1992-05-20

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that veterans now living at the Rideau Veterans Home in Ottawa will be moving into new premises late next year.
The Rideau Veterans Home has been of great service to veterans in the national capital area but as can be expected of a facility built at the end of the Second World War, it is past its best.
Our government has been going all out to reach agreement with the provinces and increase the number of beds available to veterans across the country.
Last Thursday's announcement is another step in the right direction. The agreement with the province of Ontario means veterans will have access to 250 beds in the Perley Rideau Veterans Health Centre.


THAILAND
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, during the past several days the world and Canadians have watched in horror as unarmed demonstrators in Thailand have been shot down in cold blood by the Thai military.
In February last year the democratically elected government in Thailand was overthrown. A new undemocratic constitution came into force. In March of this year
the elections which took place resulted in the appointment of the chief of the armed forces as prime minister of Thailand.
Shortly before those elections the very respected opposition party leader Chamlong Srimuang stated that going against the will of the people could cause them to resist and this will turn into an uprising. The soldiers must understand if they do this they will have confrontation.
As a Canadian I have to ask: Where was our government? Why has our government increased the level of bilateral aid, direct government to government aid from Canada to Thailand? Why have we not announced an arms embargo on Thailand? Why is it that the Canadian foreign minister has said that Canada supports the movement toward increased democratization of Thailand?


THE DISABLED
Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express my support for Bill C-78, the omnibus bill tabled by the minister responsible for the status of the disabled. I would be very pleased to see the provisions of this bill implemented, since this legislation is one more step toward eliminating the barriers that prevent the disabled from becoming full-fledged members of our society.
The bill, and related policies and regulations were prepared in consultation with the disabled. With the Secretary of State and many of those who worked on this bill, I am convinced that the proposed amendments will enhance the well-being of 3.3 million disabled Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill is tangible proof that the Government of Canada intends to pursue its policies for the the disabled, with their co-operation.

May 20, 1992


SAFE GRAD PROGRAMS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, graduation time is upon us and I would like to take this opportunity to commend the laudable actions of many students across Canada for their participation in the Safe Grad program.
This year, students throughout the country, including Manitoba, will once again take part in the Safe Grad programs. Safe Grad combines students' graduation celebrations with realistic measures to prevent accidents and other problems which could be associated with drinking and driving.
The aim of the program is to enable graduates to have their graduation parties but to ensure others look after their transportation afterward. Safe Grad is a student run program with much assistance from parents, teachers and police too. Safe Grad is geared toward the needs and wishes of individual schools and their students.
I am most impressed with the students of our country and their support of Safe Grad. I would like to take this opportunity to commend them for their actions.
On behalf of this House and my colleagues I wish all students a happy and safe graduation.

Have fun, but take care.


BRITISH COLUMBIA PHYSICIANS
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: The medical profession in my home province of British Columbia is being blind-sided by two pieces of provincial legislation brought down by the NDP government. Bills C-13 and C-14 attempt to cap the earnings of and eliminate the pension contributions for physicians in B.C.
This unilateral action by the government threatens to limit the access of British Columbians to quality health care, alienates the medical profession, creates longer waiting lists and forces doctors out of B.C.
It is obviously unjust to require specialists such as a radiologist who purchases high tech, high-priced equipment for one's practice to come under the same earning limits as the low overhead physician.
The province has not consulted with the BCMA and refuses to negotiate a more equitable settlement even now. This unilateral action jeopardizes the historically co-operative relationship between the medical profession and the government.
I call on the federal government to take whatever action is necessary under the Canada Health Act to force the B.C. government to resume meaningful negotiations with the doctors of British Columbia.


FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, on April 23,1 wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans urging the federal government to maintain the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' laboratory in Charlottetown in its current state.
I am disappointed that the minister continues to hold fast to the plan to phase out the bacteriological portion of the Charlottetown facility.
Producers have relied upon regular monitoring of shellfish to ensure that the environmental conditions have not adversely affected their product. According to some industry members, the proposed change could make some operators less inclined to monitor their products as strictly.
The reduced testing could jeopardize the industry if a bad lot makes it through the system. In addition, this type of testing demands stringent and complex handling procedures. One mishandled sample could cost a producer thousands of dollars in lost product.
Therefore, I renew my call to maintain the DFO lab in Charlottetown in its present state.


