case that these visits should continue and that nuclear weapons should be brought into Canada.
Let me say first that nuclear weapons provide no protection whatever against a nuclear attack. Even if there had been an argument once upon a time before the end of the cold war that the nuclear deterrent was in fact an effective deterrent against a Soviet nuclear attack on North America, that argument can no longer be made.
Clearly Russia, the successor state in this respect and to some extent the Ukraine and perhaps other states in that part of the world, present no strategic nuclear threat to Canada and the United States at this time.
A year ago the right hon. Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs when he was Secretary of State for External Affairs described the then Soviet Union as an ally and a friend of Canada. The case cannot be made that we are threatened today, and it certainly cannot be made that nuclear weapons in Victoria harbour present any deterrent to any potential assault.
In September there was a decisive change in U.S. government policy when President Bush announced the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from their naval forces. Today most of the vessels, if not all of the vessels, coming into Victoria harbour probably do not carry nuclear weapons.
Until now the Government of Canada has accepted the argument that the United States government will neither confirm nor deny whether it has nuclear weapons on board. If it is true that the sense of crisis has seriously diminished, as it has, then I call on the government, in light of the changing conditions since the end of the cold war, to renew its discussions with the United States and conclude a new agreement under which the United States will indicate clearly that there are no nuclear weapons on board any vessels coming into Victoria.
It is time to change our policy, to look afresh at these issues and to give the people of Victoria and the people of Canada the assurance that we have entered into a new day, that the environmental considerations will be paramount and that we will have new policies which reflect the reality of today, that we should be nuclear free not only in Canada, but throughout the world.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you presiding here this morning in the House.
If you have a sense of deja vu with respect to this debate, it is because the hon. member for Victoria has raised this same issue previously. We had a debate following somewhat the same lines at least as far as his comments are concerned on February 18.
He raises two issues in his speech, one relating to safety of nuclear vessels coming into Canadian waters and the other the dimension of the environmental impact. I would like to deal with both of those. I know my colleague from Calgary Southwest is going to be dealing later with the broader collective security approach that we have with our allies. Perhaps the spokesman from the Liberal Party would also be dealing with that.
In fact, the first point that he made had to do with broad Canadian policy in this whole area. Of course Canadian policy, established by a previous government in 1967, has been one of allowing our allies to visit Canadian ports under certain terms and conditions. That policy has continued whichever party was in power. It is the policy of the Government of Canada. In fact it was renewed last October by Order in Council.
I want to speak about that because in the process of renewing this policy the government did undertake environmental impact studies. My interpretation of them, which may not surprise the House, is somewhat at variance with the interpretation of the member for the New Democratic Party.
Before getting to any of that, I would like to make very clear that when the member mentioned a document that he purports to be a secret U.S. naval document with respect to the non-reporting of accidents of nuclear powered vessels, I do take that seriously. I would ask the member for Victoria to table the document to which he referred. I would also indicate to him that upon it being tabled and seeing it I will investigate the matter and see what is being done in that area because this is a serious issue.
June 1, 1992

Certainly the government does not take that lightly, nor indeed does the government take lightly the question of the safety of nuclear propelled vessels or the environmental impact that they might have. That is why a study was conducted initially by the Department of National Defence prior to an extension of the government policy allowing allied nuclear powered vessels to visit Canadian ports.
After that was completed last year and it was determined by the government that the environmental consequences of these visits are insignificant, and second, that these visits pose no significant risk and hence can be safely accommodated, a review of this was done by Environment Canada at the invitation of DND and the Department of External Affairs.
That process has been referred to on several occasions by the member for Victoria. The results, I want to make it clear, are public. The memorandum he refers to in the House is a public document. There is no effort to hide information; indeed, it is the government's approach to be very open about this because the issues are significant.
The ability of the Canadian government to assess the environmental and safety impact of these vessels is based on a number of factors. First of all, our country has within it experts who are extremely knowledgeable in the philosophy, the principles and the practice of nuclear reactor safety. Canada has been in this field since its inception in the 1940s. Second, Canadian expertise with water reactor design, as well as safety analysis and accident characteristics gives us the ability to make assessments in this area and that expertise was brought to bear on the situation.
In the review there was a comparison of the risks posed by commercial power reactors and marine nuclear propulsion reactors. We looked at the historic record of what has happened over the past 40 years in operating these types of vessels. We made an assessment of the alleged accidents. A lot is said in the popular press and even by some members of Parliament, as we heard about 10 minutes ago, on the nature of these accidents. Sometimes as much heat as light is shed on the issue in the way that those are described.
Private Members' Business
The government also looked at the results of environmental monitoring that have been published in this field. There is a fairly extensive body of knowledge on that. There has been specific environmental monitoring of foreign vessel visits to Canadian ports. We also relied on the assurances given to us by our allies. That was part of the over-all process and it is again in that connection that I refer to the member and hope that he will table that document and I will be sure that everything is as we expect it to be. If it is not, then appropriate action would certainly be taken. Also, we have within the Department of National Defence a lot of people who are very knowledgeable about the nuclear propelled submarines because of the now defunct nuclear submarine acquisition program. A lot of skill and knowledge was built up there.
For all those reasons, the government concluded and subsequently validated by a review by Environment Canada that the policy of the Government of Canada begun in 1967 should be continued.
For practical reasons it is only the United States and the United Kingdom nuclear propelled vessels that visit Canadian designated ports. On the west coast these visits are accommodated at both Esquimalt and Nanoose.
I want to emphasize that nuclear propelled vessels of our allies are only permitted to visit these ports if they satisfy the strictest of nuclear safety criteria. Specifically, only nuclear propelled vessels which satisfy conditions established by the Government of Canada and by the Department of National Defence of Canada are permitted to visit our ports.
The record is public. The monitoring that is done by Canadian teams to detect any release of radioactivity is ongoing. This is the time, in the moments that remain for me, to try and place on record some of the facts that would help to shed light and indeed reassurance on this issue.
Since this policy of allowing foreign vessels of this type to visit our ports the safety record has indeed been excellent. In almost 40 years of visits by allied nuclear propelled vessels to over 150 different ports around the world, there has not been a single reactor accident nor have there been any other types of accidents with these

June 1, 1992
Private Members' Business
vessels which have had a detrimental effect on the environment.
Our Department of National Defence maintains well-trained nuclear emergency response teams at both CFB Comox and CFB Esquimalt to respond in the unlikely event that there ever would be an accident.
I should put on record as well that those teams are not just established for that narrow purpose. They also respond to any nuclear contamination that could occur from the multitude of nuclear material that is used daily in construction, educational, medical, or research activities.
Those teams have been used to assist the civilian or non-military activities at the request of regional authorities. There is a very well-trained nuclear emergency response team detachment at Nanoose. The department works with the local officials to co-ordinate those responses. We are continually evaluating the capacities and effectiveness of those teams.
The final point I would make, and the member has said this, is it is like having a nuclear reactor established in the community waiting for it to explode or something. There is a bit of intentional fear mongering going on there that creates public alarm.
Nuclear propelled vessels and their propulsion plants are designed to prevent a serious accident even in severe conditions at sea. They are built to withstand the rigours of combat and therefore to sustain being damaged.
The risk of loss of life associated by living in proximity to a commercial nuclear power plant for 50 years is comparable to smoking about one and a half cigarettes and the cancer or heart disease that can cause, or living for about two days in a large city and the lung cancer that can be caused by air pollution. There are comparative figures and data. There are a lot of statistics out on this but anyone can see that the relative risks have been assessed and the systems designed to prevent accidents from happening.
The final point I would make in concluding is that since last November 27 when the American President ordered the standing down of all of the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons and removing them from surface ships and submarines, I am advised that the U.S. navy advanced on that as well. While it continues to be, as the member said, the policy of that government neither to confirm nor deny whether its vessels are carrying nuclear
weapons, clearly the announced policy since last September is to step down and remove those nuclear weapons.
There is not the cause for concern because the government has itself a strong concern with the safety of Canadians and the environment.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both hon. members for a very good debate on this issue. The debate has given both sides of the issue, essentially the security side and the environmental side which I think has been done so well by my colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
This question really is of a national proportion. May I say at the outset that I have not known the hon. member for Victoria for long but I do know the city of Victoria quite well. With the possible exception of St. John's, Newfoundland, it is probably one of the finer cities in Canada. I can appreciate where he is coming from in that perspective.


An hon. member:: And Calgary.


Fred J. Mifflin: There is Calgary and a few other cities of course.
I would like to put the issue in the proportion of the aspect of security and the totality of that aspect. I want to draw on your experience, Mr. Speaker, of the past, of the history of our country and where we have come from in the last few years.
One of the premises of my presentation this morning is the timing of the hon. member's motion. Now that peace and security are looking a little better than they did a few years ago, then perhaps this might be a good time to have a look at the proposal he puts in front of the House.
I would have to go back and say that the first goal of any country, of any municipality, or of any province is to look after its people. This would drum up a security policy that would take into consideration the hon. member's motion.
We have to put it in the perspective of where we have come from in the last 40 to 45 years. It is no revelation and it is no surprise to anybody here to say that in the last 40 to 45 years we have lived in a period of instability, challenge and a great threat to our security. How that is manifested I suppose is by the billions of dollars that Canada has spent, and other countries have spent against the challenge, the threat and the instability that faced us. It is a fair investment, I would say. It could have been plus 10 per cent, it could have been minus 10 per cent, we will never know.
June 1, 1992

The fact is that we took out an insurance policy on the country, an insurance policy on the continent, an insurance policy to make sure that I and my colleagues could be here speaking in this excellent model of democracy.
Is it time to change our feelings about instability, peace and security? Well, the conventional wisdom is that the end of the cold war has brought us to a point in time where we should consider these things.
Not long ago, I watched a television biography of a great hero of mine and I am sure of many in the House, the Hon. Winston Churchill. A lot of us recall his speech where he talked about the neck of the British Empire being wrung. It was delivered here, I am sure with much more eloquence and elan than I am delivering today. But it is appropriate to remember what he said. One of his expressions was "some chicken, some neck". Well, for those who would look at the end of the cold war as the end of our concerns with instability, challenge and security, I say to them: "Some peace, some security".
It is very difficult to pick up a newspaper today without reading about the difficulties taking place in the world. It is more difficult to read articles on the number of nuclear weapons that still exist.
As the hon. member said, this is not a question of fear mongering, but my hon. colleague the parliamentary secretary used some facts and figures. I will not quote, but there are roughly 25,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of both sides.
Again, I am not going to take the hon. member for Victoria out of context, but his thought was nuclear weapons are not needed to protect against nuclear weapons.
Well, if I am fighting an enemy that is 10 feet tall and packing two six-guns on his side and is driving one of these big-wheeled vehicles, I do not think I am going to take him on without the aid of a few friends. In those days it was called deterrence; today it is called hedging.
I will tell you why it is important to hedge. It takes a generation and a half to build up the kind of technology and security that we have in Canada. We cannot take on
Private Members' Business
the world. In fact, we are the second largest country in the world and it has been shown that we cannot defend ourselves alone because of the number of people we have for the size of our country.
Therefore, we rely on a thing called collective alliance. While sometimes it may be difficult to understand this from some of the speeches that have been made in this House, our best neighbour is the United States. There are times when business is business and friendship is friendship. However when we really come down to the final points here, the point is if you belong to a collective alliance, if you belong to a collective defence club and you believe that there is still reason to have concern about peace, instability and danger and if you look at a weekend itinerary of what is happening in the world, then you would have to ask yourself the question, as laudable as the motion may seem superficially and, indeed, in some depth.
In the totality of what we as parliamentarians are expected to do and make decisions on, would it be wise at this time to make a decision that on the surface would seem to be reasonable on environmental assessment? Quite frankly, I do not think it is that unreasonable. It is a judgment call. I have no intention of degrading the motion of the hon. member or saying that it is absolutely out of the question.
What I am saying from where I stand, from the way I have been brought up and from the policies I revere is that perhaps the timing is wrong. The principle is fine but at this particular time in the history of our country I am not so sure it would be a wise move to support this judgment.
If I am allowed another minute or so, I want to go back and look at those past 45 years and what we stood for in Canada. Looking at our contribution to NATO, our contribution to peacekeeping, and our contribution to having the world the way it is today, we can be very proud of our achievements in our country.
While the hon. member's motion may be a move in a direction that the world may be heading somewhat

June 1, 1992
Private Members' Business
downstream-I am looking at the Rio conference and that kind of thing-I think perhaps the timing is a little early. At this particular point in time I suppose the view would be that the organization is there, we support it, you cannot have both sides, and I suppose I would have to say we would entertain the idea at some other time.


An hon. member:: You sound like Mackenzie King.


Fred J. Mifflin: No. I wish I could be perhaps more definite than the gentleman to whom you refer. I would say a good motion but the timing is somewhat perhaps to be achieved downstream.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak on the motion by the hon. member for Victoria concerning nuclear powered and nuclear capable vessels off the west coast in particular.
While there has been a lot of public discussion on this subject, unfortunately not all of it has been truly well informed. In fact, many well-meaning Canadians are quite confused about the whole issue of these port visits. I do welcome the opportunity to clarify some of the facts.
Specifically, the motion calls for the cessation of visits to harbours in Victoria of nuclear powered vessels, or vessels that may be carrying nuclear weapons until a full public inquiry is done, also including an environmental assessment.
To understand why the government allows these specific port visits-I have to say under the very strictest of criteria, very strictest of guidelines-it is important to appreciate Canada's defence policy.
A lot of the public debate on the visits of what we call NPVs, nuclear propelled vessels, and the NCVs, nuclear capable vessels, ignores the fact that Canada welcomes these visits as a meaningful contribution to collective security. Indeed, much of Canada's history demonstrates the benefits of Canada's commitment to collective security.
I really believe the hon. member for Victoria would agree in the international arena the Canadian forces and its forerunners, the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force, acting in concert with our allies have played a notable, indeed a
very honourable role, both in the establishment and the maintenance of peace in many widely separated areas of the world. This tradition continues today.
In addition to our continuing commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we currently have personnel in the Red Sea enforcing United Nations sanctions against Iraq. We have 1,100 personnel in the Balkans with the European Communities monitoring mission and the United Nations protection force. We have personnel throughout the rest of the world in such places as Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, the Golan Heights, Kuwait, the Sinai and the western Sahara.
What I am talking about is best described in the April 1992 document Defence Policy 1992. On page 4 of this newly released document is a statement I would like to read:
As a responsible member of the world community, Canada seeks the maintenance of a peaceful international order in which to pursue its own interests. Canadians do not and cannot look with equanimity on violent conflict anywhere in the world. It would not only be reprehensible in itself, but also corrosive to international order and to international stability.
More important, the document does make it clear that Canada maintains its commitment to defence and collective security, arms control and disarmament and the peaceful resolution of all disputes. Canada is a great country with a very small, a very modest armed force.
Again I refer to the Defence Policy 1992. In fulfilling our commitments, in conjunction with like-minded nations, we contribute to a safer and a more secure international environment. We are living in changing times. In only a short period of time we have all witnessed remarkable changes right around the world.
The cold war is over. Germany has been reunified. The former states of the Soviet Union have taken their place in the international community. Arms control regimes are in place to help contribute to a more secure world. Along with the changes there are challenges, and in particular the prospect of international instability is the subject of concern for all members of the international community.
Who of us would have thought that with the end of superpower confrontation Canadian forces personnel would be serving in and around the Persian Gulf? Canada's contribution in that region is an example of the benefits that we realized from collective security efforts.

Furthermore, Canada's success in the gulf was not derived only from the fact that we fielded extremely well trained and very good professional personnel but because we have much experience in operating in concert with our friends and with our allies.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has just made statements with regard to friends and collective alliance. This is the only way that we in Canada can have collective security efforts. Successive Canadian governments have recognized for years and years and decades there is absolutely no alternative to collective security.
We are blessed with one of the longest coastlines in the world. We are the second largest territory in the world. From a military perspective this is a major challenge. Added to the physical realities of our country is the fact that with our very modest small population and military resources Canada cannot defend unaided our national territory.
At the same time it should be remembered that there is no free ride. If Canada is going to derive benefits of alliance membership for our own security then Canada must and should be prepared to contribute in return. It is not surprising then that Canada works toward international peace and security in conjunction with those nations with which we share a very similar political principle, similar economic structures and similar social values.
Exchanges with our American friends are quite common, exchanges with their navy, their air force and their army personnel. They make regular visits to Canada. Other allies also visit Canada often using our spacious training facilities.
In this regard we have the British, the Dutch and the Germans. These flyers train out of Goose Bay, Labrador. German soldiers train at the Canadian Forces Base in Shilo, Manitoba. British personnel train at the Canadian Forces Base in Suffield and Wainright, Alberta.
This discussion would not be complete without highlighting Cold Lake, Alberta which indeed has its superb training facilities. The pilots of the CF-18s that played a major place in the Persian conflict some months ago trained in Cold Lake, Alberta.
Government Orders
It is an important part of our alliance in working together with our colleagues. It is not surprising that we do have visits of the NPVs and the NCVs, because we are all working together for peace and security in the country.
While I am pleased to participate today-and I know that security and environment are major factors-we all have to realize that Canada's major role in security policy and our commitment to defence and collective security are the only ways to go.
We are proud of what we have done. The world is not benign. We are moving toward better peace and security. Hopefully we can see that in the not too distant future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call Orders of the Day, the hon. member for Victoria has a one-page document which he wants tabled. In order to do that we would require unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We do not have unanimous consent.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member just refused unanimous consent to my request. I should advise the House that I did provide the parliamentary secretary with a copy of the document which I had intended to table, so he has the document.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Charest that Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act, as part of the debate on this bill. First of all, however, I want to say that according to the Projected Order of Business, we only have a ten-minute maximum, while according to me, we still have a 20-minute maximum plus 10 minutes for questions and comments. So I would appreciate it, if you would-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, under the standing order. I regret that it does have that in today's procedure, but there are still two hours and nine minutes left as far as debate is concerned before we go into the 10-minute period.
Therefore the hon. member will have 20 minutes plus 10 and any other following members may have 20 minutes plus 10 until we complete the two hours and nine minutes.


Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Last Friday, after my colleague from Hull-Aylmer finished his speech and we had started on questions and comments, there were still eight minutes left. I was about to intervene at that point. Could I use the eight minutes to make my comments now, or does the member in question have to be in the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member must be in the House. I know it would have been a great question, but we will have to do it another time.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, we will now continue the debate on Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act, and in fact, I want to take advantage of this opportunity because I am not sure I will be given a chance when debate on the referendum legislation is resumed.
As you know, the Bloc Quebecois has seldom had a chance to express its views in many of the debates we
have had, and that is why we insist on being able to speak in this particular debate. We want to take every available opportunity to express our views, and today is one of those opportunities.
During the debate on second reading of the referendum bill, the government imposed closure, and I would not be at all surprised if it did the same on third reading and even at the report stage. That is why I take this opportunity to rise in the House today.
As for the current debate, I would like to recall that when we were discussing this bill on Friday, during the last week the House was sitting, the hon. member for Skeena made some remarks that were far from obliging. I think that some day, at the Chair's request, the hon. member should withdraw those comments, because he said, and I quote:
This debate has been going on in this House for six years. The
member has already expressed to me personally-
And he was referring to one of our Bloc Quebecois members.
- that the reason for holding up this piece of legislation, for holding up the debate, is to try to extort from the government a seat on the referendum committee-
Saying that we are extorting a place is incredible. It is our due. I think it goes without saying that we from Quebec are entitled to a seat on the legislative committee on the referendum bill. Calling that extortion is quite unthinkable.
I would also like to mention that the same member for Skeena told us members of the Bloc Quebecois that what we said was not relevant and that we were incompetent. Well. I never questioned that member's competence; I do not see why he would cast doubt on ours. Finally, I wanted the people to know that we are not fooled by such things.
Getting to the bill under consideration, I would like to talk about the famous Wood Buffalo Park, since it is one of those affected. I am looking here at the 1988-89 annual report from Environment Canada-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member
for Shefford on a point of order.
June 1, 1992

Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I find the speech by my colleague from Saint-Hubert so interesting that I think at least a quorum should be required so that many members can also benefit from hearing it.
Therefore I call for a quorum count, Mr. Speaker.
And the members having been counted:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret there are enough members for a quorum.

We continue the debate with the hon. member.


Pierrette Venne: You are sorry that there is a quorum, Mr. Speaker. Well, I suppose that is a slip.
As I was saying, I would like to continue on one of the parks mentioned in this bill, namely Wood Buffalo Park.
I think that hon. members and Canadians will be interested to know that there are falcons in this park. I think it is interesting to find out from the 1988-89 annual report what happened in this park. I will read you an excerpt. It says here, "A peregrine falcon recovery program continued on the Peace-Athabasca delta within the park." They are talking about Wood Buffalo Park.
In 1988-89, 25 peregrine falcon chicks from seven nests hatched. Mr. Lapierre: Oh?


Pierrette Venne: Yes, they did. I would really like the people to know what is going on in that park.
Tfen [of them] were foster chicks. The park, the Canadian Wildlife Service and Alberta Fish and Wildlife have been co-operating, over the past eight years, in research and management activities for the subspecies of peregrine falcon in northeastern Alberta, the only remaining boreal forest population of these birds.
I think that it is worth knowing what is going on in a park when we are considering making it a reserve. We should know what is going on in the park.
Of course, I would also like to tell you right away that I am for this bill. I think that Canadians should know that all members of the Bloc Quebecois who have spoken on this bill so far have said that they are in favour of it. Those who come after me will also say that of course we approve of this bill, but we are taking every opportunity we get to express ourselves in this House, including this one this morning.
So I continue on Wood Buffalo Park. I continue to quote the report:
An interagency recovery plan was completed in October 1988. It includes basic chemical monitoring, fostering and release programs involving Wood Buffalo National Park's nesting pairs.
The issue of bison disease within Wood Buffalo National Park -
There are also bison in that park and I think that we should mention it. So I continue:
-and surrounding areas of Alberta and the Northwest 'Iferritories remained contentious.
In February 1989, the Minister of the Environment appointed a five-member environmental assessment panel to study the subject, as requested by the Minister of Agriculture. Technical and scientific data are being prepared for submission to the panel. Public hearings are expected in January 1990, with panel recommendations later in that year.
That is what the 1988-89 annual report of Environment Canada told us. Of course, that report also mentions other national parks in western Canada. We have another one in British Columbia, since the bill mentions the national park reserve on the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia. So British Columbia has other national parks, including the S.S. Moyie. I can tell you that the 1988-89 report had this to say about it. A cost-sharing agreement was signed with the Kootenay Lake Historical Society and the village of Kaslo. The federal government's $175,000 helped to stabilize and protect the vessel, which upon retirement was the oldest Canadian-built paddle-wheeler in service. So a boat is part of the national parks. Note that I am new to this field, of course, but I would like to tell you that I find it rather surprising. Certainly it is understandable because this boat, which is now out of service, has been made into a historical monument and we ended up with a park. It is part of the national parks.
We also have the Brooks Aqueduct, which is a national park in Alberta. The Department of the Environment again in this case allocated $150,000 under a heritage protection agreement with the province of Alberta and the Eastern Irrigation District to construct visitor and interpretation facilities. So people will interpret the aqueduct. The Brooks Aqueduct was built of reinforced concrete between 1912 and 1914. You can now understand and realize that national parks are not just parks but also aqueducts and boats, and of course parks in some cases.

June 1, 1992
Government Orders
The Quebec region also has some, for example, the Lachine canal. It is classified as a park, but it is a canal. It is probably still there because of its historical character. A $10,000 five-year plan to decontaminate the Lachine canal began in 1988. Among other things, special containers will be built alongside the canal to hold the excavated material. This is all being done to clean up our environment so that it will be more pleasant.
I would also like to talk to you about another national park, South Moresby, in British Columbia. On July 12, 1988, Canada and British Columbia, which is part of Canada, I think-by Canada, I mean the federal government, since British Columbia is still part of Canada. It says here that Canada and British Columbia signed the first memorandum of agreement to establish a national park reserve called South Moresby and this agreement also involved regional economic development.
In all, the federal contribution totals $106 million over a period of eight years. Given these figures, allow me to make a short digression. Obviously, I am in favour of protecting the environment; we are all in favour of virtue, but those figures are quite striking when you think that women's groups, ask rather frequently the federal government for funding and their requests are rejected, not to mention that when we ask for a daycare program we are told to wait until next year, only to then find out that there is no longer going to be a daycare program.
I am now getting back to the national parks, but I wanted to make this digression because the situation is so striking. It is obvious that when women ask for pay equity, when we make requests of any kind to the government, those requests always come in second or third place.
The development work done for the park in 1988-89 is defined as follows: the CPS set up an office in North Vancouver which is primarily responsible for the implementation of the agreement. A new office was set up in the Queen Charlotte Islands; its mandate is to manage the Reserve for South Moresby National Park.
At various times during the year, officials from the CPS have negotiated with the Ha'idas-as we know, the
Ha'idas are of course mentioned in the bill-in an attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement on the planning, the management and the operation of the reserve for the national park.
The regional economic development program got under way with studies on the conditions necessaiy for the eventual development of a small craft harbour in Sandspit, the establishment of information and visitor centres in the city of Queen Charlotte and in Sandspit, as well as the setting up of a federal-provincial planning and coordinating committee.
This is what took place in South Moresby. I would also like to talk about the prairies, since we also have national parks in the prairies-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Indeed, Banff and the Rockies.