&quot;ACTIVE LIVING&quot; PROJECT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 this year, it was my privilege to attend the launching of a national Active Living pilot project in
May 20, 1992

Dieppe, New Brunswick. Active Living is a new philosophy of life which stresses the integration of all kinds of physical activity into our daily lives.
The pilot project in Dieppe is one of five projects across Canada being used to test this new concept. The federal government is pleased to have been able to contribute to this initiative, especially since the municipality is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. Since Canada is celebrating its 125th birthday, we have another reason to applaud this stimulating and laudable initiative.
On behalf of the Minister of State for Youth and on my own behalf as well, I encourage members of this House to emulate the positive approach to Active Living shown in Dieppe today in their own communities.


AJIT SINGH BAINS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, on April 3, prominent human rights activist, Ajit Singh Bains, a retired judge and current chairperson of the Punjab Human Rights Organization, was arrested in India.
To the surprise of his relatives living in metro Toronto, the 71-year old justice has been thrown in prison and denied the right to a full and legitimate trial under the rule of law.
In addition, more than 300 police personnel took over his residence and, without any warrants, entered and confiscated documents relating to the human rights organization he heads.
The manner in which Justice Bains was arrested, the forced entry into his home, and the lack of any due legal process has evoked condemnation around the world.
I urge our government to voice Canada's strongest disapproval of the violation of Mr. Bains' fundamental human rights. I urge our Secretary of State for External Affairs to communicate this dissatisfaction immediately in the most forceful and concise terms to her counterpart in the Indian government.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the Prime Minister and the President of the United States held a news conference in Washington. The Prime Minister has travelled to the U.S. to deal first-hand wi th some of the trade irritants which have arisen out of the latest round of American protectionism.
Right now, a lot of Canadians are wondering about the future of free trade, given the disputes over softwood lumber, Honda cars, and so on. So it was reassuring to hear President Bush a few moments ago say that since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1988, the trade between the two countries has grown by over $30 billion. That is thirty thousand million dollars of additional trade since free trade and that translates into more jobs on both sides of the border. Those are the facts.
The economic recession which has bedevilled both countries would likely have been a lot deeper if it had not been for those $30 billion.
Of course problems remain. The trade deal can be improved. Americans' attitudes can be improved. If there is one person who can do it, he is in Washington today.


MACMILLAN BLOEDEL
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak of a grave situation that has arisen in my riding, one that could affect elected representatives across this country.
MacMillan Bloedel, the forestry megacompany with a virtual stranglehold on my home province of B.C., has launched a lawsuit against the elected local representatives of Galiano Island, among others.
These island trustees, in fulfilling their responsibilities toward their electorate, passed a ruling on land use that MacMillan Bloedel did not like. It was simply that: MacMillan Bloedel did not like it. Hence, it is suing the island's trustees personally.
I trust even my colleagues in this House who condone the appalling rapid destruction of the remaining old

May 20, 1992
growth forests in Canada would agree that this is an unacceptable price to pay while fulfilling one's role as an elected representative.
I plan to do everything in my power to ensure that Canadians hear and understand the ramifications of this suit, an American invention called the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP. With this kind of threat, megacompanies could ensure that no elected representatives feel free to do the job they were elected to do, namely, representing the voters who elected them who have the unassailable right to do local planning and decision-making.
This is a threat to the very basis of our democratic system. It is a threat I hope the members of this House and all elected representatives in Canada will resist to the utmost of their ability.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has warned that the silence of concerned Canadians could threaten our future.
That future affects us all, but it belongs to the youth and I find it encouraging to know that there are young people in Canada who are not going to sit back silently and allow the forces of negativism to destroy their nation.
The city of Red Deer has more French immersion students per capita than any other English-speaking city in Canada. Last week, 33 of these students from Central School in Red Deer were here in Ottawa. They were en route home following a visit to Cap de la Madeleine where they delivered a message of national unity to the mayor and people of Red Deer's twin city in Quebec.
We met briefly with the Prime Minister where they were able to share the same message they had taken to the mayor of Cap de la Madeleine. Their message was straightforward. They want their country united and their Canada includes Quebec.
I commend these students and their teachers. We have some serious constitutional challenges, but we will
succeed because of people like them and the fact that they are willing to take a stand.


DEMOCRACY IN HAITI
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, on the night of September 29, 1991, the army in Haiti staged a bloody coup d'etat, ending the democratic process begun with the election of Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Since then, the Haitian nation has lived in terror. On February 23, 1992, a memorandum of agreement was signed by President Aristide and the Speakers of the two Houses of the Haitian Parliament. Unfortunately, because the army controls the government now in place, the agreement was never discussed in that Parliament.
I believe that it is important for the Canadian government to demand the restoration of the constitutional system and to encourage democratic countries to respect the OAS embargo.