Pierrette Venne: Of course, everybody knows about Banff, but there are also other parks and I think it would be interesting to talk about those.
On September 23 1988, after five years of negotiations, the federal and Saskatchewan governments signed an agreement respecting the establishment of Grasslands National Park, that is in the south-west area of the province. This agreement replaced two federal-provincial agreements signed in 1981 concerning the creation of that park, as well as the development of oil and gas resources.
The proposed park will have an east and a west part totalling 906 square kilometres. Under the new agreement, an area of 336 square kilometres was designated as a mineral reserve for the Crown, so that oil and gas exploration are now prohibited activities on that land. I believe it is important to know what is going on in other provinces, and not only in Alberta and in British Columbia, as is now the case with Bill C-59.
Once the federal government-I am referring to Grasslands National Park-will have acquired all this land, the provincial authorities will transfer to it the management and the control of that land. This is yet another park that will be under federal jurisdiction. Of course, the provinces are always asked to give up the land, something of which the Bloc Quebecois does not necessarily approve.
June 1, 1992

I could also tell you about the Winter Garden theatre in Toronto.
In my four minutes left, I will try to say a few words about the Toronto area, which is rather interesting.


Jean-C. Lapierre: We could go there in the summer.


Pierrette Venne: Maybe, but remember, this is the Winter Garden.


Jean-C. Lapierre: However we can go there in the summer just the same.


Pierrette Venne: Maybe we should ask people from Toronto. I think so. I will tell you exactly what it is.
As part of a shared-cost agreement with the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the Department of the Environment has contributed $240,300 to be used in phase two of a project to restore the ornaments in this theatre. The agreement ensures that the world's best example of a theatre with a roof garden that is still intact will be protected. A historian will prepare a special paper on the history of the theatre. I think it would certainly be a very nice place to visit.
In concluding, since I only have a few minutes left, I will say a few words about Ellesmere Island in the Northwest Territories.


Jean-C. Lapierre: That is really a lovely spot.


Pierrette Venne: Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve was formally established on September 6, 1988, when 37,775 square kilometres of northern Ellesmere Island were set aside. The park reserve protects a representative part of the Eastern High Arctic Glacier Natural Region and peacefully asserts Canada's sovereignty over the northernmost tip of the continent.
I think that is a rather poetic description.
Park administration facilities were constructed at Tan-quary Fjord. I wish to conclude on that note-


Jean-C. Lapierre: So soon?


Pierrette Venne: I suppose it is a bit soon, because I could have given you all the details on the traditional hunting grounds in Wood Buffalo National Park, but unfortunately, I will have to refrain.
Government Orders
I also could have talked about the national park reserve in the Queen Charlotte Islands, and here again, I cannot describe all the attractions of this park which, I am sure, is absolutely enchanting. In concluding, I want to say that we are certainly in favour of this bill, but we insist on our right as members of the Bloc Quebecois to express our views. After all, that is what members are supposed to do when they are in the House.
Thank you for listening to me, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Hubert for her speech, and I think the Chair appreciated the information she was able to provide.
However, I am rather concerned about the fact that there are so many national parks across Canada but so very few in Quebec. The hon. member for Saint-Hubert mentioned the money spent on the various parks. I think this is one way for the Government of Canada to inject considerable amounts of money into the regions. However, I know there has always been a certain reluctance in Quebec because of territorial considerations.
I get the impression they often simply want excuses for dumping federal money in certain regions. I am sure there are many towns in Quebec that would have liked to get the kind of money that was spent on Gatineau Park and the Saguenay park reserve. I must say that over the years, the National Parks Act has not been beneficial to Quebec.
Considering that one-third of 1 per cent of the territory subject to the National Parks Act is located in Quebec, this legislation has been used to inject a lot of money everywhere else. Today we are being asked to spend about $300 million, the figure someone mentioned to me.
I am aware the hon. member for Saint-Hubert has read a number of reports, and perhaps she has something to say about the value represented by these parks, because in Quebec, when we are discussing Quebec's future and secession, we are all concerned about the way the assets will be divided. We know there are a few locations in Quebec like Forillon Park and the Mingan Archipelago. The hon. member told us that the Lachine canal-I did not know this-also comes under the National Parks Act.

June 1, 1992
Government Orders
There are a number of places that would have to be counted as part of our assets.
Payments in lieu of taxes are the usual procedure for office buildings, for instance. The federal government makes in lieu payments instead of paying property taxes. However, the problem is that there are no buildings in our national parks. There is no mathematical formula for calculating the value of these assets. I wonder whether we could decide to share the national parks and we could then get at least one-quarter of the value of all national parks. For instance, this is of course very symbolic. I realize this must sound rather funny, but the Rocky Mountains are so often used in advertising as a kind of flag waving. We have to ask some serious questions about the National Parks Act, which we support. Someone said Mount Royal, but I hardly think that comes under the legislation. No. It better not. It is clear that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is concerned about the assets, and I would like to hear what she has to say.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my colleague from Shefford. There was certainly not much money spent in Quebec, since we have only three parks out of a total of 38 or 39,1 believe. We have Grosse-ile, the Lachine Canal and Saint-Andre-de-Kamouraska. I talked previously about the Lachine Canal. I now talk about Saint-Andre-de-Kamouraska. As part of a national cost-sharing program regarding national historic sites, Environment Canada contributed $200,000 toward restoring the Saint-Andre church. It is a good example of Recollet style and parishioners as well as Industrial and Regional Development also contributed. It is quite outrageous that, to answer my friend, Quebec received only $200,000 for Saint-Andre-de-Kamouraska. For Grosse-Ile, no amount is given here. It simply says that some buildings will be strengthened. We do not really know what happened at Grosse-ile. We know there was an agreement, signed in August 1988 by the federal Minister of Agriculture, to transfer this historic site to the National Park network, to commemorate immigration in Canada. I hope this answers the question of the hon. member for Shefford.


Louis Plamondon: I am very pleased to congratulate my colleague for her great speech on national parks as a whole. I would like to ask her if she is surprised by the fact, as she mentioned, that out of 35
parks only three are in Quebec, and those represent only one third of one per cent of the area of that province. Why is it, in her opinion, that the Quebec Conservative members across the floor remain silent on this issue? Is she not also surprised to see the conservative members, and I can see that the member for Trois-Rivieres is completely oblivious to this debate, that not one member rose to call for a comprehensive study on all of our national parks, and not only on a specific one? So much the better. Of course we support this bill. It is marvelous, especially for the people of the Haida reserve, and we totally agree that it is their right to have this park. However, while we are debating this issue, why not also include all of the Canadian territory and consider a more equitable sharing of these resources, so that the money can be better allocated and so that each region can benefit from that money.
In that regard, we know that Quebec was treated unjustly. Therefore, why is it that the Conservative members from Quebec do not rise to ask that our province also get its share? They should ask that we take this opportunity to settle the case of the Saguenay park. We are prepared to give our agreement so that there is the unanimous consent required to pursue the debate a bit longer today and wrap up the three readings at the same time, if the government is prepared to include the Saguenay park. Why not take this opportunity to solve the issues that remain or that are still the object of negotiations with some provinces?
This of course should in no way delay the present bill, but it could be a remarkable way for the Quebec Conservative members to show that they have stayed with this government to protect Quebec's interests from within. Indeed, this is what they said when they decided to stay with the government. I can see that the member for Trois-Rivieres is totally oblivious to this debate; he prefers to write a few letters and greeting cards rather than get involved in such historical and compelling issues for Quebec, so that this province can get its share of parks.
I therefore ask this question to the hon. member for Saint-Hubert: is she not surprised, after reading those documents and after the very elegant and comprehen-
June 1, 1992

sive explanation that she gave in her speech, that there are not more parks in Quebec? Also, how is it that the Quebec Conservative members prefer to remain silent rather than protect the interests of Quebec as they have always claimed to do, so that Quebec also gets its share of national parks and that the federal government stop pouring money on one side or the other of that province, while precisely forgetting this population of seven million people that also pay taxes and that are entitled to their fair share?
Could the hon. member for Saint-Hubert make a small comment? I presume that my colleague is just as surprised as I am to notice this absence, this silence on the part of the Conservative members regarding such an important debate.


Pierrette Venne: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon. member for Richelieu. As for the silence of the Conservative members from Quebec, I would just like to quote an article from Le Quotidien, the Chicoutimi newspaper, which shows how highly regarded the member for Jonquiere is in his region, but he is still silent too. I quote: "He criticizes for reasons of form and image alone," says editorialist Claude Girard. Later on, he says, "Blackburn goes so far as to say that if he had heeded his constituents two years ago, he would have joined the Bloc Quebecois, but he finally preferred to listen to his leader's pleas instead of the will of those who had elected him."
In that same article, which I do not have with me, so I cannot continue to quote it, it is obvious, as is undeniably clear from the tone of it, that the only thing the member for Jonquiere wants is to be seen. He often appears on TV. We in the Bloc like to see him too, but we often get a kick out of it: I must say that he does not contribute much to all the debates in which he does not participate or on which he has no opinion. Unfortunately, all he does is repeat what his leader told him.
As for the others, I must admit that after last year's Conservative Party convention, which I stormed out of, as you recall, because they just did not want to recognize the rights of an ordinary backbencher. That convention recognized Quebec's right to self-determination, as we recall. The member for Louis-Hebert was very pleased about that, but since then we have not heard from her. She was also against having a referendum bill. Now we see that she is all for it.
Government Orders
Every time we see Conservative members from Quebec changing their colours, we are no longer surprised to see them keep silent.


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


M. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today on Bill C-59.1 am also delighted to notice that, for the very first time since I have joined the Bloc Quebecois some two years ago, I have been recognized immediately after another member from the Bloc Quebecois in this House.
As you are aware, I tried over and over again to raise the rather important matter of the Canmet program, but I was not allowed to ask a question. I do not know why. After all, we were talking about technology and prosperity. I have leafed through the brochure received from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and noticed that, on the twenty or so projects listed in this leaflet, not a single one had been awarded in Quebec. By the way, the same is true, more or less, for national parks.
You are no doubt aware that only three of the 25 national parks in Canada are located in the province of Quebec. Such inequity is very nearly outrageous, when you see what little interest the federal government has shown for the province of Quebec, whether for parks or for science and technology projects. The same thing is happening almost in every case.
About parks, I must say that I am in favour of establishing parks, in so far as we can afford it of course. I am especially in favour of establishing parks equitably. I know why parks are necessary. First, our wildlife needs to be protected. We all know that this is important, at least in certain geographical areas of this great land. There are migratory birds and we have to earmark permanently a place for them, so they can go on travelling, surviving and living. That is why we need wildlife reserves such as parks to allow these birds to settle, feed and breed.
There are also animals that need protection. The problem often with wild animals accustomed to living in parks is that they are hardly protected at all when they wander in commercial or industrial areas, in big cities, in rural areas and so on. We absolutely need specific places where animals, our wildlife in particular, can live and survive.

Government Orders
The flora needs protection as well. Having been raised on a farm, I appreciate how important it is to have animals and to protect them as well as to have some contacts with animals, birds and nature. That is part of our culture, of our way of living and of our way of appreciating life. Nothing beats the beauty of animals living freely. When you look at animals living freely, you can recognize their specific character. In that sense, parks are a special place where wildlife and birds can live in total freedom and express themselves in all liberty, as I can do today in the House.
Of course, the quality of life is also in question here. If men and women have the possibility to live, to travel and visit national parks to see-


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


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


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is making an excellent speech, and deserves much more attention. That is why I call quorum, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mills:: Mr. Speaker, the member for Shefford gave his word last week that he would not be stonewalling this legislation. Today we see tactics that are counter productive to advancing this legislation and getting on with other business. I think that is as much a point of order as is his.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the hon. member asking for a quorum call?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not hear him.
I am sorry.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being 21 members present, not including the occupant of the Chair, the debate shall accordingly continue.


Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, personally I was a little-


Dennis Joseph Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the kind of hypocrisy I think the people of Canada are fed up with in this House. All morning the hon. member comes into this Chamber and after looking around if he does not see quite enough people to form a quorum, he requests a quorum call. Then 30 seconds later, he himself runs out of the room.
Is there not some way we can finish this debate so we can get on to other business?


Jean-C. Lapierre: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot accept that you do not ask my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood to withdraw his remarks. I have been following this debate all morning long, I even took part in it, and I do not need him to discipline us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think that is debate. If you want to discuss it, you can do so behind the curtains.


Nic Leblanc: We are lucky, Mr. Speaker, to have parks because sometimes in this House it is somewhat embarrassing-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Its a real zoo.


Nic Leblanc: People may think that we are not very free to express ourselves in such a place. Today, I am proud to be able to express myself. It is a rare occasion when we have time to do so since we are usually given very little time to speak our minds. We were given very little time to express our opinion on the referendum bill. Today, of course, we have the opportunity to talk about parks, which I greatly appreciate.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we would like to create a kind of a park, a very large park we would call Grand pare Grande-Baleine. For me and for many Quebecers, Grande-Baleine would become a great park, an extraordinary reservoir, the likes of which may never exist elsewhere in the world. We want to create this great park, Grande-Baleine, and at the same time generate energy and electricity. For the past 30 years we have

Government Orders
developed energy and electricity in Quebec, the cleanest, the least polluting form of energy possible. For me that is extremely important. One is always wondering what is going on in Quebec. We want to generate clean and non polluting energy and at the same time create a park we would call Grande-Baleine Park, which would generate a lot of electricity and would be an extraordinary body of water which could be stocked, thus creating a perfectly viable park, especially in terms of tourism, which would attract all kinds of people.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. As you know, I am a new member in the House and I am not quite sure of the rules. It seems to me that if somebody is constantly demanding a quorum that the responsibility of that party is to keep the debate going. Is there a rule on that note that when a party leaves in the middle of a debate and causes a quorum to be lost that they are not chastised by the Speaker for their interruptions at other times?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think at this time we will just carry on with debate. I can discuss that with the hon. member if he would like to come to the Chair.


Mr. Fulton:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know there is a fair degree of latitude in terms of relevancy given by you and other Speakers during debate, but I am just wondering about the terms of relevancy here.
Bill C-59 deals with Gwaii Haanas, with the South Moresby National Park Reserve and the agreement thereto in relation to Wood Buffalo National Park which is in Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
We were given to believe through the media that there was a solemn commitment by members of the Bloc that they would not be blocking this legislation today and yet they are. I just wonder, if they are being totally irrelevant to the legislation perhaps they could at least take the time to explain why their word is of no value.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hon. member was getting back to the relevance of the bill.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, consider we have a right to speak just as much as the other members of this House. If we want to debate a bill, we have the right and the duty to do so. I cannot understand why our other colleagues are opposed to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we should
get back to debate.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member for Skeena has anything to teach us concerning the way we speak and the words we use in our speeches. I do not feel I have the right to judge his speeches and I hope he will not judge mine.
The Canadian people, and particularly the people from Quebec since I always speak more specifically for Quebecers, should be the ones to decide if my declarations are intelligent and adequate and not the member for Skeena.
We always address the people of Canada when we speak in this House; that is why cameras are filming and broadcasting the speeches of the members of this House.
I was talking about the great park we were thinking of creating in Quebec, the park of Grande-Baleine which would play an important role in the production of energy, electrical energy, and which would at the same time promote tourism in Quebec while producing electrical energy, the cleanest form there is.
When you talk about parks, you necessarily talk about environment. I wonder why the creation of a park such as Grande-Baleine, an environmental site and a source of enormous quantities of clean energy, should give rise to so many comments and to such a commotion on the part of native lobbyists and others who state it will be very bad for the environment.

Government Orders
Having asked myself a number of questions on that subject, I came to more essential and more vital ones such as could it be that our competitors, important American and Canadian lobbyists, would try to prevent the development of hydro-electricity in Quebec in order to promote other forms of energy like the atomic energy the Canadian government is promoting so strongly, since it has large amounts of uranium it wants to sell, particularly in Ontario, and also-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you rule on relevancy. I have now listened for another five minutes to the member. He shows no desire whatsoever to speak in relation to Gwaii Haanas. There has been a binding referendum that took place. The time clock ran out on that yesterday.
I think it would be helpful, since the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has personally committed to seeing this legislation pass, and as one of his other spokespersons last week said that this legislation would not be unduly held up, and since the members are obviously determined not to be relevant, surely the least we can do in this House is hold them to the rule of relevancy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. member. Since he has only about four or five minutes left, I would hope that he would get back to the bill. I will listen to the hon. member for Shefford but I am just going to say to the hon. member for Longueuil that I have been listening to his speech also and I think he should come back to the relevancy of the bill.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena keeps coming back on that subject each chance he gets to accuse us of trying to stop the bill. We are nine members here in this House and freedom of speech is fundamental to this Parliament. The reason why this Parliament sits is to give its members the opportunity to express themselves and I will not allow any one of those members to gag us. Mr. Speaker, and your function is precisely to make sure that we-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know what happened as far as any arrangements outside this
House are concerned. I do not feel that we should get into discussion in that respect. I would like to recognize the hon. member for Longueuil because he is losing his time as far as debate is concerned. I would like the hon. member for Longueuil to finish his speech.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member for Skeena, no agreement was made that I know of.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Exactly.


Nic Leblanc: There was no agreement and we can speak freely in this House. We simply felt that we should take the time to explain, for the benefit of the people of Quebec in particular, what is happening in British Columbia. The government wanted to ram this bill through, to go through first, second and third reading within a couple of hours on Friday, the week before last, and we had not even been informed of this bill.
We simply decided to rise in this House to try and understand better what is going on with parks. I do not think there was any deal.
We also wondered what the rush was with this bill, why it had to pass all three readings on the same day. We were seriously wondering. Personally, I wondered for example about the ongoing constitutional debates. We know that, in this particular case, the responsibility for managing the park would be shared by the natives, the provincial and the federal governments. So, we wondered what the big rush was to entrust the federal government with the management of this park without first making sure, for one thing, that Mr. Ovide Mercre-di, the leader of the native people in Canada, was aware of what was brewing in this House.
Mr. Mercredi is trying to gain more power for the native people in Canada. Did he really know what was going on? I asked myself the question and I wondered what all the rush was. Was the idea to play a trick on Mr. Mercredi by passing a bill swiftly to throw a wrench in his bargaining efforts, as he is talking about the Constitution and wants to bring back certain powers? Do we indeed want to play a trick on him?
June 1, 1992

Tricks like those are being played on us here in the House of Commons. We asked ourselves if the government was doing the same thing with Mr. Ovide Mercredi and was trying to fool him. We told ourselves that there was no rush and asked ourselves if, during last week's break, we could perhaps do a little research to see if the federal government was trying to fool Mr. Ovide Mercredi. It is for these reasons, among others, that we decided to speak in this House.
Who will really manage that park? Who will really manage it? Will it be the federal government alone or the three levels, that is the federal government, the province and the Indians? I do not know. It seems that it will be the federal government alone. We know that, until now, the federal government was not able to manage its own affairs. It has now accumulated a debt of $450 billion-$450 thousand million-and is on its way to have another deficit of $32 billion. It now wants to rapidly establish a park and create commitments for the next 50 or 100 years, without knowing if we will be able to pay for that park. That too is a serious question that we should ask ourselves.
We ask a lot of questions like those. Is the federal government able to manage a park adequately? Should the Indians not manage it themselves? Would it be better if British Columbia or even a private company did it? Those are all serious questions that we must ask ourselves in order that when that park is actually established and we start pouring money into it, we will be able to afford it and manage it efficiently and adequately, at lower costs than we have had until now.
We know that presently the federal government is unable to manage its own affairs. It is demonstrating its inability to manage the nation's finances since the accumulated debt is now reaching $450 billion and the annual deficit is going to reach $32 billion again. This is why we decided to talk. We want 25 per cent of the moneys which come from Quebec to be spent wisely. Quebecers are contributing $25 billion to Ottawa in direct and indirect taxes, and some would like us to believe that Quebec is receiving presents from the federal government. It never did, the government is
Government Orders
simply returning to Quebec the money it took from our pockets in taxes. The same is true for parks.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Lon-gueuil. It seemed to me that toward the end of his speech he was asking a lot of interesting and constructive questions. He asked questions that we should all be concerned about concerning the Government of Canada and how we manage the parks of Canada, concerning the relationship of the Government of Canada to the parks of Canada versus the provincial relationship to the parks.
I was getting a strong sense from the member that he was speaking as he once did, as a strong federalist, rather than as he has been speaking in the last few months, which is-as most Canadians would know-as a separatist.
I am getting the sense that the separatist position of the Bloc Quebecois is taking a sudden shift. All of a sudden it is showing a great interest in Canada, her national parks, and the relationship between Canada and her national parks. Is there something new here? Is the Bloc shifting its position from that of a separatist party to that of a federalist party once again?


Nic Leblanc: Absolutely not. Mr. Speaker, we are not in the process of changing our opinion. We are more and more attentive. Since we have decided to protect the interests of Quebec in Ottawa, we represent the citizens of Quebec here, we are more and more attentive to what the federal government does. As we know, Quebecers pay approximately $25 billion per year, that is 25,000 million dollars per year in taxes to Ottawa. Ottawa does not make gifts to Quebec. We are watchful because Quebecers pay about 26 per cent of all the taxes that the federal government spends recklessly. We are here precisely to keep an eye on how the taxes paid by Quebecers are spent in Ottawa.
The park that we are talking about will cost money and it will have to be managed by somebody. What I meant to say is that if it is managed by the federal government, and it has been demonstrated that the federal government is incapable of managing properly the taxes paid by Quebecers to Ottawa, within the Canadian Confederation, I say that one must wonder whether the private

Government Orders
sector could better manage that park and ensure that Quebecers do not have to pay as much taxes to Ottawa to support it. I am not against parks. On the contrary, I am in favour of them and I wish that there would be many more in Quebec, since it seems that only three out of thirty-five national parks are in that province. If I rise today it is because we ask ourselves a lot of questions as to why Quebec is so disadvantaged in that regard. We have been establishing parks in Canada for 100 years. Why is it that Quebec was put at such a disadvantage when its territory is so suited to the creation of parks?
We have mountains and beautiful lakes. We have everything that is needed. Why has Quebec been so neglected in the last 100 years as regards parks, when Quebecers have always paid much more than they have received? If Quebec had collected those $25 billion and spent that money according to its priorities, I am convinced that it would have established more parks than the federal has done in the last 100 years. That is why we are interested in parks. It is not because we are less separatists, but we believe that the sovereignty of Quebec will precisely enable us to create parks adequately and in accordance with the priorities of Quebec. No, it is still the federal government that decides for Quebec, according to federal priorities. Unfortunately, the federal priorities are not the same as the priorities of Quebec. In Quebec, we would like to have more parks. That is why we rise today and say so to the population of that province. We rise today because we only represent Quebec. And we are the only ones. Of course, there is not a single Conservative member, nor a Liberal, because they only look after their own small personal interest. They want to become parliamentary secretaries or even ministers. We are not interested in becoming parliamentary secretaries or ministers; in fact, we are not even interested in gaining total power. We are only interested in having the power to protect the interests of Quebec and watch how the taxes paid by Quebecers are spent for as long as it will take before we can fully manage our own affairs, collect all of our taxes, and spend them according to our own priorities.
We will conclude economic and defence arrangements with the rest of Canada. Of course we are open. Ideally,
and I am answering to the hon. member, a strong and united Canada with a sovereign Quebec would be ideal. It would not be necessary for us to rise in this House to protect the interests of Quebec. Our province would collect all of our taxes and would negotiate with the rest of Canada to decide on the parks that should or should not be created. It is for those reasons that I am more and more sovereignist; it is because I think that we were not well served by the Canadian federation. This is a blatant example, because in the last 100 years, the federal government only established three parks in Quebec while it created 32 in the rest of the country. This is proof that Quebec did not get a fair treatment in this country.
It is for all those reasons that Quebecers want to collect their own taxes and manage their money according to their priorities. It is for those reasons that the majority of Quebecers, and francophones in particular, have decided to opt for a sovereign Quebec associated with a united Canada. That English Canada form a united and strong nation is great, but Quebec will spend its money according to its priorities, and both sides will benefit. In fact, I am convinced that both sides will do better. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has chosen this option.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Hull-Aylmer was interviewed by the press outside of this House about the tactics that had taken place that Friday during the debate on Bill C-59. He admitted that the Bloc Quebecois had been stonewalling Bill C-59. However, when asked whether that stonewalling was going to continue he indicated, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, that there would be no continued blocking of the bill.
I would like to ask the member why-


An hon. member:: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He is asking a question.
I recognized the hon. member on a question or a comment. He is now putting a question to the hon. member.


Louis Plamondon: He is reading a text.
June 1, 1992

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He can read a text, there is nothing wrong with reading a text. He wants to make sure that the quote is right.
The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could take a moment to address this because there are a considerable number of Haida people and British Columbians who are watching this debate, as well as a considerable number of Albertans and residents of the Northwest Territories. They would like to know whether the word of members of the Bloc Quebecois given to the media in Canada can be trusted or not.
The headline says: "Bloc Quebecois won't block South Moresby Park bill any more, member promises".
I am just asking whether a promise made outside the House by a member of the Bloc is worth anything. Apparently, the Bloc's promises here in the House, and outside, are of questionable value.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by stonewalling or blocking. A few hours of debate in this House is nothing, compared to the many years this park will be in existence. I do not see why the hon. member for Skeena is in such a hurry. I do not see why he is so anxious to save a few hours' time, when we are discussing a bill to create a park that will cost several million dollars and will probably be in existence for the next 100 years.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Or even thousands of years.


Nic Leblanc: Or even thousands of years, as the hon. member said. I do not see why he is so upset. We kept our promise. We are just saying we want to talk about this and make sure Quebecers get their fair share of what they contribute every day to the Canadian federation in the form of taxes, which adds up to about $25 million annually. If the Bloc Quebecois were not here to debate these points, I do not see who else would defend Quebecers as they should be defended in this Canadian Confederation.
And I do not see what he means by stonewalling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on Bill C-59 which concerns our national parks.
Very often we cannot speak in debates that concern Quebec, such as the debate on the constitutional proposals or on the referendum. That is why we believe we must take advantage of every opportunity we have to speak on other matters, especially when the government is trying to expedite bills through the House, which is the case for this bill and even more so for Bill C-81, the referendum legislation.
This debate on national parks is a typical example of the speed with which the federal government is able to deal with matters outside Quebec and its reluctance to deal with matters that concern Quebec, and I am thinking more particularly of the Saguenay marine park.


Mr. McDermid:: That is not true.


Gilles Duceppe: I do not know whether we will sit on the committee on Bill C-59. The minister said that all parties agreed to support the bill, but he never bothered to consult the Bloc Quebecois. As far as the government is concerned, we do not exist. However, the government and hon. members opposite from Quebec are in for a rude awakening after the next election.
Our members did not sit on the committee on Bill C-81 concerning the referendum and Canada's and Quebec's constitutional future. Committees, as in the case of the committee on Bill C-59, are more or less private clubs from which we are excluded.
To get back to Bill C-59, a number of questions come to mind. For instance, if British Columbia were to become a sovereign state, following a democratic referendum called, need I say, by the authorities of British Columbia and not by the federal government with its anti-democratic manoeuvres, how would the assets be divided? Would this park be federal property? Would British Columbia have to pay certain rights to the federal State? These things must be considered, and that is what the Belanger-Campeau commission did when it con-

Government Orders
suited experts who came not just from Quebec but also from the rest of Canada, France and England. These experts told us that Quebec's share of non-financial federal assets would be equivalent to the ratio of the value of the assets located in Quebec territory to the value of all federal non-financial assets located in Canada and abroad, including embassies, consulates and the like.
We must also determine the real value of the national parks, because they have a value, even if it is hard to define in accounting terms, according to the federal government's own data, because they have not been built on. For example, what is Moresby Park worth or Forillon Park in Gaspe? That will have to be discussed when the time comes for Quebec and Canada to negotiate. We also know that federal government property is not subject to municipal property tax, so there must be some form of compensation. It exists in some cases. We know that Quebec receives only 18 per cent of this kind of compensation paid to municipalities.
I also repeat that Quebec has only three of the 35 national parks in Canada and that there is no compensation for national parks because, as we know, they are not built up but in their natural state.
How would one prepare that report I spoke of earlier on non-financial assets? The value of the national parks must be determined. We know in advance with absolute certainty-it is quite obvious-that Quebec contributes much more than it receives in this regard.
The relationship between the Hai'da nation and the government authorities of British Columbia and Canada must also be specified. The governments should use the James Bay agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal government and the Cree and Inuit nations as an example. Matthew CoonCome, the Cree Grand Chief, said in the State House in Maine: "As a people, we have the assurance of being able to preserve our way of life with respect to hunting, fishing, trapping and our language and culture. Under the agreement, we obtained what we never had before: full authority over education through the Cree school commission, over social and health services, over managing our lands, and a strong voice in approving new developments on our territory; rights that respect the resources of the land;
rights that guarantee police protection and a judicial system adapted to our needs; guarantees that we can participate fully in developing sub-Arctic Quebec."
That is the kind of agreement that Quebec made with the Cree and that Matthew CoonCome, the Cree Grand Chief, talked about. I think it is important to mention it, because we know that British Columbia has the most land claims and that so far there have been almost no negotiations with the native people because these negotiations only began a year and a half ago, although I stand to be corrected on that.
We should also know whether creating that park will solve the land claims, if the inherent right of native self-government that we hear so much about in the present constitutional circus would accommodate such an agreement or whether the Supreme Court would have to decide in three years. In short, would this park still be part of British Columbia? Would it be a federal enclave or an independently governed native territory? Have provisions been made in this bill to tie it to the constitutional debate so that we can see beyond the few hours we have to discuss it?
We must deal with these issues and these questions are all unanswered right now. They might have a major impact in this time of constitutional discussion.
Despite what the member for Skeena said, we are in favour of creating this park.
There seems to be a problem when we are talking and when we want to talk, nobody wants us to do so. Make up your mind. As far as we are concerned we are quite ready to speak at some length and in great detail on the referendum issue, but nobody wants us to do so. Obviously, we will grab every opportunity possible but, as I said before, we will support the creation of this park. However, it is important to know how much it will cost Quebecers. We do not question the judiciousness of creating this park. We only want to tiy to figure out, in this area as in many others, how much is federalism costing Quebecers.
This park has its raison d'etre and does not represent a totally frivolous expense, unlike the statue to honour the Queen of England which will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. It seems totally unjustified, especially during a recession, to build a statue of Elizabeth II on a horse.
June 1, 1992

The national park example, in terms of investments, is an excellent one for any province. In Quebec, the question is different because of the issue of who has control over the territory. In this area we are clearly distinct. When you look at investments, you can see that Quebec only gets 18 per cent of research and development funds. We also know that with three parks out of 35, we get very little in that area also. As a matter of fact, there is an area where Quebec receives more from Ottawa than it gives, and that is unemployment insurance.
You do not build a country, you do not develop a society by relying on unemployment insurance payments. You build a society by investing in research and development, by investing in industries, by investing in tourism via, for example-it is a good one-national parks.
We will therefore support this project and I hope that the questions I asked will be answered, especially as far as asset splitting is concerned, so that Quebec and Canada can start negotiating in earnest the splitting of assets and liabilities once Quebecers have answered yes to a sovereignty referendum held in Quebec according to Bill 150 passed by the National Assembly which is the only legitimate authority to decide what the future of Quebec will be.


Louis Plamondon: On point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Richelieu wants to raise a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if this is the question or comments period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, this is in fact the question or comments period. The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor.


Louis Plamondon: I am very pleased to participate in this debate and I very much appreciated the speech of my colleague, the member for Laurier- Sainte-Marie, who placed this debate in its proper perspective, that of a reflection we have to make on a greater equity in the distribution of resources and taxes levied by the federal government.
I find it surprising that we should want to speed up the debate on this issue as much as possible when we often take several months before passing ordinary bills. Last
Government Orders
Friday, they tried to have it go through all three stages. I wonder why the member for Skeena is not rather going after the Tory government who neglected to table that bill. If we had been consulted a few months ago, or better still, if the government, in its respect for democracy, had-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I wish the hon. member would direct his questions and comments to the former speaker. I do not think there should be a debate here between the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Richelieu. When members get up for a question or comment they should direct it to the former speaker not to another member in the Chamber.
The hon. member for Skeena, on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, just so the record is accurate, the bill itself was tabled on February 20, 1992. The Bloc had more than three months to read it so it could have a reasonable opportunity to participate fully and directly in this debate.
There were no discussions on this floor on Friday of somehow ramming this suddenly through the House. Discussions were held to see whether the debate could be speeded up so that the binding referenda that had already taken place with the Haida could be met by this House.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member for Skeena is now trying to tell the House that there was no deal between the three parties to speed it up.
The reality is that for the last few hours of debate on Friday last and today those members have been trying to stop us from speaking. The reality of the matter is that we have wanted to participate in that debate, and at the end of the day we are going to support the bill. I hope the member will be here to support it as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The reality is that most of the members of the Bloc have been able to speak, so I would like to go back to questions and comments and recognize the hon. member for Richelieu.

June 1, 1992
Government Orders


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take part in the debate by asking my colleague if he is surprised to hear the hon. member for Skeena, who is getting ready for his trip to Rio with nine of his colleagues, tell us today that we have not prepared for this debate? The member forgets that when he or his party was sitting on the committee presided by the Speaker of the House, they refused to give us research budgets to enable us to have researchers, to prepare ourselves and to welcome this bill, but with a much better understanding of its content. However, they were not there, they were not there to defend democracy.
When the New Democratic Party only had 11 members, and the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie will agree, that party was entitled to research budgets even if the required number is 12 members. When there were only six Creditistes, they were entitled to research budgets. However, because this is the Bloc Quebecois, which has nine members, we refuse to give it research budgets. We would need those budgets to prepare ourselves, and we do not have enough time. Consequently, we have to discuss things a little bit longer, but debates in a Parliament can sometimes take an extra day, and I think that the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie will agree on that. In fact, I notice that my colleague spent the whole weekend preparing his speech because he did not have researchers to help him and also because our party was not consulted regarding the ideal timetable to pass this very important bill. We were not consulted and now we are being blamed for not having been consulted. How can we understand those great Democrats?
I am surprised to see that because we take part in a debate that they tried to hide from us to speed up the passing of the bill on a Friday morning, with the three readings as well as the consent and the complicity of the three parties, all of a sudden they are surprised to see that we have things to say. We do this exercise in the name of Quebec and its higher interests, while the Conservative members are sleeping and hiding so as not to have to protect those interests. They act like good sheep after having been elected as the lions that would protect Quebec's interests.
The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie will agree that this is what is tragic. In fact, I think that this is precisely what the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie was saying in his speech. That is what his comments were about when he was referring to the historical aspect of this great debate that has been going on for several years between Quebec and Canada and that deals primarily with the sharing of monies collected by the federal government. The hon. member explained how Quebec does not get its fair share of those monies in spite of the fact that it is a contributor.
This debate will lead to the passing of an exceptional bill for the Haida nation that we admire a lot for the struggle that it has put up for many years in order to get this park. Indeed, this park represents a lot for the Haida nation. That is why I urge the members of the House to support this bill.
I hope that all the members of this House will vote in favour of this bill so that the Haida nation can be satisfied after so many claims, and so that this park can be managed and established in British Columbia. However, as my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie mentioned earlier, in the future we will have to ensure a more equitable allocation of public monies regarding national parks and Quebec will understand-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has made his comment. I wish he would ask his question.


Louis Plamondon: I was just about to ask my question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if my colleague from Laurier- Sainte-Marie could tell me: Basically, after a debate like this one on parks, would Quebec not be better off relying only on its own elected representatives, its own government, instead of relying on conservative members of Parliament who are sitting there in silence while Quebec is not receiving its share of federal funds?


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I think that, indeed, the role of members of Parliament from any region in Canada is to stand up for their constituents. I admire the hon. member for Skeena for that, as he truly fulfils his duties in this House. He is here to protect the interests of the people in his riding.
June 1, 1992

It is the same thing for us from Quebec, at least for us in the Bloc Quebecois, because the others do not speak up too often. Essentially, we are in favour of this bill. Yet it would be worth while to let the people know how much it costs, how much shall be levied from that area, and I raise again the matter of assets and liabilities. So how can this be settled, because this is the kind of question this House will have to deal with when Quebec and Ottawa get down to bargaining, after all this circus is over.
I would also like to go back to the question of knowing about this bill being introduced and our being insufficiently prepared. I for one have the feeling of having asked questions that are yet to be answered. We would have been better able to prepare for this debate if we had been afforded actual research services. I can tell you that, under the minority government of the member for Yellowhead in 1979, the Socreds lead by Fabien Roy had one. They ensured a majority. The NDP also had one between 1962 and 1964, as the Equality Party does presently in Quebec, because they view democracy differently there. There is more fair play and the people from the Equality Party, though they are only three, get research services while we do not get any here.
It seems to me that we could follow this lead. As I said earlier, we could follow the lead in the case of deals with the Haidas. In considering the James Bay agreement, we should draw inspiration as to how this House functions from the way things are handled in the Quebec National Assembly which celebrated its 200th anniversary last week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
great parliamentarian, citizen and family man, Robert Erskine Campbell.
Known affectionately as "the great west wind", Bob was in the 30th year of his reign as MLA for 1st Prince. His death marks the end of an era.
Bob was a rare and extraordinary individual, a politician the likes of which we probably will not see again. He had a great feel for politics and an uncanny ability to reach people in situations. He established a reputation of electoral invincibility and it grew with the passage of time. His last majority was his largest.
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
A major reason for his success was his genuine concern for his fellow man. His political partisanship melted away very quickly when he saw someone in need.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. government whip.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering, with this kind of precedent on Monday morning, we could apply this vote to the government legislation for the balance of the week.
Hundreds of people in western Prince Edward Island will attest to the fact that when times were tough and the chips were down Bob Campbell was there for them.
I had the privilege of working closely with Bob for the past 15 years. He was a great friend. His advice and support were instrumental in my personal electoral success in 1988. I will miss him dearly as will the members of the P.E.I. legislature, the people of his riding, and most of all his family.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 2 p.m. the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
Bob died the way he wanted, still a member of the legislature, still fighting for his constituents. His love of people and politics still bums strongly.
We offer our sympathy and support to his wife Georgie and family. They can be proud of Bob's legacy and proud that the country is much the richer for Bob's having been there and much the poorer for his passing on.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, on the last day of May, the riding of Egmont in Prince Edward Island, Canada, is the worse off because of the loss of a


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the fixed link to Prince Edward Island moved a major step forward when tenders came in well within the previously established financial guidelines at the May 27 tender opening.
The construction of the fixed link project will give the economy of the Atlantic region a major boost. A completed project will create new opportunities and help make Prince Edward Island much more competitive.

Compared to other maritime provinces P.E.I. has the lowest average income and the highest unemployment rate, in fact 37 per cent higher than Nova Scotia.
Both provinces are in the same region. Both have similar resources and work ethics. The difference is simply transportation.
As New Brunswick and Nova Scotia make every effort to improve their transportation systems. The fixed link will allow P.E.I. to move along with them.
The fixed link will provide new job opportunities and will allow the youth of Prince Edward Island to stay on the island and to support island traditions and the island way of life.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of National Access Awareness Week. It is the time for us to reflect on how much still needs to be done to ensure equality for persons with disabilities in Canada.
This involves much more than just access to buildings. All Canadians are entitled to equal access to transportation, television, telephones and a wide range of other services that most of us take for granted.
Public attitudes and misconceptions can be the most difficult barriers that persons with disabilities must face in our society.
It is very sad that the government's omnibus legislation, Bill C-78, fails to address the problems of access adequately. The bill has been described as pathetic in The Ottawa Citizen and as a joke in The Toronto Star.
Canadians with disabilities have been waiting a long, long time for the federal government to take concrete action on important access issues. They are tired of waiting. They want action, not words, and they want it now.
I urge all Canadians to participate in National Access Awareness Week activities in their communities.


VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
Mr. Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, her little sister died a horrible death, a death no one can forget, a traumatizing experience. Today, instead of hiding away, of crying all by herself, Virginie Lariviere, from Saint-Polycarpe, has decided to send the Canadian government a petition with more than one million signatures, urging Ottawa to legislate in order to progressively reduce violence on television. She wants the people in Quebec's and Canada's cities to ask her for more petitions. The Optimist Club from Saint-Polycarpe, is managing the donations for the petition.
To receive copies of the petition, you only have to write to Virginie Lariviere, Box 263, Saint-Polycarpe (P.Q.) JOP 1X0.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support Virginie's project.


TRIUMF-KAON
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is intentionally trying to scuttle British Columbia's TRIUMF-KAON project by setting new pre-conditions which are not acceptable.
The federal government's promise of $236 million for KAON was announced on the eve of last fall's provincial election. It is now clear the federal government never intended to honour this commitment.
Its actions on the international scene demanding that foreign governments now pay a minimum of one-third of the operating costs are designed to invite failure. Such actions threaten to embarrass both British Columbia and Canada and prove once again that this government cannot be trusted.
The B.C. government on the other hand has recently announced a new offer to pay a substantial portion of the operating costs in addition to the one-third share of capital costs for KAON.

June 1, 1992
If the federal government is not serious about funding world-class science at KAON then it should be honest and say so. At the very least it should commit the $236 million toward other worth-while scientific endeavours in British Columbia.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians of Greek origin hope the visit of our Secretary of State for External Affairs to Greece and Cyprus will contribute greatly to the solution of the Cyprus issue in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations.
The illegal Turkish occupation forces should be removed as soon as possible. This will enable the subsequent departure of UN peacekeeping forces.
While in Greece, we hope the minister takes the opportunity to hear the views of the Greek government on the Yugoslav crisis. Our government must do everything in its power to prevent further destabilization of the region.
Failure of the former Yugoslav Republic of Skopje to assure its ethnic groups their rights and adopt a name which is not linked to Hellenism threatens to increase the chaos in this turbulent region.
Canada should insist that prior to any recognition Skopje should drop the Greek name Macedonia and respect the culture and traditions of its various ethnic groups, as well as those of its neighbours.
He *	*


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, the world is moving to free trade. As tariffs to international trade come down it is necessary to address barriers to efficiency and development at home.
For years negotiations at GATT have been eliminating trade barriers and reducing tariffs between countries. Free trade between Canada and the U.S. came into effect on January 1, 1989.
In Europe, the European common countries have joined together to foster free trade. Australia and New Zealand have a free trade agreement.
Today, as trade barriers disappear around the world, there remains between provinces hundreds of impediments preventing the free movement of goods and
services.
I urge the premiers of the provinces to convene a meeting to address this problem. The restrictions to free movement of goods and services between provinces is hindering economic growth in Canada. We need action now.


HAMILTON, ONTARIO
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in a bid to add perception to reality no less than four Conservative cabinet ministers, including their sidekick from Hamilton-Wentworth, met behind closed doors with Hamilton Mayor Bob Morrow and Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Chairman Reg Whynott last week to discuss local issues.
Incidentally no such meeting has ever taken place since the Tories were elected in the early 1980s.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, the Minister for Science and the junior transport minister met with the two Hamilton area officials and pleaded their ignorance on such things as the Hamilton airport, the Hamilton Harbour Commission, and the beleaguered Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
Could the ministers have been apologizing? Or did this Tory tea party have anything to do with the timing of an election possibly?
Despite appearances, the foursome could not make up for almost a decade of truancy. A miffed Hamilton Mayor Bob Morrow summed up the feelings Hamiltonians have for the Conservative government's relationship with the city when he said: "It is unfortunate that after eight years in power this is the first meeting we had".
* He *


PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, last September the federal government made 28 proposals for constitutional change. Since then there has been much public polling of what Canadians want to see in a renewed Canada.
June 1, 1992

Of all of this data I have seen none is more supportive than in the case of restoring the right to own property to Canadians. Almost 90 per cent of those polled want property rights entrenched in the Constitution. They want this right, first enshrined in 1215 in the Magna Carta and adopted by the United Nations in 1948, given back to Canadians as a fundamental reform.
As it now stands the west will likely get an elected Senate. Quebec will likely get distinct society status. The aboriginal people will likely get self-government.
Middle-class Canada wants something as well: the right to own property and to be fairly compensated when it is taken away, and the right to challenge politicians and bureaucrats when they pass laws affecting what people own.
I urge the federal government to hang tough in this issue and not to give into the bleatings from the left-wingers who do not think Canadians should be trusted to own property.


GRAIN INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's grain industry is in a crisis once again. From prairie elevator to Thunder Bay to Port Cartier, Sept lies and Baie Comeau our elevators are full.
At the same time when as many as 25 ships could be loading Canadian grain in Thunder Bay, this week only three will depart that seaway port. The problem is money.
While Canada has appropriately extended financial credit to Russia and other eastern European countries so they can buy our grain there is no money to pay to ship that very same grain.
In the past this government has quickly acted when labour-management disputes slowed or stopped grain movements. In the government's words they acted in the national interest.
On behalf of farmers, railroaders, grain handlers, weighers and inspectors, seafarers and the hungry people of eastern Europe, I call on the Government of
Canada to act now to find some way to get our grain moving again. It is in the national interest.


SENIORS MONTH
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, June is Seniors Month in Canada, a month to commemorate the great things seniors have done for Canada as well as recognize the contributions seniors continue to make.
Government has an important role to play. The one thing seniors want more than anything else is independence. It is only through co-operation and support that true independence will be achieved. Seniors have the right to choose their own futures and they want government to support that right.
The Liberal Party is committed to seniors and their independence. We appreciate the talent and the experience of seniors and thank them for giving so much to this country.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, at a press conference help in Rouyn-No-randa, Noranda Minerals Inc. announced, through the CEO for the Home Smelter, that the company has reached, three years before the deadline, its objective of reducing by 70 per cent its SO2 emissions and mineral dust compared to 1980.
At the same time, the CEO announced a financial commitment of $5 million for updating the equipment, in order to reduce SO2 emissions by 90 per cent by the year 2000.
Since that means citizens from Rouyn-Noranda will be breathing 90 per cent fresher air in comparison with 1980, needless to say how such good news were welcome by the people. This is the result of the efforts of all those who campaigned for better air quality in our region.
As I have often said, we have to expose industries which are polluting, but we also have to encourage and congratulate those which take positive action.
So congratulations to the Home Smelter for its environmental achievements.

June 1, 1992


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, as our constitutional negotiators take a much needed break, we should offer our support and congratulations for their achievements to date.
I would also encourage them to keep working to find acceptable compromises that will keep Canada united.
Despite the fact that we are encouraged by the progress that is being made, it is important to remind all of the negotiators that the first level of government, the family, is not directly represented at these talks.
I urge all participants, federal, provincial and aboriginal, to recognize the importance of families in all our societies and communities. Families formed by men and women freely making commitments to each other, to their role in bringing children into the world and to successfully raising and nurturing children to adulthood, need to be fully recognized in our Constitution.
I urge the Prime Minister, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the premiers and aboriginal leaders to ensure that the importance and the role of families are fully recognized.


CANADA'S 12STH BIRTHDAY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, throughout the last number of months the government has been encouraging Canadians to buy Canadian, to support Canadian entrepreneurs, manufacturers and retailers. The government is also spending money on ads encouraging people not to shop in the United States but to avoid cross-border shopping, to buy Canadian.
Yet all Canadians were shocked over the weekend to find out that in an effort to celebrate Canada's 125th birthday all sorts of paraphernalia-caps, tote bags and pencils-were purchased not in Canada but in the United States and in China.
On one hand the government says one thing and on the other hand purchases caps from China to help celebrate Canada's 125th birthday. We figure this is unacceptable. The government should do what it encourages other Canadians to do from time to time.


WORLD NO TOBACCO DAY
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, Sunday, May 31, was designated World No Tobacco Day by the World Health Organization.
The slogan for the day was: "Tobacco-Free Work Places: Safer and Healthier". Canada has already made giant strides toward achieving smoke-free work places for all employers and employees.
Leadership was provided in 1987 by federal government's provision for smoke-free work places under federal jurisdiction through the public service smoking policy. Many provincial and local governments and corporations have also taken similar action. By late 1991 the Canada Health Monitor Survey was able to report that only 37.6 per cent of Canadians over the age 15 had been exposed to tobacco.
Smoke in the workplace area is unacceptable and our goal is to see that all working Canadians are protected from this workplace hazard in striving for a tobacco free generation.