TAXATION
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian business is suffering from excessive government regulations that are costly and burdensome for management and undermine our global competitiveness.
This was a message of a recent survey completed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. In a letter to the Prime Minister, the chamber stated that its members believed they were being tramped on by our regulatoiy processes which are driving up the costs of conducting business in Canada.
Three out of ten responses indicated they had experienced negative effects from the lack of harmonization or duplication of regulations. Thirty per cent of respondents said they had run into duplication in payments to governments. The most frequently sighted overlap was in the tax system. Clearly the lunacy of maintaining two separate sales tax systems creates a heavy compliance burden as does the frequent conflict between federal and provincial regulations.
May 20, 1992

The message is clear. Governments at both the federal and provincial levels have to put aside entrenched considerations and work toward creating an environment that will foster, not hinder, economic growth in this country.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations on the international treaty to slow down the loss of plant and animal species have been gutted by the United States this week.
Biologists have warned that unless international action is taken to curb the destruction of species and their habitat, a mass extinction will occur over the next few decades.
Despite the awesome warnings of the best informed scientists on earth, the Bush administration believes that protecting wild plants and animals would interfere with the profits of private companies involved in the manipulation and patenting of life forms.
There should no longer be any illusions about the role of politically powerful vested interests in relation to the key conventions for the earth summit. They are hellbent on destroying international consensus and co-operation. They stand for profits ahead of survival, for business as usual ahead of sustainable development, for their imperial control over the planet's living resources.
This is a call to all thinking people to get involved and pay attention to the earth summit. Twenty thousand species will become extinct this year. If we fail on biodiversity we will soon be one of the listed statistics of extinction.
Canada has been silent on the attempted U.S. murder of the biodiversity convention and for this we stand shamed before the world.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
The Westray coal mine was made possible and was only possible because of the $85 million in federal loan guarantees and over $8 million in interest buy-downs. It also received close to $700,000 in research and development moneys from supply and services.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will provide the House of Commons and thereby the general public copies of the agreements which have been consummated between the Government of Canada and Mr. Frame as well as the memorandum of understanding signed by the Government of Canada and the Minister of Supply and Services.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to express my condolences regarding this terrible accident. I would, with the hon. member having just posed the question, extend my deep thanks to the draggermen from Devco. There were six teams from the hon. member's riding who were there to help, together with very brave draggermen from Westray as well who did all they could to help mitigate the severity of this terrible tragedy.
As to his question, the hon. member is right. The federal government provided assistance, principally in the form of a loan guarantee of 85 per cent of the $100 million term loan connected with this project.
That was the federal government's involvement. What we will do, of course, is bring forward all the appropriate information as soon as possible, and this we are preparing. There are thousands of pages of documents relevant to this question. The government is preparing those and will bring them forward shortly.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for his kind comments with regard to those draggermen who worked to try to expedite, if you will, a rescue.
But I want to say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that more than a week ago I had written a letter to the government House leader requesting co-operation with regard to securing and obtaining the necessary documents which would shed light on this particular incident.
I ask the minister again if he is prepared today to table in this House copies of an agreement which provided a contractor the amount of $85 million in loan guarantees, interest buy-downs in excess of $8 million, research and