CORRECTIONS CANADA
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women recommended the creation of a healing lodge which would serve as an incarceration option for federally sentenced women.
Last week the Solicitor General announced that, pursuant to the recommendations of the healing lodge planning committee, the healing lodge would be built near Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, in close proximity to the Nekaneet Band and the historic Cypress Hills. Central to the choice was the long history of peaceful interaction between the native and non-native community in the Maple Creek district, a relationship characterized by mutual respect and cordiality.
The building of the $7 million facility will create some 60 construction jobs and there will be 26 full-time employees and staff. Most important of all, the selection of the Maple Creek-Nekaneet site for the healing lodge is part of this government's ongoing commitment to respect the task force recommendations and thereby
June 1, 1992

better meet the objectives of the Canadian Corrections Service.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues have been travelling the country in the last month talking about the need for Canada to be competitive and for Canadians to be trained and retrained. His colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses, came into the Hamilton area last week and said there were 300,000 jobs going begging for lack of proper training. However, if Canadians follow the government's advice and go down to their local Canada Employment Centre to apply for training, they are told there is no more money for training this year.
How can the minister square his claims that he is moving to make Canada more competitive with the reality that 1.5 million Canadians do not have access to training funds?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, last year some 630,000 Canadians benefited from training programs funded under federal programs. This year, with the changes we have made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, more will benefit. I hate to refer again to the strong opposition of her party to that modification. Today she stands in the House, and the Liberal Party, to complain about there is not being enough money for this developmental use of the UI program which they strongly opposed.
To me, it is inconsistent. Had they not delayed the implementation of Bill C-21 for 18 months, a lot more Canadians would have benefited from that money sooner. Right now, this year, the need of Canadians for training is recognized. Some $3.4 billion will be spent to train Canadians and that is more than last year.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, Canadians fully remember that one of the first acts of this government was to cut $700 million from training funds that were there under Liberal governments, so we do not need lessons from anybody about putting Canadians back to work.

It is the same old refrain we have heard from this government over and over again. What we want is an answer. The Prime Minister has promised us time and time again that Canada would have the best training and retraining programs in the world. How can they be the best when there is no more money to pay for them?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if I were to qualify the hon. member's statement I would be unparliamentary. I must inform the hon. member it is absolutely false to claim there are no more funds under the Unemployment Insurance Act or under programs financed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to train Canadians. There are funds, but they must be managed throughout the year. This year, more Canadians will benefit in absolute numbers from federal training programs than last year.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the number of jobs in the retail trade have gone down for 21 straight months. Jobs in the food and beverage industry have fallen for 25 straight months. Jobs in construction have gone down for 27 straight months. Manufacturing jobs have fallen 28 months straight. The fact is that 1.5 million Canadians are out of work, and as we speak those Canadians do not have access to UI training funds.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What are these
1.5	million Canadians who desperately want to work supposed to do with no training funds?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again I do not know what the hon. member is trying to do by saying in this House to Canadians that there are no training funds out there.

June 1, 1992
Oral Questions
Throughout Canada this year $3.4 million will be spent. That is $300 million more than last year. How can she stand in this House and tell Canadians there is no training money?
If the Liberal Party is so concerned about training, why does it not start its campaign at the provincial level? Seventy-six per cent of all training funds in this country are spent by this level of government. Training and education are provincial matters which provinces should take seriously.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I would like to ask the minister to confront the harsh reality. The minister has said there are 300,000 jobs that cannot be filled because Canadians do not have the proper skills. At the same time, thousands of Canadians are being denied access to the training that would enable them to fill those jobs. Obviously the system is not working.
How does the minister intend to fix it?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, how the government intends to fix it is to convince Canadians from coast to coast to coast that the matter of building a training culture in this country is not only a federal matter.
It is something that implicates all levels of government, business, labour, workers and individual Canadians. It is true that the demand for training at this time of high unemployment is resulting in pressures on the funds available. That is why the government increased the number of dollars to be spent to train unemployed Canadians.
If the argument is that we should borrow more or increase the deficit more, or raise taxes to do more than what we are already doing, we think and we suggest that instead, all levels of government that have a stake in the skills of our work force should get together and try to get a system that will work more efficiently.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, the point is that we cannot afford to have 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. It is simply not the way to use our human resources.
If the minister would like co-operation, it is going to be extremely difficult to get parties involved. The minister has cut $200 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy and people will continue to be shut out of the process and training. He is denying them an opportunity for the future. How long must they wait before this government will act?


Bernard Valcourt: Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to confine myself to parliamentary language.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: This party stands in the House today complaining about not enough funds going to training. For 18 months they, with their friends in the other place, prevented Canadians from benefiting from these hundreds of millions of dollars that we are spending to train unemployed Canadians.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Statistics Canada has shown there are over
1.5	million Canadians out of work. There are 95,000 Canadians who have access to the training programs this minister is bragging about. That represents 6 per cent of unemployed people having access to training. Is the minister saying it acceptable for only 6 per cent of the unemployed have access to training? Is this acceptable to the minister?


Bernard Valcourt: No, Mr. Speaker. One Canadian unemployed is one too many. That is why instead of trying to buy the illusion of prosperity which the Liberals and the socialists think we should keep on doing, we have decided to concentrate the funds of the UI program for training Canadians, which by the way that party opposed.
I said earlier last year 630,000 Canadians benefited from the training and support programs under UI and this year this will go up to 650,000 people. Maybe it is not the extent to which the hon. member would do it, but with the limited funds we have, this is what we have decided we will do as our priority.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, unemployed people do not care where the money comes from or how people voted. The reality is they are out of work, they need training, and this minister goes on and on about the amount of money being spent when only 6 per cent have access to training. What is he going to do for those 94 per cent that do not have access to training?
June 1, 1992


John Horton McDermid: This guy wants to print money.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, maybe we could print some more money. Maybe we should print some more money.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are you joking about this?


Bernard Valcourt: He is joking with the future of Canada by pretending we can print money.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, obviously members on the other side do not listen any more than they do any other time. I clarified that situation a long time ago.

It is clear the minister has no idea of Canada's training needs. Ninety-four per cent of the unemployed have no access to training programs. What is the minister going to do to train those 94 per cent?


Bernard Valcourt: I can quote the hon. member. When we borrow money to do a project that money has to be repaid. We are going in circles like a dog chasing its tail and not getting anywhere. Instead of borrowing money we create it. We do not have to pay it back. That is the philosophy of the socialists in Canada, it is not ours.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Two weeks ago, at an international conference on the environment in Nairobi, the international community was supposed to approve the convention on biodiversity. By the end of the conference, the United States had managed to rid the text of all substance. However, a few days ago the Americans announced they would not sign the text they had already diluted.
Considering this total refusal by the United States to do anything at all, will Canada immediately initiate a campaign to revert to the original text of the convention, so as to provide better protection for the world's animal and vegetable species?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I indicated that we intend to sign the international convention on biodiversity and that we will also work very hard with our allies to bring about gradual improvements in the text.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked was whether Canada would push first to go back to the original text, which the Americans had diluted, now that the Americans have refused to sign the text on biodiversity.
The real question is that of the major conventions to be signed in Rio, the one on forestry has been shelved, climate change has been emptied of all content and as we have seen, biodiversity has been critically wounded. The reason is very clear. We are dealing with the selfishness of nations.
Not for a long time has there been an opportunity for Canada to play such a role on the world stage in such a crucial area.
In this, the decisive week, what new initiatives does the government propose to make among the many that have been suggested to infuse needed momentum back into the Rio process?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have just come from a meeting of some 400 to 500 young Canadians, some of whom will be going to Rio.
I dealt with some specifics as to the objectives of Canada for the Rio conference and the things that we can do, will do, and are in the process of doing to achieve the objectives articulated so eloquently by my hon. friend.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The earth summit is about to begin yet the government lacks the support of some key international players for its fisheries resolution. Last week the minister was in Washington and he hardly managed to get the time of day from the U.S. commerce secretary.

Oral Questions
Now that we know and he knows that the Americans are going to scuttle the resolution at Rio, what contingency plan does the minister have in mind or has he thrown in the towel on this one?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I visited Washington last week on this subject. I met with the secretary of commerce and other officials from her department who are involved with fisheries and also with Congressman Studds who is the chairman of the House of Representatives sub-committee on fisheries and the environment. I had very good meetings down there.
The U.S. has given us considerable support with reference to our resolution which is going forward to the Rio de Janeiro meeting next week. In addition, the Prime Minister met with President Bush and reviewed the fisheries situation with him and with Secretary of State Baker.
The Americans are now fully familiar with the problems we are suffering from overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. They are also supportive. The secretary of commerce advised me that they will support our request that there be an international conference under the auspices of the UN on high seas fishing as soon as possible and will support our call for that to occur at Rio de Janeiro next week.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister of course is skating a bit on this. The real question is: are the Americans going to support the resolution? I think he himself gave the answer publicly last week and the answer is no.
What action plan does the minister have in mind after Rio, assuming the resolution fails as he allowed it might? What does he plan after Rio to get action on the real issue, the stopping of this pillaging of fish resources off Newfoundland? How will fishermen and plant workers in his riding and in mine be any better off as a result of the summit in Rio next week?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, everyone interested in the fishery will be better off as a result of the summit in Rio next week because this issue will be front and centre at the largest conference ever held on the environment.
Until several months ago, it was not even considered to be an important environmental issue. We now have this issue in its right context.
It is the European Community that claims to be very concerned about the environment and environmental issues, but is preventing our resolution, supported by 40 countries, from having a consensus so far. They are feeling the results of our campaign around the world in this connection. This is shown by the fact that many times in the last several days the Spaniards have announced that they are removing their fleet, even if temporarily, from the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
We are getting results. I hope that hon. members opposite who have been helpful for the most part would rejoice in the fact that there is some progress being made.
As far as what we are doing in the future, the Prime Minister is going to carry on this cause at the Munich summit of the G-7 powers in July. We will be carrying on our campaign at NAFO in September, and in many other fora during the coming months.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry.
Last week, legal counsel on behalf of the federal government wrote to the U.S. department of commerce asking for the exemption of Manitoba, Quebec and Saskatchewan from the softwood countervail dispute with the United States.
Can the minister tell the House the reasons for this move? Can he assure us that this move will not mean that the provinces of B.C., Alberta and Ontario will have to pay a higher price for yet another bad trade deal by this government?
Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, as my friend already knows, the Atlantic provinces have always been excluded from the countervail action. The new findings by the commerce department, which are disputed, also indicate that Quebec and two of the prairie provinces should no longer be included. In the case of Quebec, the duty that is imposed is less than .01 per cent.
June 1, 1992

This is nothing new. My hon. friend knows that we disagree with all aspects of the finding and that it is being fought and appealed to the binational panel, the establishment of which we have called for.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, from one bad deal to another. My question is for the Prime Minister.
This government has indicated that the North American free trade agreement would improve the status of Mexican workers and open a market of 85 million to Canadian manufacturers. I was in Mexico last week and these statements are simply not true.
Last week, the Mexican government, labour and business signed a work accord that may or may not increase productivity but did nothing to address the wages of grossly underpaid Mexican workers.
I want to ask the Prime Minister what specific Canadian products will the hundreds of thousands of exploited Maquiladora workers purchase when their present and potential earnings are $4.50 a day?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there are discussions besides the NAFTA on labour, on environment, and on other issues.
The hon. member asks what Mexican products come up here and what we are going to do for Mexico.


Steve Butland: No. What Canadian products?


William C. Winegard: At the moment what we have, certainly in the automotive industry, is one-way trade with Mexico. For every car we can bring up here from Mexico, we have to send two and a half to offset this.
There is no doubt at all that we are in the NAFTA agreement because we want to have two-way trade with Mexico, not one-way trade with Mexico.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns the Westray mine.
Oral Questions
One thing is crystal clear. If the government had listened to its own bureaucrats there would have been no federal financing, no mine would have been built, and 26 miners would not have lost their lives.
The premier of Nova Scotia has stated that when federal bureaucrats stalled the project he asked his political friend, the Prime Minister, to give the project a green light.
How could the Prime Minister possibly justify proceeding with the project on purely political grounds, overlooking the obvious safety concerns that were raised time and time again by his own bureaucrats?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the specious argument and the misleading statements of my hon. friend. I will say in regard to the fundamental nature of the question, that my role in this was no more nor less than in other cabinet decisions regarding financial assistance for regional development projects.
In this case, federal financial development assistance was provided because the development of the mine with its potential for some 240 direct jobs and 300 or 400 indirect jobs was viewed as a top priority by the Government of Nova Scotia and the people in Central Nova. The mayors, the wardens, trade union leaders, all of the people involved in Central Nova and throughout Pictou County made direct representations asking for financial assistance for what they viewed as an important instrument of regional economic development. After careful consideration, the government agreed to provide assistance as we do in many regional development programs across Canada.
If my hon. friend is in disagreement with that, perhaps he could say so. Those were the grounds on which the government made the decision.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the same subject matter.
This was not a regular project. Canadians, Nova Scotians, but most particularly, the families of those 26 miners want to know what role politics played in the approval of this project.

Oral Questions
The premier of Nova Scotia has stated that when this project was stalled he contacted the Prime Minister. He said that what the Prime Minister did in response will have to be asked of him.
I ask the Prime Minister: what was his response? What role did he play in overriding the numerous safety concerns of the federal bureaucrats which ultimately resulted in the financing of this ill-fated project?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not
know why my hon. friends from the Liberal opposition would be applauding a question of this nature.


An hon. member:: It is a good question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, it is not a good question. The suggestion is that the government would knowingly proceed with something that would jeopardize the wellbeing of people in the interests of regional economic expansion.
My hon. friend asked me what role I played in the decision-making process. I played exactly the same role as I played for example in the decision to proceed with de Havilland in downtown Toronto and when we decided to proceed with development programs in Hibernia in Newfoundland. I was involved in the decision-making process in exactly the same way and pursuant to the same criteria.
The government concluded on the basis of the evidence made available to it that this was in the interests of economic development in Nova Scotia and in Central Nova. Those were the grounds on which we proceeded.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question likewise is for the Prime Minister.
The government has said over and over again that it was satisfied with the safety conditions in the Westray mine because it was receiving monthly reports from an independent consultant. We now know that that simply was not true, that the person who was supposedly the independent consultant says he did not supply those reports, nor did his company. He merely passed along reports that the Government of Nova Scotia provided.
When will the Prime Minister stop the confusion and say what reports the government did or did not receive, if it received any? Evidently there were some reports in which the government says it put a great deal of faith. What we want is for those reports to be made public today.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the newspaper carefully two weeks ago, he would have a quotation from the very mining engineer he has been quoting. Mr. McCandlish said: "I will concur that as late as March I believe we had confirmed independently with the Nova Scotia Department of Labour and the Department of Natural Resources that they, Cur-ragh, were in compliance with the current statutes. That answer was provided and passed on to the bank". He also said that his firm's primary role was to monitor the levels and cost of coal production.
These certificates of compliance were received on a regular basis, but the actual day-to-day monitoring and inspection of the mine was the responsibility of the province of Nova Scotia and those two departments. That is why a judicial inquiry has been established. My hon. friend knows that.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there is a drastic erosion here of the government's position. Now it is telling us it was not concerned with safety in the Westray mine.
Without questioning what information the government had that said the safety conditions were poor in the Westray mine, surely the Prime Minister and the government must have received some information which said that there were no problems with safety in the mine. Surely information of that importance came from somewhere to the federal government before it gave the loan guarantee.
Did it come from Westray? Did it come from Curragh? Did it come from Donald Cameron? Did it come from some other source? Just tell us today where the government based its belief that there were safe conditions in that mine and make those reports public today.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can try as hard as he wishes to make this provincial jurisdiction federal jurisdiction.
June 1, 1992


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Come on.


An hon. member:: Give us the detail.


Thomas Hockin: What the federal government did when it gave the loan guarantee was to make sure that on a regular basis all provincial statutes and regulations that affected the mine would be complied with.
We did that through receiving monthly certificates of compliance. That is what we received. That is what we relied on, but we cannot do independent inspections on our own. That was the job of the jurisdiction that was in charge, the Government of Nova Scotia.


ABORIGINAL HEALING LODGE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Aboriginal women and their supporters were pleased when the decision was made to close the Kingston prison for women and build an aboriginal healing lodge following the suicide death of three aboriginal women from northern Saskatchewan.
These tragic deaths were found to be the direct result of isolation from families and communities. Therefore people are shocked that Maple Creek was chosen as the site for this lodge since only one-half of 1 per cent of the native people in Saskatchewan live within 200 kilometres of the site.
Can the minister please explain how Maple Creek meets the basic criteria of being close to family and the support networks of incarcerated women?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite evident that aboriginal women would be satisfied with the selection of Maple Creek Nekaneet as the site for the healing lodge. It fulfils all the criteria that they were looking for in terms of being a culturally sensitive environment with running water, plenty of rural land, and a sensitive relationship between the native and non-native communities.
My friend specifically refers to it being equidistant. I remind my hon. friend that this is an aboriginal healing lodge for native women from all of Canada. We do find
Oral Questions
that there are more aboriginal women from the west and in particular from Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I think if my hon. friend checks the geographical distances from both Alberta and Saskatchewan, he will find that the appropriation is appropriate on that basis also.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I do not really care if the politics involved in making this decision came from the aboriginal community or came from partisan politics, or both.
The fact still remains that aboriginal women at Kingston died because of isolation from families and communities. The fundamental problem of isolation will not be solved by putting this healing lodge in a location where there are virtually no aboriginal people, where there is no transportation, where there are no support networks.
Therefore, will the Solicitor General please commit himself to a complete review of the selection process of the aboriginal healing lodge to make sure that another tragic mistake is not being made here?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are closing the prison for women and we are doing it by establishing prisons for women right across Canada.
I can assure my hon. friend that there were no politics involved in this. I am looking for one winner and one winner only and that is the aboriginal women.


INTEREST RATES
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Over the last few months Canadians have seen dramatic reductions in the level of interest rates charged by the banks. The prime is now 7.5 per cent and mortgages are in the 8 per cent range.
Consumers are paying from 16 per cent to an incredible 28 per cent interest on unpaid credit card balances, a spread now of up to 20 per cent compared with the primes.
My question is this: can the minister help Canadian consumers by telling the banks that if this rip-off does not end soon he will move to stop the credit card
gouging?

Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, yes, interest rates have dropped dramatically in recent months and I have already said, as my colleague is probably aware, that I met with the Canadian Bankers Association. I also met with the association of store owners who operate credit cards. Of course, the problem is that interest rates on the credit cards commonly used for everyday purchases have dropped appreciably. They are now around 16 or 17 per cent. I invite consumers to shop around for the best rates.
Department store credit card rates are still 28 per cent, which is very high. Often, people do not realize that when they buy with their department store credit cards, they keep outstanding balances on their accounts for months, although they could simply go to a branch of a bank or credit union and get a loan at 10 per cent, thus saving a lot of money in interest. I publish a quarterly report on interest rates to inform consumers. Through the forum that we have here, I ask them to do what I say: shop around and use the right payment method when they buy.


TRANSITION HOUSES
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. It refers to a transition house for Millbrook near Truro, Nova Scotia.
The transition house need is acknowledged. The funding is approved for the future, but the problem is the natives need the transition house right now.
Considering recent negative effects on the economy in the area, will the minister review this decision and find some way to fund this transition house this year instead of next year?


An hon. member:: All transition houses.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester raises a question which is of concern to native women across Canada.
This government has taken special steps through the Project Haven Program and more recently the Next Step Program to provide transition houses such as the one I announced jointly with the New Brunswick government last Thursday in Fredericton.
I will look into the hon. member's request. I did announce some time ago that we would be building two new transition houses in the province of Nova Scotia. It is my understanding that the chiefs of Nova Scotia have opted to build the centre first at Whycocomagh Band on Cape Breton Island and the second project to proceed next year. However, I will review the matter further.


WE STRAY MINE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In responding to questions regarding Westray, the Prime Minister said and I quote: "My role is no more nor less than other regional development projects".
The Prime Minister will know that the federal government's own Crown corporation, Devco, had written a devastating report pointing out the dramatic safety hazards of the foord seam at the Westray mine.
The Prime Minister will know that senior federal officials had expressed such reluctance, both with respect to the economics of this project and with respect to the safety of this project, that the premier of Nova Scotia felt compelled to call the Prime Minister personally to ask the Prime Minister to intervene to get this project back on the rails.
The question I ask and that Canadians are asking is what did the Prime Minister do that moved forward a project that seemed stuck in neutral prior to Don Cameron's phone call to the Prime Minister's office?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I frequently receive calls from provincial premiers with respect to major regional development projects in their provinces.
My hon. friend represents the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell him I had many calls from the premier of Newfoundland seeking my support in regard to the Hibernia development project. This is not unusual. It is quite proper and appropriate that it proceed that way.
June 1, 1992

It was conducted in essentially the same way in regard to the regional economic development in Nova Scotia. The decision-making process follows cabinet committee and at the end of the day the government has to decide whether the expenditure of public funds is in the national interest in respect of development and employment-creating programs in Nova Scotia.
In Central Nova, unemployment was high throughout Pictou County. This was seen by everyone as an opportunity to provide long term and good paying jobs. We examined it objectively and we arrived at the conclusion we did.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether or not the Prime Minister of Canada ought to be concerned with regional development. The issue is whether or not the Prime Minister was concerned about safety after he talked to his friend Don Cameron.
What I am asking and what the people of Canada want to know, and I suspect in particular the people of Pictou County want to know, is about the miners who had no union and no other spokesperson and who were counting upon their governments to defend their interest. What action did the Prime Minister take to ensure himself that the concerns raised by Devco in 1988, the concerns raised by senior federal officials about safety in that mine in fact could be answered in a responsible fashion that would justify providing $85 million and opening that mine?
What action did the Prime Minister take to assure himself this was a proper investment and that that mine was safe? Did he take any action to ensure himself in that regard?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State has referred to documents that will be tabled in the House. There is a commission of inquiry established by the Government of Nova Scotia that will examine all questions relating to this tragedy. I am sure that the chairman of the royal commission will arrive at conclusions and will convey them to the public.
My hon. friend mentioned Devco in his first question. I draw to his attention that, for example, on February 24, 1979, an explosion occurred in the 12th south section of the No. 26 colliery operated by Devco.
Oral Questions
The explosion resulted in the death of 12 employees and serious injury to another four employees. A commission of inquiry was struck. The commission concluded that the methane produced from the coal being cut was ignited by sparking from the sheer of steel picks, and that the primary cause of the explosion was the inadequacy of the wall face ventilation that did not prevent a minor ignition from developing into an explosion.
This was a mine owned and operated completely by the Government of Canada. The safety regulations were within federal jurisdiction, as I understand it. In spite of this-and in excess of .$1.3 billion of federal money that had gone into Devco to provide for this-this tragedy occurred.
The coroners of the commission of inquiry concluded that it was methane induced, but I do not think that there was anybody in the House of Commons who rose to suggest that because of the approval of these public funds to develop the mine in Cape Breton, that there was any member of Parliament who was responsible for the safety provisions.
I ask my hon. friend to wait for the response from the commission of inquiry. I think he will be satisfied.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister cannot deny that his own appointee as president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, one Derek Ranee whom he worked with on a previous occasion, wrote a very extensive memo with regard to public policy reasons as to why they ought not to proceed with funding the Pictou mine and as well referred to safety.
The Prime Minister must also be aware that that same president had a telephone conversation with the minister responsible, the Minister of Public Works, indicating to him the safety concerns with regard to the foord seam in the Pictou county mine.
Furthermore, the minister of energy said on May 12:
We the cabinet were all aware of the mine having high methane
deposits and with the new technology that there would have to be a
learning curve.
I ask the Prime Minister: what convincing evidence did he have in his possession that there were no safety problems at the Westray coal mine?

June 1, 1992
Speaker's Ruling


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, presumably the same convincing evidence that caused my hon. friend who just spoke to write an article in The Halifax Chronicle Herald on February 25, 1989, in respect of Westray where he said: "The mine poses a threat to the Cape Breton economy".
It is a very lengthy article in which he opposes the mine without the slightest reference to safety. He opposed it on economic grounds, and I have already indicated it was an economic decision.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he could explain to the House what underground mining experience his dear friend, Mr. Clifford Frame, had. Would he indicate to the House the extent of this gentleman's and this company's underground coal mining experience, drilling tunnels and mining coal.
Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House as to that experience.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister may wish to answer but I think that question is going way beyond the authority or responsibility of the government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend says that it is very relevant, then I will be happy to oblige.
He asked me about information in regard to my dear friend, Clifford Frame. I met Clifford Frame the first time in my life in Central Nova last week.


MINERAL EXPLORATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Can the minister tell us or confirm today that in the discussions with the Government of Quebec to sign a Canada-Quebec mineral development agreement, Quebec will use part of it to support mineral exploration, especially assistance for prospecting and exploration and use of new exploration technologies in Abitibi-Temisca-mingue and Chapais-Chibougamau?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm points which my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said many times. We are negotiating with the province of Quebec for the purposes-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I can confirm that with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, we are negotiating with the province of Quebec for the purpose of arriving at a new Mineral Development Agreement. In that MDA, we are exploring various issues as well as programs for specific regions so that we might encourage the mining industry in the province of Quebec.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing Routine Proceedings, I would like to take this opportunity to make a ruling with respect to Bill C-22.
The Chair wishes to announce that it is now prepared to rule on a point of order which was raised on Friday May 22,1992 by the hon. member for Chambly in regard to the admissibility of a report by the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations on 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.
The hon. member for Chambly indicated that at a meeting of the committee on May 5, 1992, a series of clauses were deleted from the bill which made its provisions relating to the proposed Wage Claim Payment Act inoperable. He argued that this action went against the principle of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading, and that, consequently, the Standing Committee report is out of order.

There were a number of other submissions made on this point of order, and the Chair is appreciative of the comments offered by the hon. members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Shefford, Saint-Hubert, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
June 1, 1992

After reviewing the submissions made, the Chair is now prepared to decide on the basic question relating to the amendments adopted by the Standing Committee.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Chambly contended that the House is now dealing with a new and substantially different bill since all provisions relating to the proposed Wage Claim Payment Act have been deleted. Quoting from citation 689(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition, the hon. member supported his argument with the following passage:
A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.

The logic behind this citation is to prevent the adoption of amendments which would result in a committee straying from the objectives of a bill and all that this may entail. Of course, a committee may not expand on the scope or nature of the bill, nor introduce important elements which were not present during the debate at second reading. There are several other restrictions placed on a committee. As I recently explained on April 28, 1992 in relation to a committee report on the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill C-54:
A committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

Further types of inadmissible amendments are listed in citations 698 to 706 of Beauchesne's sixth edition. Barring these, a committee is completely free to amend a bill in whatever manner it may choose, and to vote for or against any or all of the clauses in the bill as they are submitted for approval to the committee. As the 21st edition of Erskine May explains on page 486:
-notwithstanding the rule which forbids the moving of an amendment which is destructive of the principle of a bill, there is nothing to prevent a committee from negating a clause or clauses, the omission of which may nullify or destroy the bill, and reporting the bill, as amended, to the House; a Committee may also negative
Routine Proceedings
every clause of which the bill is composed, and substitute for those clauses new clauses, if relevant to the bill as read a second time, and otherwise in order.
In the present case, the standing committee elected to delete several clauses of the bill, and in particular several clauses of the proposed Wage Claim Payment Act. In keeping with the explanation found in Erskine May and our own Canadian practices there is nothing which can be found objectionable with this procedure. Consequently, I find that the standing committee report is in order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings*]


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Madam Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that we are currently marking Canadian Environment Week, which in 1992 runs from today, June 1 to June 7.
This week gives Canadians an opportunity to ask themselves the question: "What can I do to help the environment?" In the spirit of Environment Week all Canadians, all levels of government and all sectors of society must stop and think about the ways in which they can contribute in preserving and protecting our magnificent country, Canada.
Environment Week is a Government of Canada initiative which funds projects across the country which demonstrate action and participation in Canadian com-

Routine Proceedings
munities. One of the largest initiatives this year is a partnership that has been formed with the Canadian Urban Transit Association. It is offering an enviropass in over 40 cities in Canada to encourage Canadians to use public transportation as an environmentally friendly way to travel.
All of us are urged to make a contribution to Environment Week. For example, we can be vigilant when we are shopping and purchasing consumer products by selecting those products with the least packaging. We can minimize waste, recycle, compost or initiate household practices that will conserve water. The options are really endless.
This year Environment Week and its theme, "It's Up to All of Us", takes on global significance. As we work to improve the environmental state of this great country of Canada, the world's leaders are gathering in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, more commonly called the earth summit.
Canada has played a primary role in organizing this historic conference, and the Canadian delegation, which will be led by the Prime Minister, is providing leadership and solutions to tough economic and environmental concerns.
I invite all hon. members to participate in Environment Week, and their communities. As well, they can participate indirectly in the earth summit by signing the earth flag located at the entrance of the House of Commons today. Upon the signing of the flag it will be delivered to the earth summit in Brazil by Mr. Maury Mason of Earth Day Canada. This flag has already been signed by hundreds of thousands of families and individual Canadians demonstrating Canada's support for the earth summit. This morning the Prime Minister signed this flag.
It is time for all Canadians to make an extra effort to adapt and adopt environmentally responsible behaviour and to make it part of everyday life in the spirit of Environment Week and all year long.
I encourage all Canadians to join in our national environmental efforts this week and every week. I would like to leave the hon. members with a message, which is the earth pledge which states: "Recognizing that people's actions toward nature and each other are the
source of growing damage to the environment and resources needed to meet human needs and to ensure survival and development I pledge to act to the best of my ability to help make the earth a secure and hospitable home for present and future generations".
That is an excellent pledge which I would ask all Canadians to make.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, today does mark the beginning of Environment Week, which takes place from June 1 to June 7. It is especially important this year as the whole world is looking to the world leaders gathering in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the earth summit.
The Rio summit may well be the most important international conference in the history of the world. It has the potential to be the turning point for our environment, resulting in a number of landmark conventions and declarations, and a new global era in the struggle to achieve sustainable development.
Environment Week should be used by the government and Canadians to look very closely at our commitment to saving our rapidly deteriorating environment and to take the necessary measures to halt and reverse the catastrophic impact our actions have had on our world.
The Prime Minister, on behalf of all Canadians, must show in Brazil that Canada is prepared to exercise the leadership it so readily claims. If other nations refuse to accept a convention on climate change with tough targets and timetables Canada must step forward and be the first to sign and invite others to follow.
If others fail to make financial commitments to accomplish agenda 21 then Canada must not fail. On issues of biodiversity, forests, water and poverty, Canada must clearly establish what we believe to be the right path to save the world for future generations and it must be prepared to have the courage to take the first step along that path.

Canada owes it to Canadians and to neighbouring countries to practice what it preaches on all environmental issues.
In matters of environmental protection, we cannot always wait for international agreements to be signed. To harmonize development and environment, Canada must implement effective preventive measures that can be accounted for in front of the whole world.
June 1, 1992

Environment Week is not a time to show off, but to act.

We all have a responsibility, but rather than putting the responsibility solely on individual Canadians we in this House must look to ourselves first and foremost. We must all make the protection of the world our first commitment to Canadians and to those generations to follow. If we as Canadians fail the world in Rio we have a great deal to answer for, and we cannot ask individual Canadians to do what we as their parliamentarians are not prepared to do.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on the beginning of Environment Week in Canada. It is particularly appropriate given the summit in Rio starting later this week.
The minister spoke very well about the need for individuals to do something during Environment Week here in Canada. I take the individual approach to the environment very seriously. I have promoted in my own constituency, as I know members of my caucus have, recycling programs for paper, cans and glass, as well as community clean-ups and other actions that individuals can take on their own.
Despite the fact that individual effort is so important and environment week helps to instil in the individual Canadian a desire to contribute what he or she can to the environment over-all, governments have a much more responsible role to play than encouraging people to recycle bottles and cans and glass and newspapers. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that the inter-governmental agreements that will, in fact, protect the environment from the harm that others can do while we are cleaning up our own backyard are promulgated so that we can stop the destruction of the earth.
As members know, we can burn ethanol in our cars in Canada, but as long as the hundreds of thousands of vehicles in the United States, in Los Angeles for example, are pumping out CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, the efforts we make, as much as it makes us feel comfortable and good, are not going to eventually save the earth.
Routine Proceedings
What we have is a challenge before us, and the conference in Rio is the test of that challenge. We have to reach agreements or the world is in dire jeopardy.
I quote from an excellent book that the round table on the environment and the economy put out earlier this year, called Preserving Our World: A Consumer's Guide to the Brundtland Report by Warner Troyer, in which Mr. Troyer quotes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Every man has a right to swing his arms, but that right is circumscribed by the proximity of his neighbour's nose."
Well, the nose is awfully close as the large corporations are swinging their arms at the moment around the world.
The population growth in the world is reaching the point where we can soon no longer feed it. The world's population is projected to top six billion people this year and the carrying capacity for food in this world is estimated to reach about 7.5 billion people. The Brundtland commission report, which talked about the environment and the economy, the need for sustainable development, is very much tied to population growth in the world.
If stabilization of the population in the world is not reached until the year 2035, the total world population will settle at over 10 billion people, very close to the maximum food-carrying capacity that we have and by the year 2065-75 years from now-we could have a population of close to 15 billion people, which, unless something happens quickly, is going to see mass starvation on this planet.
As we know, the root cause of much of the environmental degradation in the world is poverty. Poverty is the greatest single enemy of the environment. The poor and the hungry destroy their environment to ensure their own individual survival. Theirs is an individual effort that is predicated upon the failures of governments to reach agreements that will improve the world's population's poor to a sustainable environment of their own.
I use the opportunity today to impress upon the Minister of the Environment and this government that Canada must take its leadership role seriously in the international community on environmental issues and use the conference in Rio de Janeiro to ensure that the

June 1, 1992
Routine Proceedings
agreements are in place to ensure the protection of the earth.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, on the same point.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows full well that only the critics from the two official opposition parties can speak in reply to a ministerial statement.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the working group of the heads of delegation meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the CSCE group meeting in London, England, April 24, 1992.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
39TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
['Agreed.']
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: 
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, I have the honour to present the 40th and the 41st reports of the Standing Committee on House Management.
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), these reports are deemed adopted when laid upon the table.



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to table today five petitions from Newfoundland, Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick.
The petitioners would like the Parliament of Canada to reinstate the Court Challenges Program. The Court Challenges Program was a very important program in that it made it possible for individuals and groups to have their constitutional rights clarified as those rights relate to language equality rights by the courts.
The petitioners maintain that the Court Challenges Program was and still should be an essential instrument in the evolution of our constitutional rights and that all Canadians must be given equal access, whatever their income, to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The petitioners want Parliament to reinstate the Court Challenges Program which gives all Canadians access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regardless of their means.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a number of petitions with hundred and hundreds of signatures from people from Kamloops, British Columbia and Chase, British Columbia.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government and also to enact legislation providing for the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by the majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with a majority vote in the majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of a single province.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on an unrelated but a very important matter, petitioners from throughout British Columbia, again now totalling hundreds and hundreds of names, point out their opposition to any intention by anyone, private or public, to export fresh water from Canada, particularly fresh water from British Columbia through river diversion to the United States.
June 1, 1992

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to urge the government to state categorically that it will not tolerate this type of resource sellout.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting another petition, collected by Mr. George Chiavarolotti through his chiropractic office, to request the government to amend the Narcotics Control Act so that the financial proceeds from drug seizures, rather than being sent completely to the Government of Canada to be deposited in their general revenue fund, be shared instead with local police forces and local organizations which are trying to wage the battle on the streets on behalf of all of us.
I am hopeful that the Solicitor General will see the light of day and amend the Narcotics Control Act as hundreds upon hundreds of individuals from my riding of York West have recommended.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 244, 262, 263, 279, 280, 281 and 290.


Mr. Young: Which departments and agencies are currently developing computerized information systems and, for each project not yet operating as intended, what was the original completion date, the revised completion date, the original cost estimate, the actual expenditure so far, and the revised cost estimate?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Please see reply to question no. 228 tabled this day.


Mr. Peterson: Since the tabling of the paper "Prosperity Through Competitiveness" (Prosperity Initiative), how many public consultations have been held, and what is the total number of non-staff participants who have attended these public consultations?
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: The community talks consultations of the prosperity initiative took place between November 1991-March 1992. 186 Community talks took place in all regions and provinces. Some 7,500 Canadians participated in these local consultations.


Mr. Peterson: With respect to the Prosperity Initiative, up to March 17, 1992, (a) what is the total cost (b) how much money was spent on (i) public opinion polling (ii) public relations strategies (iii) media monitoring (iv) toll-free telephone services (v) advertising (c) how many people have been employed either on a full or part-time basis and what has been the total cost thereof (d) what are the names of all private consultants who have received contracts and what has been the total cost thereof (e) what is the projected budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: (a) The closest date for which expenditures on the prosperity initiative are available is March 31,1992. As of that date, operating expenditures were $7,096,913.
b)		Expenditures to March 31, 1992
(0	Public opinion polling	$247,203(ii)	Public relations strategies	$131,911(iii)	Media monitoring	$38,627(iv)	Toll-free telephone services	$108,600(v)	Advertising	$378,891
(c) There have been 78 separate individuals employed either full or part time during the 1991-92 fiscal year of which 48 were public servants on secondment to the prosperity initiative and 30 were contract personnel. The total amount paid to these individuals up to March 31, 1992 was $2,405,609.
(,d) The total value of contracts let with private consultants is $4,832,277. A list of these consultants is shown below. Of this amount $2,100,000 was for the costs of holding the community consultations, $378,891 was for the advertising associated with the community consultations and $247,203 was for public opinion polling.
(e) The projected budget of the prosperity initiative over the 1991-92 and 1992-93 fiscal years is $19.1 million.
Acart Graphic Services William Alexander & Associates Anderson Strategic Research

June 1, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Angus Reid Group Base Brown and Partners W.A. Bonner Calendrium Consulting Canada Communications Group Clarke & Associates William James Colvin Communication NL Plus Computer Managed Information Consulting and Auditing Canada Cormex Research Corporate Strategy Group Don Cummer and Associates David Eadie Derek Ellis Consulting EXOCOM Fedeli Advertising Foster Marks Advertising Garret Patterson George-Gordon Partners Gervais Gagnon Frenette Glynovations
Ian Hamilton Communications Ideasign Communications Consultants Insta-Sytems
Intersol Consulting Associates Ltd. LGS
W.A. Lewis
Lian Public Affairs Consulting Lumsden Media Strategies Michael P. Martin and Associates Mohr Marketing Mil Media Tapes Optima Research Palmer Jarvis
Park Comer Communications
Paradigm Communications
Parson Associates
Marshall Perrin
Publitel Communications
Pamela Purves & Associates
Quantum Information Resources
Denis E. Racine
Serge Rivest Communications
Saga Communications
SK&A Strategic Communications
Stratcom Planning
Lisa Tenace
Dan Turner Creative
JL Viau
Westcar Group
Wordsmithing Plus


Ms. Callbeck: Has the government developed any policies or conducted studies regarding (a) the manner in which the operator of a fixed link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will be able to raise tolls, particularly regarding increases above the inflation rate (for example to recoup losses associated with operating the link one year through toll increases greater than inflation the following year) (b) cost overruns associated with a fixed link, particularly regarding whether the public would bear the extra costs (c) a situation in which the successful fixed link developer experiences financial difficulties part way through construction of the project, particularly regarding who would step in as financier (d) how the government would cope with interruptions in the operation of the link?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: (a)	With regard to the bridge tolls, the proposal call states that, in the future, should the government require a level of insurance coverage from the developer which is over and above the levels prescribed in the development agreement with the winning consortium, the developer may apply for an adjustment to the toll rates to cover the difference in his cost of insurance. The final decision will rest with the government and the recovery may be spread over several years to minimize any impact.
Additionally, should the project proceed, the development agreement with the winning developer would recognize the concept of a minimum toll revenue which is derived from the toll revenue for the ferry service. If in any year the developer has a shortfall below the minimum, they will be entitled to a modification in subsequent years. Again, the government may determine the length of time to affect any recovery and minimize the impact. It must be stressed that there is a very strong expectation that the link would generate traffic levels higher than the ferry. It is therefore unlikely that the developer would ever see the toll revenues drop below the escalated amounts generated during the last year of ferry operation, thereby requesting an increase in the bridge tolls above the rate of inflation.
(b) & (c) Developers must demonstrate that they have the financial capability to carry out the project. They must finance the project themselves and be prepared to put the entire amount required for the construction of the bridge into a trust account, complemented by an additional level of security satisfactory to the government. Therefore, our purpose is to make sure that the developer has the resources to complete and undertake the project. Nevertheless, should anything happen to the developer that would prevent them from completing the project, the Crown would have access to the remainder of the trust funds and the security package, in order to complete the facility without using additional government funds.
June 1, 1992

(id) The government does not expect major interruptions in the service which the proposed bridge will provide. However, in the unlikely situation of such an event, the government would be required to maintain its obligation for a transportation link between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Should the project proceed, Transport Canada will develop contingency plans which will be in place when the bridge becomes operational.


Ms. Callbeck: Is there a discrepancy between the government's estimated annual subsidy for Marine Atlantic and the figure provided by Marine Atlantic and, if so (a) what are the figures and the discrepancies (6) which of these amounts does the government intend to provide the operator of a fixed link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: (a)	& (b) The $40.5 million amount available for the subsidy is $35 million (1988 constant $) escalated to 1991 dollars, which represents the overall cost to the federal government maintaining the Borden-Tormentine ferry service, projected over the next 35 years. This amount includes capital expenditures, such as the purchase of new vessels, which are not assumed by Marine Atlantic and are not included in their subsidy. Certain adjustments have been factored into this amount which deal with such items as costs of administration by Public Works, compensation to the feny workers and highway improvements. The Marine Atlantic subsidy amount cannot and should not be compared to the $40.5 million (1991 constant $) which is available for the fixed link subsidy.


Ms. Callbeck: With respect to the establishment of a fixed link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, have any policies been developed concerning the developer's environmental management plan and, if so (a) what is the structure under which this plan would be communicated to the public (b) which non-developer parties, if any, would participate in such a structure?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Upon the selection of a bridge design, the successful consortium will be required to develop a comprehensive environmental management plan. This plan will demonstrate how the developer will effectively address the environmental impacts of the project and must be in place to ensure protection of the environment during all phases of development.
The successful developer's plan will be communicated to the public through public information sessions, at which time the plan would be explained in detail. The
Routine Proceedings
developer will then submit the plan to the environmental committee for final review and approval.
The environmental committee includes representatives of Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Public Works Canada and of the three provincial departments of environment. Each member will have the full resources of their respective departments to ensure every aspect of environmental protection and mitigation has been addressed by the developer.


Mr. Fisher: What is the number, by province, of Co-operative Work Education Grants applied for in 1992, how many were awarded to each province and for what dollar amount?


Bernard Valcourt: The number of Co-operative Education applications by province is:
Newfoundland	19	Ontario	59Nova Scotia	4	Manitoba	15Prince Edward Island	1	Saskatchewan	0New Brunswick	17	Alberta	10Quebec	36	British Columbia	16
Applications for funding are still under review. It is expected that this review process will be completed by the end of May 1992.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 228 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 228 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


An hon. members:: Yes.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will have to help the Chair at this point. Either we postpone the fact that No. 228 be answered, as there is no unanimous consent for the question to be made an Order for Return, or I can put the question to the House.

Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I believe that unanimous consent has been denied. Therefore I would be happy to arrange a postponement of the Order for Return.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.
The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)b).


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on bill C-80, a most important bill indeed-and I hope that my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois will be happy with it-as much for children in Quebec as for those throughout Canada. You will understand that Bill C-80 is intended to make all federal transfer payments for children across the country simpler and much, much fairer.
I think that any legislation that undertakes to simplify the handing out of money and simplify the taxation system should be passed as quickly as possible. Full child benefits will hopefully be adopted so that all children can benefit from them as soon as possible.
For some years now, the Government of Canada has been paying special attention to supporting children, making it in fact an ongoing priority. Remember when, in December, the right hon. Prime Minister looked into the United Nations convention which, as a matter of fact, dealt with the rights of the child and which he signed on behalf of Canada.
There is also the Brighter Futures program which, again, is aimed specifically at ensuring a brighter future for the children of Canada and for Canada.
Simplifying the tax system has been a priority for the Conservative government since 1984. When we consider the present system of child benefits and we look at Bill C-80, we realize that today, there are three different ways in which Canadian families receive payments for their dependent children. We all know family allowances, which have been around for 40 or 50 years. We are also familiar with the refundable tax credit and the child credit. These three programs allocate sums of money to families, for their children, at different periods throughout the year.
For many Canadian families this is a complex system. Do I get a cheque in January, March or June? How much will it be? Why am I or am I not eligible? Do I get half the maximum amount, three quarters or nothing at all? So this makes it a complex system, in addition to the other benefits families are entitled to: the goods and services tax credit, the child care expense deduction, parental or maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, as well as benefits funded by the federal government and delivered by the provinces.
There are seven or eight different programs to which all Canadian families are entitled. The purpose of Bill C-80 is to get rid of three of these programs and give more money through a single program. We are going to give more money. Over a five-year period, we are talking about an additional $2 billion or more. Consider the three programs that will be eliminated. Family allowances provide $35 per month; the annual credit, $71; the refundable credit, $601 annually; and, depending on the family's economic situation, an additional $213.
June 1, 1992

In future, there will no longer be three periods. There will no longer be three kinds of payments, and family income will replace individual income as the basis for calculating the benefit, to make the system fairer and more equitable. In one family, one spouse may have a fairly high income, while the other spouse may earn less; in another family, both spouses may be earning the same amount. This means that two families with the same total income do not necessarily receive the same amount in family allowances, child credit and refundable child tax credit.
Based on the family's income, the new system will be much fairer and far more equitable. Finally, since payments will be received regularly, low-income families will not be tempted to seek out discounters who often charged outrageous rates to advance the tax credits these families were to receive. By simplifying the system, we are giving families more money, as recommended by various groups in this country.
What does Bill C-80 provide? It provides $1,020 per child and per year, plus $213, if parents or spouses did not claim child care expenses, plus another $75, starting with the third child. This means that low-income families will receive $1,733 for the first child and $1,233 for each subsequent child. Clearly, this makes a big difference for low-income families. However, families with an income of more than $67,000 will receive no child benefits at all. I think it is only fair that high income families should not receive money from the federal government, since they are financially capable of raising their children.
We start at around $26,000. For a net income above $26,000-and I stress, a net income-the tax credit is gradually reduced to zero when the family income reaches $67,000. For a family income below $50,000 per year, the average increase-I say average-will be $250 per child, per year.
Bill C-80 is quite simple and represents an improvement over the current three programs. It provides for fiscal equity and fairness as well as adjustments for inflation. Eighty per cent of the increase resulting from this program will go to families with an income below $40,000.
It is worth stressing the reasons for passing this legislation without undue delays. I repeat, this legislation makes the Canadian fiscal system fairer, since it really
Government Orders
targets low income families who need help raising their children. What is taken into consideration is the family income, not individual income.
It is also a system with more flexibility, and easier to administer, since Canadian families will not have to fill any forms. Calculations will be made automatically by the federal government, based on family income for the year 1991. We want the system in place by January 1, 1993. This means that on January 1, 1993, eligible families, the low income families, will receive a cheque based on their income tax returns for 1991, without having to fill out any kind of form and without having to apply for anything. The amount will be revised after six months, that is to say starting July 1, 1993.
To conclude, I think it is a big step forward for the Government of Canada, already judged number one by the UN, for what it did and continues to do for children and youth. I think we should congratulate the Prime Minister for his leadership in this regard, and for the record of his government over the last eight years. We did our best to simplify the fiscal system and make sure that it benefited low income families while leaving the higher income families to provide for their own children.
Therefore, I urge all members to let this bill pass without undue delays.


REFERENDUM ACT
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions with the representatives of the two opposition parties in respect of the following motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 53(1) I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums
on the Constitution of Canada, this House be permitted to waive the
48-hour notice required for the beginning of report stage.
Just by way of explanation, I would like to indicate that the matter of some urgency has to do with the fact that in order to be possible to hold a referendum or plebiscite it requires about three months of preparation time by the chief electoral officer. There is some urgency in getting this through.