May 20, 1992
Oral Questions
development moneys in excess of $700,000. Will he provide those documents, those agreements, and that memorandum of understanding?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member knows this, but there are, I think, three or four requests now under access to information for information of that sort. We are readying those documents to comply with that request.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, this is the House of Commons. This is where the government is accountable for the expenditures that it makes on behalf of the people of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Charles Dingwall: I want to remind the House that a senior member of this House, a senior minister, said the following: "A member of Parliament I submit has a right and a duty to pursue investigations and ask questions on behalf of his constituents and the general public and any interference or obstructions in this respect must be undertaken very carefully and supported by citations and precedents of the greatest weight and substance".
This statement was made by the hon. member for Central Nova, the Minister of Public Works.
I ask the minister again, will he now table in the House of Commons the agreement which was consummated with Mr. Frame as well as the copy of the memorandum of understanding?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, among the documents which are being brought forward there are thousands of pages and many hours of cataloguing to be done. We hope to get this out as soon as possible.
In there is included, of course, the agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia, Mr. Frame of the Westray mine. Under this loan, the Bank of Nova Scotia was guaranteed 85 per cent by the federal government. As a result of that we had to comply, as would be expected, with the regime put in place by the Government of Nova Scotia for safety and for health in the mine. The loan by the Bank of Nova Scotia could not flow unless there was
that compliance. We could not put our guarantee in place unless there was compliance with the health and safety requirements of the two departments which were going to administer it for the Government of Nova Scotia.
That particular reality was there. We are very pleased that these documents are coming together very quickly. I hope that we will be able to get them before the public shortly.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
When Suncor, the previous owner of the leases, decided in 1987 that it wanted to sell these leases and sell them in a hurry, it was not only Curragh Resources that was interested. Esso Resources was also interested. In fact, it did not want millions of dollars as Curragh did. It just wanted six months to be able to study the whole project, the geography and the topography involved.
Other than the fact that there was an election coming up, why would the government not wait to allow Esso Resources to complete its study? Why was the government in such a hurry before it gave millions of dollars to Curragh Resources?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, in fact this is quite a myth. The over-all project took over three years to put together and to hammer out. There are thousands of pages of contractual agreements that had to be put in place between the principals, the banks and the various governments and also to make sure that all health and safety requirements were complied with.
Three years is not rushing a project into completion. It was quite a lengthy process.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it seems the government had plenty of time to read the reports of the Bank of Montreal, the lawyers and the consultants involved but it did not take any time to read the reports of Suncor and Esso Resources.
Why did the government not read these reports? If it did read these reports, surely it must have seen the dangers involved. Will the government admit that it did not adhere to these reports and will it make these reports public?
May 20, 1992


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows a judicial inquiry has been established. Nova Scotia will inquire into those matters.
Let me respond from the federal government's point of view. The particular studies done by various groups which have looked at this are well known to our government. The concerns we had originally with West-ray were basically business and economic. Originally the safety concerns had to be answered through the province putting in place a very strict regime. It is that regime which is going to be inquired into by the judicial inquiry. That regime was the responsibility of the province. In fact, that regime was being complied with regularly in all its particulars by the mine and confirmed by the Bank of Nova Scotia which regularly monitored it month by month through independent mining consultants.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and is on the same subject.
It is clear that there were a number of studies done on the Westray mine site to which the federal government was privy. One of those studies, for example, states and I quote: "As a result of such difficulties it seems"-referring to the Westray mine site-"have given off large volumes of gas and proven extremely liable to spontaneous combustion".
I understand that the government's role was, as the minister has just said, in one sense economic and business, but surely the federal government also has a role when it sees these reports to make some response to this and perhaps to receive some assurances from the company that these safety concerns will be addressed before loan guarantees are given.
Can the minister, given the concerns raised in these reports, tell the House what actions were asked of the company regarding these safety concerns before loan guarantees were agreed to?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is rightly pointing out where the regulatory authority lay in this particular case, which was the province. She is asking whether we received assurances that the mine was complying with the regulatory regime put in place by the province.
Oral Questions
We did better than that. In fact, the Bank of Nova Scotia would not give the loan unless it assured itself in every particular, with certifications at each step, that the safety regime was being complied with in its entirety. Otherwise its $100 million would be at risk. We, guaranteeing 85 per cent of that loan, also undertook the same due diligence to make sure that in every particular we had certification that the health and safety requirements as laid down by the province of Nova Scotia were being followed.
All of this was done, was followed, and we still had the tragedy. I have to remind my hon. friend, the leader of the NDP, of what Gerry Finfinger, head of Research and Ground and Methane Controls at the U.S. Bureau of Mines said: "In general we should be able to produce coal from an underground coal seam, no matter how gassy the coal seam is, without an explosion. It is very doable and it is done around the world every day. Part of the hazards of so many mines around the world is methane".
That is why there is a strict regime put in place. Unfortunately, in this case something happened, but it was not a failure on the part of the federal government or the Bank of Nova Scotia to comply with the regulations.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I would like to say to the minister that no one is accusing anyone of anything. I am simply asking the minister if he can assure this House and, therefore, table with this House how exactly the federal government, not the Bank of Nova Scotia, ensured that the safety concerns would be addressed. The minister has said he was assured of it. I am simply asking that he table with this House how his government arrived at those conclusions and on the basis of what information and will he table that information and how those conclusions were arrived at?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that all the relevant information be put before this House and be made public. That is what the government is assembling, cataloguing, cross referencing so members can understand it and get the answers to the questions they are asking.
In this particular instance, the nature of the contract will be in the public domain. She will be able to see what the contract says. The monthly compliance with the regulations was not only adhered to but certified by the