Government Orders
There was great co-operation from hon. members last week. The committee met Monday and Tbesday for long hours and indeed Friday, Monday and Tuesday to get the legislation through committee. Hence, but for the fact that the House was adjourned the report would have been tabled and there would have been lots of notice. I do not think there can be any surprises in this instance. It really is a matter of some urgency that we have it on the table, and as I have indicated the two opposition parties have approved.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. There is a one-hour debate with a maximum of 10 minutes for any member who wishes to intervene.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, once again this government just used an extraordinary procedure, with the blatant complicity of the other two parties in this House, in order to impose closure to parliamentarians.
We just saw a minister of the Crown come before the House and tell its members that the government does not even want to follow the normal rules, the standards rules of debate in this House, but wants to bypass those rules and eliminate the time allowed to members to familiarize themselves with amendments and prepare for debate. This government wants again to put the kibosh on the democratic right of this Parliament to examine properly and with total freedom the referendum bill.
Madam Speaker, you know as well as I that this referendum bill is the most illegitimate and anti-democratic legislation ever seen in the Parliament of a British regime. You know that this bill violates all the democratic rules, that the democratic values that have been so precious to Quebecers, for instance in the 1980s, are going to be violated by this legislation. This Parliament that claims to be a democratic institution now enables the government to steamroll a piece of legislation on the back of Quebec. Indeed, this referendum bill only has one enemy: Quebec. Consequently, we are now witnessing before a House that is certainly not full an outright
violation of the prerogative and the freedom of Parliament to decide but also to debate. I know that the minister talks about the urgency of the matter. How come the minister says that it is urgent to pass the referendum act while his colleague, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs is quite willing to postpone the process for several days? How come the government now wants to ignore the issue of Quebec at the constitutional table and impose an illegitimate and anti-democratic bill that is unworthy of this institution? I am convinced, and you only have to look at the precedents in Great Britain and at the National Assembly in Quebec, that never before has a government had the nerve to table such an antidemocratic piece of legislation. That is why, and I want the members of the government to know that, every time you act in that way you undermine the credibility of the process that you want to undertake. No Quebecer will feel bound by your illegitimate legislation. You can show whatever results you want. You can spend all the millions that you want, but none of us will feel bound by the results of a defective, unworthy and implausible piece of legislation.
When I see the leader of the government show up casually with the complicity of the Liberals and the New Democrats-the word Democrat should be withdrawn- there is no shame-


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I notice that there are not 20 members in this House. A quorum is not present.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have a quorum call.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since we have a quorum, we shall resume debate. The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I thank you for filling up this place. I just wanted to say that Quebec is being bullied into accepting this most shameful bill. One day, each and every hon. member in this House will bitterly regret this debate and this bill on referendums.
June 1, 1992

This bill has been exposed throughout the country. It would not live up to the principles of the most ancient democracies. It looks like a bill passed by a banana republic. I hope hon. members will be ashamed, I hope Quebec members will be embarrassed to see that their government now wants to put the gag on debate, to ignore the usual democratic procedures in order to prevent Parliament from adequately studying and vigorously debating such an important bill.
I do not have to remind you that this bill will never pass the test with regards to justice and fairness. I do not have to remind you that this government is simply misusing Parliament, and there is a price which will have to be paid not only by the Conservatives, but also by their accomplices, the Liberals and the New Democrats, all of whom are joining forces to play a dirty trick on Quebec.
Thank God the Bloc Quebecois is here to expose such a disgraceful tactic. I hope some other members from Quebec will rise, all those who oppose a federal referendum which would be shameful and unfair.
This motion should never have found its way before Parliament. It violates the most fundamental rules of democracy. Consequently, I do hope we will not be the only ones to oppose the motion. We may have different views on the content, on the options available, on a society model, but we have one thing in common: the development of equal and fair democratic rules. Nothing in this bill deals with justice and fairness; the casualness shown by the government is a good example.
We have seen the leader of the government in the House of Commons come up suddenly with this motion, interrupting one of his colleagues to put a gag on debate.
The Parliament and the small club of old parties which can play all their little games here, but it is in the field that we will find the truth and settle their score. The price to pay for this violation of democracy and justice is enormous.
Government Orders
The marks of conscription haunted this Parliament for many years. The memories of that debate are nothing compared to what awaits members who are accomplices to such an arrogant and undemocratic action. Therefore, during the next few minutes, I dare hope that other Quebecers, at least the democratic ones, will find out that a crime against history is being committed here.
It is obvious that this motion should not be passed, that we cannot accept the way the government wants to steamroller it through. If federalists in this House are so self-confident, why are they scared of the debate? Why are they scared of the usual rules? What do they want to hide? What do they want to avoid?
It is obvious that what we are seeing here is a shady deal, a political operation with a single goal: to save the skin of the Prime Minister of Canada at all costs-


An hon. member:: Even if it means to trample on Quebec.


Jean-C. Lapierre: -at all costs and to trample on Quebec with the federal steamroller.
That is what the government tried to do to us on a Monday afternoon. It will be a black Monday in the history of this Parliament and I hope that this government realizes the extent of its action. I hope that my Liberal friends who I thought were democratic-I see the hon. member for Saint-Denis and I am sure he will oppose Parliament preventing debate on the referendum bill, because he too knows that this referendum will not be valid if it is-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The ten-minute period is now over.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member with great interest. In my caucus, we had a lot of discussions about this issue.

With the background that I have it did not take a long discussion to understand how we would vote on this motion. We have heard a lot of speeches, and we are going to hear more on this motion.

Government Orders
I am going to make a short speech. We are going to go for the motion. We think it is right. We think it is proper.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, the rhetoric of our colleagues from the Bloc notwithstanding, I really do not have much difficulty with this motion. It is asking the House to waive the normal 48 hours that are required for the beginning of report stage. It is not cutting back or reneging in any way on the ability to debate the issue of this motion.
Standing Order 53(1) states very simply that:
In relation to any matter that the government considers to be of an urgent nature, a Minister of the Crown may, at any time when the Speaker is in the Chair, propose a motion to suspend any Standing or other Order of this House relating to the need for notice and to the hours and days of sitting.
My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party have supported in principle the provisions of the enabling legislation for a non-binding referendum. This is an issue which is of an urgent nature. This is an issue which is of grave national concern.
Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I want to say that we feel that, although we have some concerns about the details of the legislation, fundamentally the people of this country should be allowed to be heard in helping to determine the future of this land.
Although we have some specific problems with the bill, we have no concern about bringing that bill at this time back from report stage to debate some of the amendments, some of the recommendations and some of the proposed changes, hopefully to strengthen the legislation and to provide an opportunity for the people of Canada to have a voice in determining the future of this land.
We will be supporting this notice of motion by the government.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Shefford earlier today. I cannot figure out where he is coming from.
In my first year in this city back in 1980,1 worked with the member for Shefford. At that time, he worked almost night and day seven days a week campaigning for Canada. He at that time was a very effective member in making sure that those of us who wanted to keep this
country together had all of his energy and all of his support.
I also remember in 1984 when he was the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport in this country. He travelled the country speaking on behalf of not just Quebec, but every region of this country. This was, of course, an Olympic year when he was very proud to speak about the athletes and the people who represented us in this country.
Today I listened to his speech and where he talked about a bill that is being put before this House, if I understood him correctly, he said that this bill was going to "skin" Quebec, this was going to be the rape of Quebec.
This is something that many of us have a tough time figuring out when we hear the Bloc Quebecois coming out with words like this. There are a lot of people in the province of Quebec who still believe in Canada.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Where are they today?


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am talking about the people of Quebec. There are a lot of federalists in the province of Quebec. It seems to me that when you talk about frustrating a referendum process, you almost insult the intelligence not only of the federalists but of all Quebecers.
It seems to me that your opposing this referendum process is sort of contradictory to what you have basically been proposing in this House since you have decided to become a separatist. Quite frankly, a lot of my constituents in Toronto have a difficult time with this Bloc Quebecois operation.


Jean-C. Lapierre: They have not seen anything yet.


Dennis Joseph Mills: We were elected to come to this Chamber. I do not just try to speak here for Toronto or for Ontario. I try to speak and try to make sure that we work on legislation that is for all regions of the country.
Why you want to work at dismantling this country is really beyond most Canadians' imagination. Why do you want to sort of systematically, like this morning, try to devise ways of frustrating this Parliament when there is so much economic pain out there and the pain in the economy is as important to the people of Quebec as it is to the people of Newfoundland, Toronto or wherever in this country?
June 1, 1992

The government has the right to put forward this 48-hour motion today. We in the Liberal Party have supported this. This is not a surprise attack.
I would ask the member to think back as to how and who elected him to the Parliament of Canada. They elected him when he first came here to speak for Canada, to speak for Quebec in Canada and he fought for Quebec in Canada for many years. All of a sudden he has become a turncoat. Why he has done this is beyond my imagination, but as far as I am concerned this is counterproductive and it is going nowhere.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I want to just add a few words under this rule 53(1). The rule was put in the Standing Orders for certain special reasons. Certainly if you are talking about the fate of the country and/or Constitution and referendum, and I cannot think of a much more important issue-and I think it is the first time it has been used under the Standing Orders-if there ever was a reason to use it, it is certainly when the state of the country and/or the Constitution is at play.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. Without getting into a dog fight with other members individually here, I thought he made very good points. As he spoke I looked in the index. Of course as the hon. member for Shefford knows, he is still in the index as the Honourable Jean Lapierre. Perhaps he would like to correct the index at some time to eliminate the honourable which means that he was a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council.
On this issue, no one has been caught by surprise. There has been constitutional discussion ad nauseam. The country is absolutely fed up with the fact that we cannot seem to resolve something that is fundamental to every Canadian. Even though it does not excite every Canadian from day to day, it is fundamental. So it is time to come to grips with it.
I firmly believe that we should have this referendum legislation as a tool for the government to use in its way. I agree with the NDP. There are parts of the bill that personally I have some problems with. I may try to move an amendment or so if they are in order. I know this rule certainly speeds up the necessity to get your amendments before the table before time runs out. If there was ever a reason to use this, this is a reason where the national issue of the country is at stake.
Government Orders
When I stop to think of what the hon. minister of intergovernmental affairs has tried to do over months of constitutional discussions and then to read in the papers that the deadlock is on a dead Senate which should not even exist as far as I am concerned, an appointed body is an anachronism of history, to think that in effect that should be the stumbling block is something that I just cannot rationalize. I believe, when the time is proper, after consultations are over and after the first ministers and/or the phones are busy this week, and/or/if the negotiations continue on June 9, that the government should get the referendum bill in place. I would like to know if Canadians even want the Senate regardless of what state of reform. If you are going to reform it then okay, we get into all the arguments that everyone has written books about since I went to high school and certainly since I wrote my first political science paper on the Senate way back in 1950. There has not been a new thing said about Senate reform since then and even years before.
I think the fundamental question is, even in Alberta, to see if the public wants the Senate by putting it directly to the people. The leaders have had their chance to try to resolve the issues. In effect the political elite have been locked in rooms for days and weeks as the conferences have gone across the country from sea to sea and, as they have gone from sea to sea, they still have not come up with the consensus.
I say let us trust the people and put it to the people. This referendum bill allows separate amendments. I did not like that in the bill initially and frankly had some suspicions, but maybe the wisdom of some of the government advisers is obviously a lot better than mine. It may be that if we get this bill in place we could use it individually in different areas. Certainly there is one for the Senate.
I am going to conclude, having had a chance to speak on this motion. I may have more difficulty speaking in a tightly confined debate on the bill when we launch into it, I gather, tomorrow.
This will not be received with great favour and it may be misinterpreted in many parts I suppose, but I believe this whole question of inherent right of self-government of the aboriginals with the implication of a third level of government, federal, provincial, and aboriginal, is something the people should have a chance to decide, including the aboriginals of course, before we lock ourselves into a system that will be paralysed from A to Z.

Government Orders
Let us get on with the referendum bill. Let us try to resolve things by consultation, but I am afraid the consultations have produced so little. I quite understand some of the empathy of the Bloc Quebecois although obviously, I do not share its objectives. I do not think there is going to be the fundamental offer that is necessary from consultations.
Even in Quebec, it would be interesting to see what they think about the Senate. Certainly Quebec has a very real interest in the question of the aboriginals. We have already seen what the Cree in a united way have been able to do to affect certain parts of Quebec. Both of those questions should be put to the people where the political leaders have not been able to resolve them.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker- [Translation]


Louis Plamondon: It is to remind you, Madam Speaker, that I have been sitting here since 10 o'clock this morning and that I have asked the right to speak before the four previous speakers, two of whom were not-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu should appreciate the fact that whereas members from all sides of this House want to speak on this motion, as of now one member of his group has already had the opportunity to speak, as well as one other independent member. I think it is perfectly normal that members from other parties have the opportunity to express themselves, and he should leave it to the incumbent of the Chair to recognize the members for debate, that being its job. The hon. member for Churchill has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I voted against the government's bill in second reading because I feel it is a flawed piece of legislation.
I looked at it in terms of some of the major concerns that I have. I believe that the government made no attempt to resolve the issues that I have. I look at this legislation and believe that it does not provide for a fair referendum and I will go into that in a few minutes.
Having said that, I have no problem with the debate starting tomorrow. I think that the earlier we get into this debate, the more we discuss it, the more the public is aware of what is actually in the legislation, the better it is for all Canadians.
I believe that as Canadians see the legislation and hear the debate on the legislation they too will be concerned about that legislation.
I have had the opportunity, as have other members of this House, to read the report from the committee, to see the bill as it is reported. I have had the opportunity to prepare my amendments as are required under the rules of the House. Other members who may have concerns with that bill have had the same opportunity. Having said that, I have no problem with the motion to waive the 48-hour notice period for that.
As I did indicate earlier, the bill itself is not just a piece of legislation that enables a referendum. Unfortunately, it basically establishes a Conservative agenda for how elections should be run in this country.
It gets rid of any real spending limits. It allows outside interests with the biggest dollar to have the biggest bang.
In other words, if you take a look at this legislation and compare it with the normal election laws of this country, you see it is not the same. However if you take a look at this legislation and see how things are run south of the border in the United States, you see that what we are doing is Americanizing the electoral laws of this country.
We know there are no effective limits on spending in the United States. We see what has happened to then-democracy as a result of that, where less than 50 per cent of the people vote for the election of the most powerful person on our globe, the President of the United States, where large amounts of money must be raised by each and every member of the House of Representatives. What has happened over the years is that people running for Congress actually have full-time staff paid for by Congress who go out and fund raise. That is what has happened to the American system.
June 1, 1992

A lot of us, as I said earlier, could support a fair referendum bill. I have to ask if aboriginal Canadians have concerns about this legislation, where are they going to find the dollars to go out and spend the $10 million that would be allowed under this legislation? If the women of Canada have concerns, where are they going to raise that money? They do not control the boardrooms of our nation yet.
What we have here is a piece of legislation which is not looking at fairness. It is not looking at how we should best bring this country together. What we have here is a way that people will feel they have been bought during the election campaign.
There are absolutely no limits on paid advertising, but who has the money to buy that? Not most individual Canadians. Not the homeless. Not the poor. Not the people who will be concerned on an individual basis. It will be the corporate elite of this land. Someone once said: "Well, that won't happen in this country. That would never happen in Canada." Take a look at the 1988 federal election. We know that those who supported free trade through their corporate organizations spent millions of dollars on that one issue.
We have no guarantees that we will not find a situation where all the money is spent on one side, and where a lot of that money will have nothing to do with the referendum, where a lot of that money will be spent not on the referendum or the Constitution but a lot of that money will be spent basically trying to pump up the fortunes of the Conservative Party of this country.
In other words, what we will have is a number of those corporations and organizations spending money not to defend the future of Canada but to do all they can to ensure the re-election of the Conservative Party as the government of this country. That is my concern.


An hon. member:: Why would you vote for that? Why do you agree then?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the Bloc members know I voted against the legislation.
Government Orders
I have said I will fight it in this House and I have already written my referendum amendments as to why I want this changed. We want that debate in this House. At the end of that debate all members in this House will decide how they will vote. But as I have said, Canadians have to look at this legislation. Many of us want Canadians to have a say. That is why our leader has argued for constituent assemblies. We want our people to have a say in the future of this country.
But the legislation that is in front of this House is flawed. It sets up an unfair system and many Canadians will become much more cynical as a result of this legislation.


M. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I understand there have been consultations. I simply want to rise and say a few words. To make things perfectly clear for my friends from the Bloc Quebecois and from the party, I will reaffirm in this House what I have been saying all along and will always maintain: I speak as a French Canadian and I am proud to be a Quebecer and, as far as I am concerned, there is no contradiction in that. Aside from the consultations issue, I regret to see the House leader avail himself of this suspension rule to save a miserable 24 hours at the risk of poisoning the debate, while the wiser choice would be to apply one of the inscriptions carved in wood, above the Speaker's Chair in the Senate. I will read it in Latin and table the text to make sure it is understood in all three languages I will be using, namely Latin, because it was originally said in Latin, then in French, and you can go and look up how it translates into English. "Nihil ordinatum est quod praecipitatur et properat" said Seneca.


Louis Plamondon: There you go.


Mr. Prud'homme:: No horsing around, please! You did not understand a thing, but you will in a moment. I do not want to take sides for or against the Bloc Quebecois because this is a serious matter. If someone tries to make light of it, I will refrain from getting involved. This phrase means "nothing is well ordered that is hasty and

June 1, 1992
Government Orders
precipitate". If a vote is taken, I will vote against this Standing Order 53 that was just resorted to. I want to make myself clear; my vote is not dictated by the Bloc Quebecois. I can make up my own mind, thank you. I believe this is a debate that promises to be very difficult and could be potentially divisive-

-to this country. When I say I am a Canadian, I say I am a Canadien frangais and very proud to be a Quebecer. I hope this is well understood in this land of ours. I cannot give my consent to such a precipitous motion just to save a miserable 24 hours and risk poisoning the debate.
I assure you, I shall participate. We just completed the very complicated bill. I just received another bill which says "Confidential, Special Joint Committee on Conflict of Interest". We just received it and we are supposed to look into these documents tomorrow.
I am a serious member. I like to consult. I like to learn what I am doing here and exchange ideas. Therefore I am not ashamed. It is going to be difficult to get up now and say I disagree. I do not know what took place, therefore, I am allowed to say that I disagree.

I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that I am sorry. If the Bloc Quebecois called on the hon. member for Saint-Denis, my answer is: I am a French Canadian and a Quebecer and I will do everything I can in the interest of my own people. Everybody is talking about their people. Well, I will do my best to preserve the honour of my people.
In that sense, I cannot expect the Bloc Quebecois to say, when they rise again in this debate, as I hope they will. "Do like Prud'homme." Let every member take their responsibilities and let very speech be stamped with dignity and serious-mindedness, because this is a serious matter. I cannot understand.

I cannot understand people who do not understand the kind of country we live in. I am probably showing it to you now in the other official language that we could be different and remain Canadians.

I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that when you call in the members for the vote, I will vote against proceeding to a vote on this motion now.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I have listened with care to the interventions in this one-hour debate on the motion of the hon. government House leader concerning the use of Standing Order 53(1) in bringing forward the debate on Bill C-81. I should stress for the benefit of those who may have just caught up with the debate that this motion does nothing more than bring forward the debate on Bill C-81, which is a bill to establish the option of using a Canada-wide referendum in our nation.
It has been suggested by my friend from Shefford that this is a guillotine. It is absolutely nothing of the sort. He should welcome it because it is an opportunity to have the debate 24 hours earlier than would have normally been the case.
The legislative committee on Bill C-81, met on Friday, Monday and Tuesday of last week. This committee heard witnesses, heard the minister and spent a 14-hour day doing a detailed clause by clause study. I should point out that the government accepted a number of amendments that had been proposed by the opposition and embraced some of them to make a better bill out of what was originally introduced.
Our friend from Shefford says that this is a bastard, illegitimate law and is undemocratic legislation. His friend Rene Levesque would be spinning in his grave if he heard those words because Rene Levesque, that distinguished Quebec separatist, was above all a profound democrat. This is an opportunity-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I will not have the members tarnish Rene Levesque's memory with such a shameful bill. They should-


An hon. member:: You are the one who is tarnishing his
name.

June 1, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows this is not a point of order, but ideas being debated.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Obviously the Bloc has no willingness to listen to points made in debate. It resorts to emotion and rhetoric rather than listening to debate. The point I was simply making was that Rene Levesque, a man with whose views I profoundly disagreed on many subjects, was a democrat and this is democratic legislation. It provides to the people of Canada the opportunity to pronounce themselves on changes to their Constitution.
Our friend from Shefford suggested that we were afraid of debate and as a result introduced this motion. The contrary is the case. This debate has been brought forward in order to provide an opportunity for members of Parliament such as himself to participate in it.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You brought closure on second reading.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: This is not a closure motion. Check your rule books. The member has been here much longer than I have and he says this is a closure motion. It is absolutely nothing of the sort.


An hon. member:: What is coming? What is your next move?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: My friends from Broadview-Greenwood and Annapolis Valley-Hants contributed very skilfully and constructively to this debate, as did my friend from Okanagan-Shuswap. However I found myself somewhat saddened by the intervention of my friend from Churchill who suggested that this was not a fair bill.
However, I do appreciate his point that he has no difficulty in proceeding tomorrow with the debate. It is appropriate to proceed with the debate but I must take issue with two other points he endeavoured to make.
My hon. friend said, and I believe it is an accurate quote, that: "People will feel they were bought". The Canadian people are too intelligent to be bought by anything. The Canadian people are well-informed, well-
Govemment Orders
educated and are well able to make up their own minds about the issues before us.
The other point he makes, which I find somewhat absurd, is that this bill is designed to pump up the fortunes of the Conservative Party. I believe that is also a direct quotation. That statement comes from a member of a party that only three weeks ago was calling for a general election. I wonder why the change.
My hon. friend from Saint-Denis, whom I respect immensely and have great affection for, has made a point that is perhaps based on miscommunication. It concerns his suggestion that there was no discussion beforehand on this issue.


George Albert Proud: I did not say that.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Then I misunderstood, and I withdraw that.
There was discussion among the parties as to when it would be appropriate to bring this debate forward. There was agreement it would be appropriate to have the bill reported tomorrow. That is what we are debating at this time.
There is absolutely no thought of hastening the debate itself once the debate begins other than with the co-operation of members of this House. If the House favours that kind of co-operation then of course there would be haste. On the other hand, the point is-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I know the member just made an important comment by saying the debate will not be rushed and that it will not be restricted. Could he make the same statement in the form of a motion, or could we at least take note of it, so that the member remembers the formal commitment he just made in front of this House?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is well aware of our rules and he knows this is not a point of order. We will now hear the hon. parliamentary secretary.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your ruling but I will respond to the hon. member's point nonetheless.

Government Orders
He is seeking an undertaking from the government that there will not be undue haste in the debate of the bill. I will stand by what I have just said. If it is the will of the House that there be thorough debate there will be thorough debate. If it is not the will of the House then there will be a more compressed debate.
This is a vital issue to the future of our country. I can understand the panic by the Bloc Quebecois because it sees something happening out there, particularly in Quebec itself, which is sober second thought, the slogan of our own Senate.
There is sober second thought taking place in Quebec and throughout Canada as Canadians come alive to the questions that are before us. They look at the rosy prospect, the positive challenge that is put to us by a renewed and revitalized Canada.
In conclusion, I would say that the purpose of the motion put by my colleague, the government House leader, is to give us the opportunity to get to the report stage debate and ultimately third reading of Bill C-81, an act which would provide for the opportunity to consult the people of Canada on their future Constitution.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, first I would like to express my agreement with the comments of the Liberal member for Saint-Denis. There is at least one member of that party who had the guts, who dared to say how much this is undemocratic. We are not debating a motion, we are debating the very survival of democracy in this House. Historically, the British parliamentaiy system never allowed such abuse, such a bill on referendums as that announced in the Speech from the Throne. There was time enough to table it, we would have had ample time to debate it. No. We had to hide because we were afraid. Now we table the bill in a terrible rush, we allow almost no time for debate and not only that, we send it to the committee with restrictions. The period for tabling is limited to one day. The committee also had to work within certain limits. At the veiy moment when we must prepare ourselves and respect a deadline, and it is particularly difficult for the Bloc Quebecois to prepare for a quality debate because we have no researchers helping us, they once again try to gag us. This is a hold-up on democracy, in which Conservative are accomplices; they are Cains selling pottage of lentils to their brother. That is how bad
it is. The Conservatives have become collaborators, just like the Nazis were, or like we saw in France during the Second World War. They have become collaborators.
Madam Deputy Speaker Order, please.
The hon. member for Richelieu is making very serious accusations. I would ask him to immediately withdraw-


Louis Plamondon: Which words, Madam Speaker?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think it is totally unacceptable to call members of this House Nazis, and I would ask the hon. member to immediately withdraw his words.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, my comments were not directed towards-and if that is how they were construed, I am sorry, I did not mean that to happen. All I said was that, under the Nazi regime-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will withdraw his comments immediately.


Louis Plamondon: Let me finish, Madam Speaker. I withdraw them, all right. All I said was that the behaviour of Conservative members-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Please, I want the hon. member to unequivocally withdraw his comments now.