May 20, 1992
Oral Questions
independent mining engineers on behalf of the Bank of Nova Scotia. That too, I am sure, will be made available.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A final supplementary. As the minister mentioned, the Government of Nova Scotia is going to hold a full inquiry into this disaster. I would like to ask the minister if, on behalf of his government, he is prepared to give assurances in this House that his government will fully co-operate with that inquiry if asked, allow witnesses to be there, if asked, and to table all of the documents with that inquiry if asked. Is the federal government, in other words, prepared to be open with this House and also act as a full participant when requested in the inquiry in Nova Scotia so that everyone can know the full facts and have the full benefit of the information that the federal government has as well as any provincial authorities.


Thomas Hockin: Of course the government will, Mr. Speaker,


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it is on the same subject matter.
On May 12 the minister of energy said: "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 Deputy Prime Minister if the cabinet's discussions on the so-called learning curve included the real possibility of spontaneous combustion and explosion in the Foord seam and, if so, how they possibly could have funded this project?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the government was aware, and every government everywhere I would hope is aware, that coal mining is a dangerous undertaking. In this area, all of Nova Scotia's coal mines, including Cape Breton and the mainland and so on, have had their share of problems in the past. They have all had problems with
methane and they have virtually all had problems with methane explosions.
It was our job to make sure that when we gave the government loan insurance, we gave the government a guarantee that Curragh was in full compliance with provincial regulatory standards on health and safety and indeed they were.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The minister of energy indicated that officials of the department of industry expressed serious concerns about methane at the Westray project. Given the fact that the Foord seam has a history of fatal explosions that has cost the lives of 264 miners, what was the reason and what was the compelling information that the government had that led it to ignore its own department, to ignore history and fund this project?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, if we take ourselves back to the period when this was all being assessed, the primary questions being asked publicly within the legislature and here in Ottawa by those analysing it, were primarily business and economic questions. There were a few safety questions but they occurred very infrequently. As a matter of fact, Teresa MacNeil of the Devco board said that her memory was that the questions being discussed were questions of economics, not safety. To quote her: "We would all like to think today that we were all preaching safety. Safety was a factor but it was mentioned very infrequently."
In fact, even though that was the case, we put in place steps to make sure that the regime set down by the province for health and safety were complied with in every particular by the company and that it was monitored by independent mining consultants on a regular basis.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In a project overview by Westray in January 1990 the section on mining calls the risk of spontaneous combustion not clearly defined.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Did the government, in assessing the decision to fund the West-
May 20, 1992

ray project, accept Westray's evaluation of the risks of spontaneous combustion as not clearly defined, or did it seek an independent evaluation of these risks before deciding to fund this project? If so, will the minister make this assessment public?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a bank putting forward $100 million and not taking any interest at all in whether the whole future of the mine could be put into doubt by a spontaneous explosion?
Therefore, due diligence and very careful research would have to be done to make sure that the methane problems that exist in almost all mines were being properly regulated and that in fact is ensured by provincial authorities.
The provincial authorities have their health and safety regulations. Those had to be complied with. The Bank of Nova Scotia made sure they were complied with. Of course we, giving a guarantee for a portion of that loan, also made sure on a regular basis, through independent mining consultants, that those regulations were being complied with.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, in point of fact the risks of spontaneous combustion were clearly defined and well known to the government before its decision to fund the Westray project. On December 7,1987 the government's own Crown corporation, Devco, warned in a memorandum that the Foord seam gives off large volumes of gas and has proven to be extremely liable to spontaneous combustion.
In the face of this clear warning, why did the government choose to provide $85 million in loan guarantees to the Westray project?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the truth is this. The Devco mine in Glace Bay, for example, not far from the hon. member's riding, has methane gas problems too. It had a tragedy in 1979. These things happen. It does not mean that you do not go ahead and see, under a proper regulatory environment that is constantly being monitored by independent mining consultants, that you do not make the investment.
This is what in fact happened. The investment went ahead. It was carefully monitored and accidents still happened. The judicial inquiry in Nova Scotia will help us to uncover that.
Oral Questions
In so far as the hon. member is saying that methane gas problems do not exist in all mines, he knows that is not true. They exist in most mines. We have to make sure that the regulatory system put in place is complied with. We assured ourselves of that. How the accident occurred now will be the subject of that provincial inquiry.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the other minister that is answering for the government regarding the Westray disaster.
I want to state as a preface that I recognize the appropriate jurisdiction in matters of safety and health and so does my party.
However, considering the government's major investment, both financial and in terms of the government's credibility, which the government made in Curragh Resources, especially considering the Prime Minister's and other ministers' unusually active intervention in support of the Westray proposal, did the minister or his or other officials of the federal government directly or indirectly conduct any ongoing surveillance of safety conditions and operations at the Westray mine or was this treated in the same way as any other industrial operation?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the question. Did he say did members of Parliament or members of cabinet do the surveillance? This has to be done by experts, by independent mining experts.
In this particular contract, the Bank of Nova Scotia, wanting to protect its investment, made sure this was done on a monthly basis. It was done and we also ensured that it would be done because our guarantee was there.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I must say with all respect that the answer was a little picky. There is more than one way of conducting surveillance. One is to be in some close touch with provincial authorities whose job it is to investigate ongoing safety operations in the operation.
Did the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or other officials of the government undertake any ongoing contact or surveillance-never mind the exact term-with the appropriate provincial officials or with the provincial government to ensure that appropriate safety measures were being taken at this operation,