Louis Plamondon: In that case, Madam Speaker, consider the word withdrawn. The whole thing is over. Let us not talk about it anymore.
I say that the members-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Will you withdraw your comments, please.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, for the third time I withdraw the word you wanted me to withdraw, the word "Nazi". Is that clear? It is withdrawn, let's forget about it. What I am saying is that the collaboration given by Quebec Conservative members in support for such a gag is unacceptable and is strangely reminiscent of the attitude of some collaborators during the last war. That is what I meant.
It is intolerable that democracy be ridiculed in such a manner. We behave like a banana republic. We have never seen, in any western democracy, such abuse of power, especially when we are talking about a bill without any spending limits, about an attempt to buy people's votes. There will not be any debate, just a
June 1, 1992

squandering of public money. Not from the nation's treasury, since there is nothing left in the till, but borrowed by the government. We are going to spend $200 million, $300 million, you name it, on the back of Quebecers, to buy their votes, and Conservative Quebec members stay silent.
The referendum in Quebec was mentioned earlier. It was used as an example the world over. In England, when they had a referendum to decide whether or not they should join the Common Market, they upheld the long British parliamentary tradition of democracy, when we are turning this debate into a sad joke.
It is intolerable that democracy be ridiculed like this. No "yes" side, no "no" side, unlimited spending, unlimited number of committees. On top of that, 39 departments will be wasting public money, with the Prime Minister in front, followed by an Official Opposition leader without support, and a party which calls itself democratic but goes along with such a thing. It is unacceptable, Madam Speaker, unacceptable.
I wonder how they manage to stay seated in this House, these silenced Quebec members, gagged by their own party. Judas, traitors to their nation. Unacceptable! It is unacceptable that such things should happen in this House, that we should, on top of limiting debate on the motion, already prepare a motion for closure at second reading, without allowing proper time to probe the core of the question, like we usually do during any regular debate on a given subject.
This morning, as well as the Friday before the adjournment, members were shocked by our interventions on Bill C-59, another bill the government wanted to pass in a hurry. All three parties are just drivelling away. There is no more opposition, only three parties conniving to hold up democracy and to spend millions of tax money to buy votes rather than have a real democratic debate with a "yes" side and a "no" side, with spending limits and start up funds, like any decent referendum.


An hon. member:: It is because they have nothing on the table, it is because they have nothing.
Government Orders


Louis Plamondon: You have nothing to offer, so you buy. A $450 billion deficit, it is not enough, let us waste another half a billion in unnecessary TV advertising to promote this great and beautifully divided country. Let us not stop there.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am having a little difficulty with this member's accusations. He has made some accusations in the last few minutes that those of us in this House of Commons who are trying to speak for Canada, who are trying to keep this country together, are traitors.
I think this is a valid point of order. It seems to me that when this room is dedicated to Canada and someone in it is trying to tear it apart that the real traitor is that group, not those of us who are trying to keep it together.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The danger in this type of debate, be it from the hon. member for Richelieu or the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, is very scary and very apparent. If members of this House, depending on their different ideologies, start calling one another traitors to whatever ideology, we are getting into a very-


Dennis Joseph Mills: That is the term he used.
Madam Deputy Speaker The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is saying that this is the term that the hon. member for Richelieu used. While listening to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood I am sure that when he reads the blues he will see that he was, in a way, certainly returning the term. This is very ugly and this House should refrain from using this type of language, and that includes each and every single member of this House.
There are two and a half minutes left.

I would ask the hon. member for Richelieu to please stick to parliamentary language. The hon. member has the floor.

Government Orders


Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to tell the colleague who spoke before me that I was addressing my remarks to the Conservative members from Quebec, not to the-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should know that his words are no more acceptable whether he addresses members from Ontario or Conservative members from Quebec. I would ask him to restrict himself to parliamentary language.


Louis Plamondon: To have parliamentary language first we should have a parliamentary democracy, you are quite right about that, Madam Speaker. In a parliamentary democracy, you have debates, you do not have gagging, you do not have debates which are always interrupted.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is himself jeopardizing democracy at this very moment in this very Chamber. The hon. member would like us to believe that the motion-
Order, please. The hon. member would like us to believe that the motion now before the House is going to limit the possibility to have a debate for everybody; that is not the case and the hon. member knows it perfectly well. I would prefer that we continue to debate this motion during the minute and a half that we have left and that we do it properly. It is not democracy which is at stake in this House for now.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Since when is the Chair defending the government's decison as if she were the government House leader's assistant?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not think I defended anybody's opinion. If the hon. member would just listen for a minute, I only wanted the House to know exactly what Standing Order 53.(1) does. It was only a matter of information, just that since, as I was listening to the remarks by the member for Richelieu, I realized that he obviously did not understand where Standing Order 53 was taking us.	.
Unfortunately, time has now run out.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Louis Plamondon: You told me that there were two and half minutes left but you used them up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for in the Standing Orders has now expired. If the hon. member
reads Standing Order 53(1), he will see that this is precisely what this section says.
It being 4.40 p.m., the hour provided for the motion now before the House has expired, pursuant to Standing Order 53(3). Accordingly, under this Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put the question on that motion.

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And less than ten members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since fewer than 10 members rose to oppose the motion, the motion is adopted pursuant to Standing Order 53(4).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I noticed that a quorum was not present when you made the decision. Therefore, the decision is not valid.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I believe that there were indeed 20 members present in the House. In any case, since the point of order was not raised before, the question was put to the House and 10 members did not rise to oppose the motion. Therefore, the motion is carried. Orders of the day.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
David Walker: Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the government's Bill C-80, which is a bill to amend the Income Ihx and in fact do away with family allowances and set out a new pattern of child benefits.
Before dealing specifically with the legislation I would like to take this opportunity to review the way our party is approaching social policy as given to us by this government since 1984.
June 1, 1992

One academic writer has described it as social policy by stealth. I would just like to support that analysis. The way this government has sought to change the major pieces of legislation in this countiy governing social policy has been to do it through the back door, to do it in debates in which the Canadians following Parliament do not understand just how fundamental the changes being made are, as they are not being properly announced.
For example, who would have thought that Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Thx Act, in fact contained major changes in the way we treat children in this country? It was not brought in as a new policy dealing with child benefits. It was not brought in by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for children in this country.
It was brought in by the Minister of Finance as a ways and means motion. It was brought in through the budget as a budgetary motion. It was not presented clearly to Canadians as an act to change the way we deal with children.
We can go back through several pieces of legislation, particularly in the last two years, in which the government has sought to change the fundamental way in which we built up the social security system in this country by moving through the back door.
Let me give three examples. The most famous example, used and perhaps decried by all the social policy committees across this country, was Bill C-69 which was the first act to cut back transfer payments to the provinces. That was a battle in which the groups opposed to these changes, the groups involved with the delivery of medicare services in the provinces, post-secondary education and social services, realized too late in the process, in fact this bill had gone to the Senate, how fundamental the changes were that were occurring to them.
In the second last budget, in 1991, the government presented changes along the same lines and called them very simply Bill C-20 and Bill C-32. These again were considered to be amendments to the fiscal arrangements act and were done in a very quiet way.
This time the government took this not to the social policy committee or the health committee but to the finance committee, which is the last place social policy groups are used to going to find out what changes are being made in dealing with things like medicare, post-secondary education and social assistance measures under
Government Orders
the Canada Assistance Plan. All these measures were done quietly.
However, this time the groups were notified, not by the government or by the House of Commons but by the opposition, this party, to come out and share their views on the impact that Bill C-69 was already having on the system. Day after day, we heard these groups say: "Do you not realize what you are doing to the social fabric of this country? Do you not realize how much you are undermining people's confidence in government to help them?"
That is a very important message when groups-not fringe groups but groups representing doctors, nurses, practitioners of all kinds in the health care system, representing regional governments in this country, major actors responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars- come forward, not to whine as the the government would say but to say to people: "Listen, you have just done enough cutbacks and we need to be protected".
In this budget we see another change. It is dealing with child benefits. I did some research on this, this is not hyperbole. This white paper, entitled The Child Benefit, is the shortest white paper presented in the history of any government in Canada. The total amount of money it was dealing with was $4.5 billion. In 14 short pages the Government of Canada announced its most major changes to the way that we deal with children, $4.5 billion was summarized in graphs and a few cliches in 14 pages.
Since that was introduced in March of this year the government has laid low. It has not produced any subsequent documents. It has not prepared the public for any discussion. It has not announced anywhere that this is going to legislative committee for discussion. It is going to put us on hurry up because it needs these amendments made to the Income Tkx Act soon, if they are going to take effect next year.
We see here not only a push on other fronts, which we find very difficult to deal with these days, but on the most basic of things. If done properly, and if people take the time to think of the consequences dealing with children, we could have a worth-while discussion in committee in this House and across the country. No, this government simply wants to get on with it and make these changes before Canadians wake up and realize what is happening to them.

June 1, 1992
Government Orders
One of the fundamentals of social policy in this country, particularly since the Second World War, is that the Canadian government should seek as many ways as possible to support family life. The number of vehicles available to the government to do that in a federal system are limited.
However, through gradual changes in family law and through changes right after the Second World War in some of the UI provisions, and also through the children's special allowances act and family allowances, we began to develop a system in which the Government of Canada said to each and every family: "We understand that what you are doing is very important for society. We cannot always give you a lot of money but we understand that no matter what your background, who you are, what your husband does, all these other things, we will give you a small amount of money each month to help out".
For some families that is a very real amount, $35 per child still buys a week's worth of groceries and basics, it still buys a few books, it still buys the occasional treat, it still alleviates some of the tensions between men, women and families, and it does not make a statement about income levels. It is very important that in the way in which we create social policies that we do not make statements on class and do not make the assumption that because one income-earner in a family is well-off that everyone else in the family is well-off. There are subtle ways to state that we understand that in your own private lives this small amount of money may be of some help to you.
The government has decided, through the continuation of a social policy by stealth, that the principle of reaching out to each family no longer applies. It will seek to target those families which it thinks need the most.
In some respects the targeting philosophy is very popular in this country. People are wondering in times of tight budgets and high deficits if targeting is not the proper strategy. Any political party worth its salt does not just look at the past policies but looks into the future and seeks to make sure that it is being as responsive as possible.
The underlying fault with so-called targeting is that it lets too many people off the hook. We do not often like to make these comparisons between Canada and the United States, the rhetoric of targeting, the rhetoric of cutbacks, the rhetoric of telling people they must do with less is strictly a part of the ideological thrust of the right in America. The price Americans are paying in their cities and among their youth is far greater than we ever want to pay. That is because the American strategy has always been to claim targeting, rather than the reality of reaching out to too few to be of help.
One test which we would like to apply in examining the child benefits package is to apply the litmus test of the government itself. The government's litmus test is twofold. First, it is there to help the very poorest of families to withstand changes taking place in their lives, and second, those people who are not being helped do not really need the help.
Let us examine the first principle. The very poorest of Canadians either fall under the Indian Act and represent about 400,000 status Indians living on reserves across the country, the largest proportion of those are under 25 years old and a good many of those are under 18, or are covered by the Canadian Assistance Plan and are living on either provincial or municipal social assistance programs. That varies of course from province to province and city to city. It is hard to generalize from here all the characteristics of those systems.
This particular child benefits package deliberately does not speak to the question of those very poor families who are living on social assistance. It is deemed that there are measures in place to look after those people but the reality is that because of the cutbacks, legislated through Bills C-69, C-20 and C-32, the fundamentals of our system for dealing with poor families have been undermined.
If we examine the literature from the social sciences, certainly throughout the 20th century in North America and back to 19th century industrial England, the whole thesis is that to help the poor we need a basket of programs or a combination of programs to support them, not only through cash but in a number of other ways.
In Canada we have taken many different initiatives. However, we will just isolate three or four of them. First, we will deal with housing. This government has continued its cutbacks in social housing and co-operative

housing to the extent that this year CMHC has all but left the field.
Second, we will look at education. The cutbacks to these different programs, to education and training, is dramatic and the access of young people to training is almost nil.
Third is the question of nutrition and health care at a young age. Fundamental to healthy family life is a healthy community and healthy children.
When you undermine those basic principles, when you take away the support structures, and then come in at the end with a little bit of cash it is very deceptive.
One academic made a presentation to us that struck me, and I think will strike me for many years to come. She said that in her professional estimate the amount of money withdrawn from the health care system by measures of this government from 1984 to 1993, the end of the next fiscal year, is going to be as high as $43 billion.
If we examine those measures that I talked about before, at what is happening in medicare as it deals with children, in pre-natal care, what is happening in housing, and what is happening in education, we see that there is an emerging crisis here. When the government makes another announcement dealing with family benefits we must expect that the cash put on the table is somehow going to begin to compensate for what is taken away.
There is a theory among some social scientists, particularly among conservative economists, that the problem with the poor is that they do not have money. Therefore the simple solution is to give them money and the poverty will begin to end.
It is not so simple.
In a community in which roads are run down or property that people rent is not kept up, along with other little things which do not work, the cash presented by the federal government will have minimal impact in creating a healthy community.
As a result of the emergence of CAP and the strategy of this government that the welfare poor should be more subject to provincial assistance than to federal assistance the federal government made the decision that it would not change the benefits to the non-working poor, that is to say those people who do not have income as defined under the Income Tax Act.
Government Orders
That is a brutal blow. In fact it is not clear at this time whether the new benefits package which is paid monthly for the child will be given freely to these individuals without the province taking recourse because it represents such a substantial change in the way that the cash comes in.
If the federal government and the minister of health are seeking to change the way that people receive money the least he can do in negotiating with the provincial ministers of social services is to guarantee that the money he is providing for these people will not be used against them in the determination of provincial levels of social assistance.
Possibly that is difficult for the House to accept, but that question has not yet been publicly answered by any of the ministers across this country.
In terms of the test of helping out the very poorest there is no change in the position of these families. They will not receive any extra moneys.
The second question is whether the cut-off level is realistic. Are people going to begin to receive less money from the federal government at a level at which we sitting here think they can get by with?
As part of its strategy the government, and probably quite appropriately in this case, has been most generous with families earning between $20,000 and $30,000.
I want to stop here and point out one subtle change. Again this is where as an opposition critic I become furious with this government. If it is talking openly with people, how many Canadians realize that now the question no longer concerns individual income but family income?
How many people now realize that in order to obtain benefits under the child benefit process they must be able to show the income of both people?
The government has decided that if the family income is in excess of $30,000 a family should receive minimum assistance under this plan. The calculations, if you follow the child benefit package as presented in this in-depth 14-page report, are very difficult to follow. By most measures the average family with both spouses in the home working will receive an additional $4 a month if its family income is about $30,000. This continues right straight through to $50,000. Then once they get between $50,000 and $100,000 by a sliding scale, people begin to receive less.

June 1, 1992
Government Orders
Let us deal with the middle income families. The average family income in Canada according to Statistics Canada is about $51,000. That means that the government's cut-off point is below the average, which by definition means that the average family is going to receive little or no benefit.
I cannot think of any circumstances under which an extra $4 a month will fundamentally change the relationship between a family and a child. In what ways can a parent substantially change the way a child saves, a child buys clothes or a child is fed with $4 extra a month?
That is as insulting as the 37-cent increase given to seniors on their last senior citizens' cheque. That is the type of sleight of hand or social policy by stealth that this party wishes to challenge on the floor of the House of Commons as being unfair to most Canadians.
The government projects itself as being of great help to children. It has national press conferences. The minister was quick to tell me that he had been out to Winnipeg North Centre and understood and saw the poverty in my constituency.
Families are trying very hard, particularly families of new Canadians with incomes of $30,000 to $35,000 and families with two people working at the minimum wage and working overtime, which are not uncommon. How can we say to them that basically we think they make enough and do not need the help of the government? This is an important part of our society. The government is no longer willing to provide them with any increases that take into account the increased pressure that they are feeling.
As members of Parliament we would have to be deaf and dumb to say that we do not hear constantly from constituencies about how tough it is to make ends meet. Nobody has a nickel to spare.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize. I must interrupt the hon. member.


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to listen to the speech of our colleague, but I would like others to
benefit from it. I realize that we certainly do not have a quorum in this House. It is easy to see.
And the count having been taken:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since we now have a quorum, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


David Walker: Madam Speaker, I am very happy that my colleague did call quorum on my behalf. I need an audience for such an important speech.

I would just like to continue with the analysis of low income families, particularly new Canadians. As I started to note, the message goes out from the government that if they are making $30,000 or $35,000 a year as a couple they can look after their children and do not need its help.
We can take that as a stark contrast with the recognition in Quebec, for example, of how fundamentally important support for children is at the outset and in the continuation. If we want to have a healthy society, we must give out the signal constantly that there is a government that cares. We would not use public relations to overcome the fact that we are not really spending any money.
In fact we on this side of the House could accept a policy framework which stated that due to the bankruptcy of the government all we can do at this time is give an extra $4 a month to people earning $40,000 a year but that as money comes in families are our first priority. That could be accepted.
They should not pretend something different. For example, officials proudly informed members of Parliament in a briefing that most Canadians would be receiving a higher monthly payment under this system than ever before. They failed to add in the concluding statement that most Canadian families would be receiving less annually. That is a diversionary tactic which just goes to the heart of the lack of credibility of the social policy of this government. As such, instead of stepping forward to help children, this government has in fact stepped back in a very dramatic fashion.
June 1, 1992

Let us not only consider what I have to say and what this party has to say. Let us stop and listen to what other people have said.
It is not as if all of a sudden the government, starting in January in preparation for its February budget, heard about child poverty. What happened to the national day care study which set out a very elaborate process for working toward day care? It has disappeared; it is forgotten. What about the Senate committee that worked for months on poverty and came out with several options for the government to consider? It is forgotten. What happened to the subcommittee on child poverty and its report just before Christmas with very specific recommendations dealing, for example, with prenatal care? It is forgotten.
The government has forgotten every major initiative it initiated and for which it sought public support for. It took a very minor step forward yet claimed it was looking after the basic income problems of children. I believe that is the type of disrespect for Canada and Canadians that people have begun to resent.
A number of groups has come forward but I would just like to deal with what one group said in its critique of the new child tax benefit in the 1992 budget. It was prepared by Ken Battle, president of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
We should not only be concerned with what we tried to do in the past through universal programs or with the present and what this government is doing, but we should look into the future. What is social policy for children going to look like in 1997? Let me quote: "Like the current child benefit system the new system will only be partially indexed, which means the benefits will fall steadily in value as the years go by. The federal government has already siphoned off an estimated $3.5 billion out of child care benefits for 1986 through 1991 by the physically powerful and politically invisible mechanisms of partial deindexation".
Ken Battle continues: "For example, a welfare couple with two children, one under seven and one between seven and seventeen, will get $2,253 from the new child tax benefit in 1993. By the year 2000 their benefit will have declined to $1,862, which is $391 or 17 per cent less than in 1993. Their cumulative loss of child benefits will amount to a hefty $1,532".
Government Orders
In other words, they start out with a system which is really tight now. They put in the deindexing provision, and gradually, gradually families find it more difficult. However, they wash their hands of it and say: "That was done many years ago", and they hope people forget about it.
We have reached a point where we should re-establish our commitment to certain fundamental beliefs. The Liberal Party of Canada built up the social policy network we have starting in the 1930s, continuing after World War II and through the 1950s and 1960s, and culminating in income security for seniors and medicare for the nation. This was a longstanding commitment. As a caucus and as a party we have recently reconfirmed these views.
I would like to quote from a recent motion of the Liberal Party: "The Liberals believe that Canada must remain a society committed to both greater economic opportunity and to social justice for all its people, and that to be productive members of the work force individual Canadians must be equipped with the necessary tools for life and work". It continues: "They must be healthy, well nourished, well educated and well trained to achieve their own economic success. We are committed to meeting these goals for Canadians".
If we want this generation, the hundreds of thousands of children and each of the age cohorts, to move in to a more productive life, we have to start with income support to the family which adds up to more than $4 a month. We have to provide pre-natal care. We have to make sure there is day care, particularly in our large cities. There is no reason we have to get ourselves into a comer by plastering the whole country with day care spaces and day care facilities when the need varies from one region to the other, but we have to start. This party has never, ever vacillated on support for national day care.
There are thousands upon thousands of families, particularly in the big cities, right across this country who cannot survive without two people working. They cannot have two people working unless they are sure their children are being looked after. Recent statistics indicate that the number of days women miss work every year is going up because in the end they are the ones responsible for their children. This is what happens when we do not have a proper system.

June 1, 1992
Government Orders
We have to make sure there are summer programs for them. In our city we could not get that because Challenge 92 was too small, an issue that is not discussed here. We have to make sure when we talk about training that it is not just UI based. Aboriginal youth and women returning to the work force for the first time in years must have access to these programs. We have to make sure of these things. We cannot take them for granted.
This program has dropped support from age 18 to age 17. What do students who are going to university do? They want people to be trained. They do not want them to be bankrupt. Yet the bill is totally silent on it. They take a small piece of the pie and try to parade it as being as big as possible.
In the meantime people start getting their cheques and are happy. This government hopes to keep them happy for six months before the election comes. However, the husband and wife will begin to compare what they are really getting out of it. When the major spouse's income, usually the man's, drops dramatically because of changes in the Income Thx Act and another cheque arrives for $200, $300 or $400 a month, people are going to be confused. At first they will think they are ahead. Then they will realize they have been subjected, at their own expense, to one of the biggest con jobs in social policy seen in Europe and in North America for many years to come.
This is the reason we call upon the government to take the initiative in the legislative committee which we are hopefully headed for very shortly. When we reach the legislative committee hopefully it is not only opposition members asking for different witnesses. Government members themselves should take the initiative. There are many questions left unanswered, but they should be put on the table now and the government should be asked to respond to the problem.
For example, let me refer to some of the questions which are unanswered in the legislation. First, is this new money or tinkering with forecasted growth?
The Conservative government's white paper on child benefits states: "Over the next five years the child tax benefit will provide almost $2.1 billion in increased child assistance". However, there is some doubt that this
projected increase is new money but merely the five-year accumulative increase that would have occurred to the existing child benefits system. Preliminary estimates show that between 1986 and 1991 family allowances payments grew by approximately $275 million. For the same five-year period the refundable child tax credit grew by approximately $750 million.
The government should show the committee that the total growth forecast for the three existing child benefits exceeds or is not similar to the one being proposed in the new program.
Second, there is a number of constitutional implications. Both the current deal being discussed through the media and the report of the special joint committee on a renewed Canada contained many ideas on social policy. Is this legislation consistent with what is happening in Alberta and Quebec, or are they issues that need to be resolved before the legislation is passed?
Third, there is the erosion of child benefits. The proposed child benefit is indexed to increases in inflation less 3 per cent. This partial deindexation will cause the benefits to decrease steadily in value as the years go by. It was the process of partial indexation that allowed the Conservative government to take approximately $3.5 billion out of the child benefits system between 1986 and 1991.
How does this government intend to monitor and adjust the levels of benefit and the income threshold so that the value is not eroded over time by inflation?
Finally, we come to the major point of the discussion. At this time in every major city in this country we are facing a crisis, where youth are unemployed at the rate of at least 20 per cent, and where there are pockets of youth unemployment and student unemployment far higher than that. We have people between the ages of 16 and 25 making critical decisions which are destructive because of their lack of opportunity to do things positively. We have students and young people turned away from training programs because of a lack of funding. We have the group which most needs help finding that the national government has run out of cash to help them. You have to stop and think of that, what it means to say that you have run out of cash to help the young people.
June 1, 1992

My argument is that if this government took proper time to consult with Canadians and if it asked them for a priority, income support for children, for families, for youth would be the number one priority.
We take for granted the phenomenal progress we have made in dealing with the elderly in Canada from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s. Between housing programs, an effective medicare system, an effective community health-based system dealing with questions of nutrition, special programs like New Horizons, and basic income support programs, we could quite literally begin to think that we had dealt with the issue of the elderly.
Now we are faced with another social crisis, the strategic underpinnings of which are quite clear. Every child in this country deserves support. Every child in this country deserves an opportunity of a home, the opportunity to be fed, the opportunity to have an education, the opportunity to walk down the street without being faced with a gang, and the opportunity to make a choice of going to university or a community college without being bankrupted. When children sense that the people on top, the generation that has gone before them that has reaped so beautifully from a generous system, and I include myself here, when people like myself say: "No more, there's no money for you because we won't pay the taxes, we won't structure a government, we won't set priorities"-all these reasons-"we can't help you", then I say to you that that will be a sad day in this country. It will mark the beginning of the end of confidence in the government system among the veiy young.
It will start as soon as we begin to pick and choose among the families we want to help. I urge this government to use a legislative committee, not to ram through an amendment to the Income Tax Act of Canada, but to stop and to say: "All right, let's hear from some important groups, let's have the government members bring in some of these groups, let's have the opposition parties bring in some groups. Let's talk about what it costs to bring up a child nowadays; let's talk about what it costs to keep a child off the streets. Let's talk about the cost, and the Solicitor General can tell us about that, to have an aboriginal youth in a western Canadian prison, what it is
Government Orders
costing the Government of Canada to set up aboriginal women's centres across this country because of past
policies".
We say to ourselves: "Is this what we are going to be spending our money on for the next generation or are we going to systematically seek out a different way of doing things?"
As with any policy, does any one party have all the wisdom? The answer is no. The parliamentary system has tried to wrestle with the questions of child poverty for the last five years. We have had reports, we have had expert witnesses, and again and again we have walked away from the recommendations of these people.
This is our last chance. If the final product of this Parliament is going to be known as Bills C-69, C-20, C-32 and C-80 as the so-called building blocks for a new social policy in the country, I think we are going to have exactly the opposite effect.
In fact, we are going to end up with a system which is so demoralized, actualized, bankrupt of ideas and money, it is going to take us another generation to regain the confidence of the young people. I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate and I look forward to a lengthy discussion in legislative committee.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, it is with some resignation that I stand to debate the government's child benefits legislation. We see this at the end of a long line of attacks on Canada's social programs, in particular, attacks on Canada's poor children.
If we look back to November 29, 1989, we will remember this House voted unanimously for the resolution moved by the then leader of the New Democratic Party, that it express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. On that day the Prime Minister, every member of cabinet, and all of the members representing the government voted in favour of that motion to end child poverty by the year 2000.