May 20, 1992
Oral Questions
in light of this government's unusually active involvement in promoting this specific promoter?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we of course relied on the surveillance primarily carried out by the independent mining consultants. I will try to find out if more surveillance was put in place besides that.
The hon. member is asking if there were members of Parliament, parliamentarians-


Some hon. members:: No, no.


Thomas Hockin: -parliamentarians from that region who supported this project. The answer of course is yes. There was a regional economic development need in that part of Nova Scotia.
There were mayors, there were city councillors, there were all sorts of public leaders who very much supported this investment. This is not unnatural. This government supports regional economic development and just dozens and dozens of public people in that region supported this investment.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Since the Prime Minister is in Washington today-I hope that it is not just to report to head office-in his absence, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to tell me whether the Prime Minister told the President of the United States during lunch that the great majority of Canadians want to renegotiate the free trade agreement, or was he satisfied just with crumbs from the table?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no.
The Prime Minister met with the President of the United States to talk about a number of outstanding issues, particularly trade irritants. The Prime Minister was very forceful and forthcoming over what we consider
to be harassment by the United States concerning softwood lumber, Honda and other issues.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition should be pleased with the fact that the President has undertaken to personally become involved in these particular issues, and as well to use whatever influence he has with respect to Congress.
I should also remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister will be meeting with the heads of the Senate and the House of Representatives as well to talk about the respective trade issues that affect Canada and the United States, particularly our bilateral trading relationship.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we noted at the press conference that Murphy Brown got more attention than the Prime Minister for his representation to the President.
In the Saturday last Toronto Star a prominent member of the government said: "The Prime Minister recognizes that changes have to be made and we are in the process of making them before the next election".
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the government is changing the policy at long last and agreeing with the Canadian public that the free trade deal needs renegotiation, or was the Prime Minister just reporting to the President of the United States as a subsidiary reports to the head office?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that there are always things that can be improved in a trading agreement.
One of the reasons, of course, that we are in the North American free trade agreement discussions is that we believe through that vehicle we can make some changes that will be beneficial to Canada in the free trade agreement with the United States.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today the Conference Board of Canada released its latest outlook for the Canadian economy. It concluded: "The current situation in Canada is grim-We are on the verge of recession". This means that this government's
May 20, 1992