June 1, 1992
Government Orders
On many occasions in the past the Prime Minister talked about social programs as a sacred trust, as programs which would be enhanced and maintained for all Canadians into the future.
Last December the Prime Minister signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which tied and bound Canada by international agreement to support children in Canada, to maintain them and provide for their needs. In that context, in signing that convention, the Prime Minister committed himself and his government to placing children as the first goal on Canada's resources, the first goal in good times and in bad times.
It may be we are in bad times. I think those millions of Canadians who are on welfare, the over one million Canadians who are unemployed, would agree that we are in bad times. The Prime Minister committed himself to provide for children in good times and in bad times. Now we see the implications of that. Actions quite clearly speak louder than words.
We are discussing today the government's plan to address or respond to the concerns of Canada's poor children. Critics have made it clear that the government is not fulfilling its obligations to Canada's children, to Canada's future. No social groups working in the field support the changes to the legislation, to child benefit programs which this government is proposing. All those organizations working on behalf of poor children, on behalf of the poor, who understand the poor, who live with them and work with them every day loiow there is a need for a major shift in government economic and social policy. This has been clear to the government over many years and the government continues in this same course, this course which has served the interests and concerns of Canada's poor so badly.
Lest we think things are not so bad, let us be clear about the numbers of people that we are dealing with here. Let us ask the question: Is Canada's economy working? It is not working for the over 863,000 children who are welfare recipients; 37.8 per cent of all welfare recipients are children.
It is not working for the 2.3 million welfare recipients in Canada, the 1.3 million unemployed in Canada, and it is not working for the over one million children in poverty in Canada. This economy, this country, is not working for millions and millions of Canadians.
Lest we think much is to be achieved by this child benefit proposal by the government, let us look at some of the things that have been said about it by analysts who are not tied to the government, nor tied to any other political party.
Ken Battle, who used to the director of the National Council on Welfare, the advisory agency to the government's own health and welfare department, said in response to these proposals that the working poor families are falling deeper and deeper below the poverty line. He said that the federal proposals are designed to pretend to fight child poverty while at the same time making sure that middle and some upper income families get larger benefits. He talked about partial indexation. As we know this program, as with so many government programs, will only be indexed to inflation over 3 per cent. He said that deindexation is a fiscally powerful and politically invisible mechanism that allows the government to siphon money from social programs.
Prior to the introduction of this legislation, Canada's average families have seen their social programs from this government reduced by about half of what they were seven years ago. Through various approaches this government has cut family benefits dramatically, as I say, to about half. It has killed the old income tax deduction for dependent children and brought in a tax credit which is worth far less, now just standing at $71 a child. It did not index benefits fully for inflation, as I said.
Year after year these benefits will continue to shrink as they have done for the last seven, eight, nine years. This means that the poor will remain poor. We are not solving that problem. Indeed, the minister responsible, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has said that in spite of his government's and his own vote in favour of the resolution to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000 only two to three years ago, now that commitment to end child poverty is an unrealizable dream.
For the over one million children living in poverty, it is a necessity to get out of poverty, to break that poverty cycle. For the government minister responsible for the support for poor children to say that it is an unrealizable dream is to give up the fight before it has begun. Indeed, in order to deal with the problems that poor children face, the minister needs to fight tooth and nail against his own cabinet ministers to ensure that economic and
June 1, 1992

Government Orders
social policies are changed in this country to support those children.
During various briefings that have taken place, Department of National Health and Welfare officials have indicated that children whose family income is derived from social assistance and from unemployment insurance will be no better off under the new system than under the old. In other words, the poorest of Canada's children will not be addressed by these changes to child benefits.
For someone earning less than $10,000, the family income coming from child benefits will stay exactly the same as it was before. Not one extra penny is being added to the poorest of Canada's poor children. The only changes which take place add about $500 to families earning up to about $30,000. In other words, it is about $1.30 a day for poor families and lower income families in Canada.
That is not going to deal with the one million children who go to bed hungry at night. One dollar and twenty-five cents a day per family is not going to address that concern. Indeed, as the government's own officials have indicated, it is not even intended to deal with that problem. As I have said, the government itself is not even committed any longer to eliminating child poverty by the end of the decade.
In the process of introducing these changes, and an issue not mentioned once by the government spokesperson presenting this bill who, as has been noted, has a finance portfolio, not a health and welfare portfolio, we have had this bill introduced and presented not as a measure of welfare but as a measure of finance. Not once did the government spokesperson mention that this bill finally puts an end to universality.
The purpose behind universal family allowance, which is being dispensed with, ended in this legislation, is to recognize the important task of raising children by all families, regardless of their income levels. Yet this bill is saying to Canadian families that a large number of them are not to receive anything in recognition of their participation in raising children, in raising Canada's future. It is opposed by all groups working on behalf of children and families. It is the end of universality as is being produced here in this legislation.
Even if some families are going to be a little better off, and as I said some will be $1.25 a day better off, this government over the last few years has taken billions of dollars out of social programs and billions of dollars out of transfers to the provinces.
In my own province of Saskatchewan $518 million will not come to the province this year that otherwise would have. That $518 million is about the same size as the provincial deficit, in a small province with limited ability to raise tax dollars, with a small population, indeed a shrinking population. Here the government is taking $518 million out of the province of Saskatchewan and it is putting a few dollars back at the rate of $1.25 to lower income families.
It cannot be said to be progress when you take millions out and you put a few cents back. Many families in Saskatchewan and Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing do not have adequate resources to feed their families because they cannot get jobs. The unemployment rate is around 12 per cent. The government is telling those families they are not going to be better off; they are going to be worse off. They are not going to receive any assistance. They are going to be worse off in the end.
Let us look at one single instance. The government says that it is putting $400 million more into these child benefits, as I said, prorated to $1.25 a day per family, but it is taking $620 million out of social housing across the country. On that one item $220 million is lost to those Canadians at the low end of the economic earning capacity, who need some help to afford housing, to provide adequate housing for their families, housing which is too expensive for them in the private sector. Even on that one issue lower income Canadians are losing about $200 million; the difference between the cut to social housing and the extra money in the child benefits.
The federal unloading on to the provinces is costing Canadian families enormously and the federal government is just throwing a few cents their way in response to that. The federal support has been reduced considerably. Canadian families know that.
In spite of the attack on the resources of the provinces, there are some opportunities which have been taken. The three provinces with NDP governments, British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, have all been able, in spite of the desperate financial situations they

Government Orders
have been in, to increase social assistance rates. They recognized the plight of Canadians living so far below the poverty line.
Let us look a little at what is wrong with what the government has done. It says that its new child benefits package is simpler, fairer and more generous, whereas in fact, as I have tried to show, it is none of these things.
First of all, it is not markedly simpler. There is a reduction of categories of sets of benefits from five to four, but this new system remains so complicated that the government, not individual families, will have to calculate the benefits.
As I have said, it is not fair. It does not provide to Canadian families with low incomes the ability to feed their children. It does not enable them to get out of the welfare trap, as the government tries to pretend it does.
What the government has done in this case is distinguish between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. Whether or not children are poor is not a question of whether or not they are deserving. They do not become undeserving because they are members of a particular family or deserving because they are members of another family. Yet this government has decided that it would add $500 a year to working poor families, but not to families without the opportunity to work. With the costs of child care being anything upwards from $6,000 a year, the extra $500 clearly will not be of much assistance to those families.
It is said that the program is more generous. As I and the government's own officials have said, the poorest of Canada's poor children will be no better off at all under this program. Of course with deindexation, everyone who receives the benefits will become worse and worse off over time.
What did the government do to let Canadians know about its new child benefits package, even though it did not have much to work with? As I have said, the poorest will remain poor. It spent $500,000 on an advertising campaign to promote the new child benefits program. It spent $500,000, money which surely would have been better spent on feeding those hungry children.
What should we do instead? It is not enough just to criticize the woefully inadequate programs that the
government puts forward. It is necessary to suggest some alternatives for the government, not that it will listen, it has not listened to any of the critics. So far it has not listened to those people who know how lower income Canadians have difficulty in getting by from day to day.
We must set the reduction of poverty as a realizable goal. We must fight for it. We must make sure that we work toward reducing poverty in Canada. Yet over the last 10 years, in the time that this government has been in office, there has been no decrease in the number of children living in poverty. That number is about the same as it was 10 years ago.
We have to get Canada working again. We have to place employment at the top of our list of priorities. We cannot continue to fight inflation by creating unemployment, as this government has done. We cannot continue to fight rising interest rates by creating unemployment. It is an immoral, unacceptable way of organizing our resources.
We have to put full employment strategies first. We have to make sure that we treat the creation of jobs as our number one priority. We have to also support that policy with adequate training programs, not for just 6 per cent of those people who are on unemployment insurance but for all Canadians so that they can become better trained and better able to cope with the needs of a modem economy.
We need a fair taxation system so that those who are richer and the corporations that make profits will pay their fair share of taxes. Canadians do not mind paying their fair share of taxes, but they do not like being treated unfairly. They do not like to see the Royal Bank or the big banks paying no taxation essentially, while their taxes are increased on a yearly basis. Every time the finance minister produces a budget, his hand goes into the pockets of ordinary Canadians. Yet tax loopholes for the rich and corporations continue to flourish. That is an unacceptable approach.
We have to try to stop poverty. This government has tended to allow poverty to take place and, indeed, through its economic policies to encourage poverty and then attempt to respond with band-aid solutions. We would be best off to invest in our children, to invest in our future and ensure that Canadian children do not
June 1, 1992

grow up in poverty and that they grow up with the basic necessities of life.
To summarize, we need full employment policies. To suggest as some on the other side would that this is impossible is only to close their eyes to countries across this world that have put employment first, to successful economies with low unemployment rates and low child poverty rates, too. For example, we could look to Norway as a country which could show us how to ensure our children do not live in poverty but are provided with the basic necessities of life. In Norway, the child poverty rate is 5 per cent. In Canada, we are dealing with one in six Canadian children living in poverty. There are examples to follow. There are other countries we can look to.
As I said, we need fair taxes so that we can find the revenue to provide for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to work. We need affordable, accessible, high quality, non-profit child care so that parents can go out to work. That is something the government has reneged upon only recently.
Canada's record among the industrialized countries in the world with regard to child poverty is better only than that of the United States. Only the United States is worse than we are. All other countries are better and it is time we looked to them for examples.
I will end on one rhetorical question. Do we not have the resources in this country to ensure that no children go to bed hungry? Surely we can organize our resources appropriately so that those children who will be our future have the resources they need, the food they need, the education they need. Can we not organize our resources so that can be done? Surely we can, if we have the political will.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, a point of order. We do not have a quorum.
And the count having been taken:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The quorum has been restored. Questions and comments.
Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to what was said by the previous speaker, and I would like to say that he made a very good speech in which he analysed the essential components of the family allowance policy. However, before that I also listened to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and I was very disappointed that it was so simple, I would almost say simplistic, for a major debate on the universality of programs like family allowances.
I was surprised at his petty dollars and cents approach and his explanation that it was actually better for all concerned, when we know this entails an enormous loss in terms of vested rights many Canadian families have had for years.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that like me, you remember the universal family allowances program, a program that has benefited all Canadian families. Irrespective of income or marital status, this program was universal. Today, we are witnessing the end of the universality of family allowances, and you know as well as I do, Madam Speaker, that a program for the poor always ends up being a poor program. Every time we decide to change the rules of the game to give one group an advantage over another group, the losers are the people on the borderline.
The problem with this government proposal is that our tax system could be fairer. Members loiow as well as I do that those who earn more would normally pay more income tax and those who earn less would pay less. Consequently, things could be evened out at that level. However, they now want to decide arbitrarily, and this is supposed to be a measure by the Department of Finance, but basically, this marks the end of a truly universal program in this country. The government has done it again. It did exactly the same when it set a ceiling on old age security pensions, and today, in a matter of hours, another national institution, a program which the Prime Minister himself said was a sacred trust, will disappear.
I saw the Prime Minister with my own eyes at Patro Roc-Amadour in Quebec City, when he was on television, promising his mother I remember, it was the 1988 election campaign that he would never touch the universality of old age pensions. I know because some of my

Government Orders
colleagues were in that room and remember it very well. Again, he lied to us, and now family allowances are disappearing for all practical purposes.
I know that hon. members opposite would like to say that family policy is strictly an accounting operation. I know that we should have had a much more substantial debate before coming to that conclusion. Basically the whole Canadian social safety net which they are advertising, instead of spending money to have young girls sing "O Canada", that money could be much better spent to help children have school lunches or things like that. Obviously the government's priorities are misplaced and more and more we are forced to realize that this government's family policy is going nowhere.
After he solemnly promised a national child care program-I heard it too-the Minister of National Health and Welfare says it is out of the question. They went back on their word once more. Imagine, the major social programs about which Canada boasts around the world are being eroded one after another.
That is why when we see people traipsing around the world, trying to pretend to be virtuous, we should look at reality. We do not have to go very far. I am sure that in any primary school, you could find children who have not been fed because they are poor. The $1.04 a day under this program will certainly not be enough to feed them. It is not even enough for a bus ticket. We know very well that this program which the government would have us believe is an incentive and generous perpetuates child poverty. Even worse, it is just the beginning.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows very well that this period is for short comments and questions or comments on the previous speech and questions for the member who just spoke.
The hon. member has already been talking for over five minutes. Perhaps he could conclude with a question for his colleague.
The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, you guessed that I was coming to the questions, because that is just what I was about to do.
I wanted to ask my colleague if he does not find it indecent for a government to come with a bill like this
without dealing with the fundamental issue in Canada and Quebec for taxpayers. I think removing the universality of social programs through the back door, using a Department of Finance that has a petty accountant's mentality-does the hon. member not find that dishonest? Is it not rather crooked of the government to have done it to old people and now do it to families? Is it not going back on its promises one by one? I think that the hon. member would have something to say about that.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. Clearly we share the same view regarding universality that the majority of Canadians share, and it is that we see the raising of children as a responsibility of all Canadian families. That should be recognized by the government on behalf of all Canadians.
After all, it will be those children who will pay the pensions for you, me, and everybody else and provide for our health care as they move into the work force and pay their taxes. If we do not respect them, if we do not honour them, if we do not recognize them then they are likely to be less prepared to provide us with pensions, health care and so on. Even in terms of self-interest it is a big mistake to attack universality.
Those programs of universal application of family benefits, the family allowance, some of that money goes into families which are a little wealthier. If we had a taxation system which responded well and in a progressive way, if we were taxed back much of that money, we would be able to recognize those families' contributions to the raising of children as something which is beneficial to Canada and we would be able to recover some of those moneys in terms of taxation.
By undermining universality and by increasingly turning our taxation system into a regressive system, we are undermining those roles on two accounts.
It is worth pointing out that all critics of social programs will tell you that once you remove universality you begin the process of removing the program altogether. That is what we are seeing here, the continual erosion over time, first of universality and now of social programs directed toward the poor.
June 1, 1992

It is also worth pointing out that by not encouraging those children of lower income families, by not ensuring that they attend school and can stay awake because they are well fed, we encourage a huge cost on our society. One study has suggested that the school drop-outs in one year, from 1989, will cost Canada $4 billion. There are suggestions that school drop-outs over a decade will cost $30 billion. Those are huge costs to society because we are not paying enough attention to our children.
Were it not for the government's refusal to look from the heart at these problems, to be compassionate and caring about the pain and suffering that its economic and social policies are causing Canada's low income children, perhaps it could look at it from an economic point of view, from a financial point of view, and see the huge costs that are being loaded on this country.
Madam Speaker, whether it be from economic or social reasons, it surely is necessary for this government to change its policies.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I consider it a great pleasure to support this legislation, Bill C-80, with regard to strengthening Canada's income assistance measures for children.
I have listened very carefully to some of my colleagues in the House and I just want to say at the very beginning that what we are talking about today is certainly a major change, I grant that; but it also is $2.1 billion in new money. This is new money that is going to the assistance of children. We are streamlining this system so it can be passed through to the families far more effectively. It is a lot fairer, it is a lot simpler and it is a lot more generous.
These really sweeping changes did not come about suddenly, they have been under review for years and years, both in the standing committees of this House and the other place down the hall. It was most interesting, if you chronologically go back, to note that the Prime Minister attended the United Nations meeting on the rights of the child and we ratified the Canadian position on children's rights on December 11, 1991.
Also, the standing committee on health and welfare had a report. I also would like to thank my colleague from Calgary North who through a great many meetings
Government Orders
with various members of Parliament has gone through each and every area with regard to the benefits in assisting families, and we feel we have come up with a very good system.
When the Minister of Finance on February 25 brought in his annual budget for the present fiscal year, he tabled a white paper on the child benefit.
I noticed that some of my colleagues opposite were mentioning that there was no communication and no discussion with regard to the child benefit package with the agencies, various provinces and the Canada Assistance Plan people.
The department has sent out thousands of copies of the white paper to interested people and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance have been talking to the provincial agencies right across Canada to review exactly what is in the benefit and looking for input.
I mentioned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and I mentioned the budget that was brought down in February. I would also like to say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare brought down Brighter Futures a few weeks ago, which is a plan that deals specifically with children at risk.
We are all very worried about youngsters in poverty. We must be very careful to be fiscally responsible as well as socially responsible. In taking a strong look and in talking to people right across Canada we know that we must assist those who are high risk. That is indeed what the Minister of National Health and Welfare brought down.
He took the money, $500 million, and is utilizing it to target youngsters who are really at risk through prevention, through education, and through promotion. He is promoting through the various agencies, hospitals, clinics, and our aboriginal colleagues how to take care of oneself when one is pregnant, to cure the low birth weight of some new youngsters, and introduce more education for health protection gear for children's safety. We have also joined partnerships right across Canada. That is another element.
I am really glad to speak today because this tremendous change in our legislation represents the final one.

Government Orders
There were many areas of the old act that were causing us a great deal of concern. I would like to say that I believe that there is absolutely no doubt that the new child tax benefit put forward in the bill today is a significant advancement over the current system. In light of today's complex society, and we heard from the gentleman across the way that it is a complex society, the bill proposes enriched benefits which will be streamlined and be very responsive. It will better target the ones who need our help.
I did mention the two parliamentary committees and the member for Calgary North. The proposed benefit is going to be a single monthly payment for children under 18. It will generally be made to the mother. This new benefit is going to be based on family income reported in the most recent tax year. These single monthly payments will neither be taxed nor recovered at tax time. Those are two important changes so that families are going to keep in full what they receive.
There are two major components of the proposed tax benefit. The first is the basic monthly benefit that replaces family allowances, the dependent child credit and the refundable child tax credit. It includes extra benefits for children under the age of seven and also for children in large families.
The second major change is a new federally earned income supplement. This is veiy important. It is a federally earned income supplement that will increase the basic benefit by up to $500 per year for low-income working families with children. While we will maintain and increase our benefits for those people living on welfare we are going to give some added incentive to low-income working families. Today there needs to be an incentive for people to get out and work. It is most important.
The annual benefit is going to depend on family earnings, the number of children, and the age of the youngsters. It is going to prove to be a lot simpler and fairer.
The child tax credit will be made up of a base amount of $1,020 per year for each child with a $75 supplement for the third and subsequent children. The base amount is increased by a further $213 per year for each child under the age of seven if child care expenses are not claimed at the time.
The basic child tax benefit amount is going to be paid in full to all families with incomes up to $25,921. The benefit will gradually be reduced for those with incomes above that particular amount.
In addition, the $500 per year income supplement for the low-income working families is to be phased-in for families earning above $3,750. This supplement is going to reach its full and maximum benefit if family earnings are $10,000 or more. It will only be reduced when the family income exceeds $20,921.
It is very important and we can debate these things when it goes to the legislative committee. Let us look at what it means to the average Canadian family.
Under the new system a single mother with an income of $30,000 and two children over the age of seven would receive $153 a month in 1991. She will be better off by about $300 per year under our new system.
A mother with three children over the age of seven and a total family income of $22,000 in 1991 will be eligible for the basic amount of $261.25 plus an earned income supplement of $32.68 per month. Basically, this means she is going to receive $293.93 a month beginning January 1,1993 and she is going to be better off by about $400 per year.
This new system is intrinsically a lot fairer. It is not based on individual income; it is based on family income. This is what Canadians have been telling us for years. It is targeted at those who need it the most. We have taken a look at the total system and we will target those people with lower and middle incomes. The assistance will be focused on the low and the middle income.
The child tax benefit will gradually be reduced with incomes above designated thresholds. Obviously the more money earned above a threshold, the benefit will slowly be reduced.
The entire benefit is going to be paid monthly, making it easier for families to budget. It will not be taxed and it will not be recouped at the year end. The benefit will be paid to the parent who needs it the most and it is a fundamental design of redoing the tax system.
I am not suggesting for one minute we are backing away from universality. What we have done here is become very fiscally responsible while being socially responsible. It is a new system which is more generous. It is $2.1 billion more generous than the current system over a five-year period.
June 1, 1992	COMMONS
The government has committed these new funds to assist families and it is going to assist over 2.4 million families. They are all going to have their benefits increased.
Some 2.4 million families are going to receive more benefits. Over two-thirds of those particular families have incomes under $50,000. No family below $50,000 is going to lose benefits.


Mr. Milliken:: There is a whole bunch that won't get anything.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: The bill before us today underscores our commitment. The member for Kingston and the Islands does not seem to realize that some people at $50,000 a year with youngsters do need benefits, absolutely.
This is why out of the 2.4 million people whom we are helping with increased benefits nobody under $50,000 a year is going to lose. That is very important. The economic and fiscal statement starting in 1984 accompanying the agenda for economic renewal have been our key policies throughout the past five, six, seven, eight years.
The child and the elderly benefit consultations paper profiled a number of options for child benefits and it encouraged public participation. That is what we have taken into account, the public consideration.
In 1985, as I said, we had the parliamentary standing committee on health and welfare. We had another one that reported in December just past with regard to the social conditions and the poverty under which some youngsters in Canada and indeed some lower income families are living. We have taken into consideration all the recommendations that have been put forth.
We have to invest in our future, as my colleague from Saskatchewan mentioned. Children are our future. Day after day we see areas throughout Canada that need attention. I support many of my colleagues with regard to the need to attack poverty. It is very important.
The end result of an extensive review over the past five or six years and consolidation of the particular programs that we are putting into Bill C-80 today are of utmost importance to all Canadians. Once people see the system they will greatly appreciate it.

Government Orders
I thank the staff of both departments in charge of the implementation of the new program. We are working with finance as well as with health and welfare. It has been a monumental task that will be implemented only if this House along with the other House approves. It is going to mean the switching of some 3.7 million files in health and welfare for the new program.
The member mentioned that copies of the white paper had not been sent out. It was my colleague from Winnipeg who spoke earlier. I really want to assure him that information has gone out all across Canada dealing with this specific policy. In no way would we be implementing something that we did not have agreement on.
Poverty is a major issue. I know everyone in the House has heard the hon. minister address that specific issue. None of us should rest while there is one youngster living in poverty. We have also addressed the fiscal constraints we are living under. We have hard choices to make: to spend more money we could raise taxes, increase the deficit or cut other programs.
The Minister of Finance, as he so carefully worded it in his budget in February, made it extremely clear that it was through cuts in certain areas, in program expenditures, that he was able to recoup the $2.1 billion to put into this new child benefit package.
We have not increased the deficit for this. We have not increased taxes. Indeed what we have increased are the benefits to youngsters and we can all commend the Minister of Finance.
Some of us are well aware of the problems under the old system. There were delays in receiving the refundable child tax credit. Often families could not gain from any child tax benefit for a year. It was veiy inconvenient. Each benefit was delivered in an entirely different way, which meant that there were eligibility criteria for every particular program. This made it very difficult.
For the eight years I have been here-I am sure, Madam Speaker, you are well aware of this too-we have been told that there are certain higher income people who do not perhaps need the family allowance as much as the lower income people. We had inadequate targeting under the old system.

June 1, 1992
Private Members' Business
I look forward to working with my colleagues on all sides of the House at the legislative committee. I am sure there are some areas of the bill we can improve, but I am in support of Bill C-80.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.11 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at second reading stage of Bill C-289, an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth) that Bill C-289, an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Following the adoption of the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on House Management on Wednesday, April 29, 1992, the division will be taken row by row starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called and those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee of the Departmental envelope.
Private Members' Business


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.40 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tbesday, June 2, 1992