economic policies, especially the last budget, have been a failure.
The Minister of Finance has already said that his budget has been wrong on growth, wrong on jobs and yesterday his department said that the numbers for the deficit for last year have also been wrong.
Why will the minister not admit that his budget has been a failure and bring in new policies that this time focus on economic growth and jobs before it is too late and before this country falls back into recession?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the forecast provided by the Conference Board of Canada is overly pessimistic.
There are a number of indicators that would prove otherwise. For example, real exports were up 3.7 per cent in the first quarter. The results flow from a strong increase in imports of 7.8 per cent in March, which indicates that there is a great deal of purchasing in the area of machinery and equipment, and this is a very positive indicator. Housing starts went up by 7 per cent; 14 per cent for single detached dwellings.
It is also important to point out, as Mr. Frank indicated in his report through the Conference Board of Canada, that "the central problem lies with declining real disposable income in Canada due to falling employment and rising taxes in many provincial budgets".
Obviously what has happened is that the stimulus we have provided in our February budget has been usurped and eroded by the actions of many provincial government budgets which have increased taxes, and that is something we did not do.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today Patti Croft, an economist at Bums Fiy Limited, said speaking about these export-import numbers: "I don't think it is indicative of an economic turnaround".
I do not see why the Minister of Finance tries to put the blame on the provinces for offloading on them the effects of his own cutbacks.
Oral Questions
The Conference Board said: "We can put aside the hope that lower interest rates and inflation will rouse the consumer. Jobs are all that matter-With unemployment falling 110,000 in March and April, we cannot see much prospect for improvement over the short term".
Why will the Minister of Finance not recognize that this is a valid and damning indictment of his policies and bring in new policies that focus on growth and jobs and give Canadians hope and give Canadians confidence?
What is he waiting for? Surely he does not want another recession.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to blame anybody else. I was simply quoting for the record the comments of Mr. James Frank when he said: "the central problem lies with the declining real disposable income in Canada due to falling employment and rising taxes by many provincial budgets".
Did the hon. member not read The Globe and Mail of Monday where the headline says: "Maz giveth and the provinces taketh away"? That is the problem.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is for the acting Prime Minister.
The government is obviously determined to spread confusion on the constitutional issue. On one hand, the minister responsible boasts about the progress made at the negotiating table, and on the other, his colleague, the minister of health, says that there is nothing on the table for Quebec, "absolutely nothing for Quebec" are his exact words and that no transfer of powers has yet been discussed. An obvious question arises: Who is telling the truth, the minister of health or his colleague?


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting is now going on in Montreal and another meeting will take place next week, with a known agenda. Of course, some questions take more time than others, but the whole agenda will be followed and the timetable will be respected.

May 20, 1992
Oral Questions


Lucien Bouchard: But, Mr. Speaker, the agenda is not known. It is the big unknown in Canada at this time.
The response indicates that the government does not know where it is going. First it suggests there is an agreement, then it threatens to hold a referendum as a stick. When will this government make up its mind? Are we to understand that May 31, the date mentioned yesterday, is the deadline for the effort now under way?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, he says the agenda is not known, but I have in my notes here that they will discuss Senate reform and aboriginal issues on Wednesday and spend Thursday on the division of powers. Friday will be spent on all the points discussed and Senate reform as well.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance quoted from the Conference Board's discussion of why there were problems in our economy, why the situation was grim, why did he not concentrate on the key point that Mr. Frank makes, the falling employment which exists in this country? In fact declining interest rates, as this report makes clear, have not spurred consumer spending. Business investment is going to be lower and unemployment is going to stay at 11 per cent until the end of 1992.
Does the Minister of Finance not recognize that it is time to bring in a new budget which shifts spending and puts spending behind an expansion of jobs in this country to get people back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the report points out it is somewhat counterproductive if, on the one hand, the federal government moves to provide some tax relief, to provide some slack so that individual Canadians have
more disposable income and to see on the other hand, that is taken up and in fact exceeded, particularly by the three NDP governments. They are the ones that have been the most guilty in this particular area. They not only sapped the tax breaks that we provided Canadians. They imposed further taxes, and that is the point he is making.
I am very concerned about the level of unemployment and the lack of employment. The budget did take some very major steps in trying to provide a more competitive environment in the manufacturing and processing sector, that particular sector which has been most hard hit. We have provided additional resources for training so that we can upgrade skills and improve the capability of our work force to meet the new demands that are out there. All these things are part and parcel of the budgetary provisions.
I recognize and I acknowledge, even in the budget, that the fourth quarter was slower than we expected and that could carry over into the first quarter. That is certainly not reason to abandon ship and start to do what the NDP wants to do: print money and hope the problem will go away.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we have seen a government which on January first of this year increased taxes on Canadians $1.8 billion and then talked in the House of Commons about trying to reduce taxes. The unemployment insurance increases this government put through in terms of increased fees have done as much damage as anything across this country in terms of reducing consumer demand.
What is the Minister of Finance going to do in the face of this forecast that economic growth will only be one per cent when his budget was based on a forecast of 2.7 per cent, almost three times as much? That is what is causing the unemployment in this country; that is what the minister has to respond to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again not to belabour the point, the report clearly cites on at least three different occasions on two pages the impact of the provincial budgets, the impact of the increased taxes provided by provincial budgets. I am not making that up.
May 20, 1992

If the hon. member wants to accept this report, why does he not accept that element of it?
I indicated to him that I believe his forecasts of one per cent GDP for 1992 were overly pessimistic. I also indicated that because of the slowness in the fourth quarter and the extension into the first quarter of 1992 our target of 2.7 per cent may not be met. As a matter of fact, with Statistics Canada adjusting the figures for 1991 downward by .4 per cent, that immediately throws the 2.7 per cent figure out of kilter because it then becomes 2.3 per cent. We are looking at growth that will be less than that.
I have acknowledged that publicly and I acknowledge it here, but that is no reason to start out on a new policy course. The course that we are following is sound. There has been continuing monetary ease. There have been provisions for the manufacturing sector. There have been inducements-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we are going to have to move on.


TOURISM
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
As we know, tourism is one of our major economic generators. This last weekend there were long lineups at the American border with many of our tourists being held up there.
Could the minister tell us what is being done to expedite the access of American tourists to Canada? This has been widely reported in the American press. What can we do to tell them that Canada is a good place to visit?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it may come as a surprise to this House, because it is good news and that is very seldom reported, that cross-border shopping has decreased two consecutive months in a row. Between January and March there were 300,000 fewer one-day trips. I am not jumping up and down with joy yet, but if the trend continues I think we will see positive results.
As far as the specific question from the hon. member is concerned, we have not only brought greater efficiency to the border with new technology and systems to speed up the process. We in fact have opened up some
Oral Questions
nine special tourist lanes in nine locations nationally, three of them in British Columbia, which have increased tourism over the last few months.
Tourism is increasing. Cross-border shopping is decreasing. This is good news, and I hope the parliamentary press gallery will write about it one day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday I urged the Canadian government to support the people of Thailand in their struggle for democracy. I am pleased to see that today the government has acted in response to our recommendations to cancel arms exports. However, that is not enough.
I want to ask the minister this: Will she clearly demonstrate her support for the democratic forces and immediately cancel direct aid and lines of credit for Thailand? Will she ask for an international inquiry into the events of the past few days?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, like all members of this House and all Canadians I am horrified by what has occurred in Thailand over the past few days.
I would like to report to the House that just in the last hour or so there have been some positive developments, including an amnesty by royal decree for all the people who have been arrested and a movement back toward democratic practices through the intervention of the king with the prime minister and with the leader of the opposition who had been on a hunger strike.
We are therefore a little more hopeful than I was even this morning, and I know that the House will be pleased to hear that.
Let me say in terms of the action we have taken that we have called in the Thai ambassador to Canada. We have asked our ambassador there to intervene with the prime minister. We are in regular touch with our ambassador and have asked for a report from him. We have called on the Thai government to institute a process of independent inquiry. We are monitoring

May 20, 1992
Oral Questions
virtually minute by minute the situation and will take further action as we think it is required.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the news from the minister about events changing, but I think there are some important questions for the minister.
This government has said constantly that it ties direct assistance to the question of human rights. Why is it that in the past year we have increased our arms exports to Thailand and we have increased our direct aid to that country when we knew it had a repressive military regime?
I also want to ask the minister: as a major signal should we not put a freeze on that direct aid until we see that there is clear movement toward the re-establishment of a democratic government in that country, not just the amelioration of some conditions but the return of democracy?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the aid we give to Thailand is in support of democratic development. Much of it even though it is defined as government development actually is institutional. It goes to places like the Thailand Development Research Institute, an independent think tank for economic policy in support of democracy and good governance. There are projects for community development and for human resource development.
Those are very important projects in the current context. While we are prepared to take strong action on aid as it is required, we think that under these circumstances, certainly to date, these projects support the democratic process and are useful for the people of Thailand as they search for full democracy.


GUN CONTROL
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chairman of the standing committee on justice which is now studying the proposed firearms regulations.
I want to be sure that I will have the opportunity to discuss with the committee some problematic regulations. One such regulation is the requirement to load guns only where they may be lawfully discharged. The problem is that the police are not exempt.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the member could put his question.


Bill Attewell: Will the committee be seriously looking at some of these harsh rules on gun collectors and others?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the question is out of order.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In the context of the Rio conference it is very clear that the government has completely caved in on global warming. One hopes it will not on biodiversity.
I would like to ask a question about another crucial issue and that is the necessity of funding the less developed countries so that they can live up to the undertakings arrived at at Rio.
First question, did the Prime Minister press President Bush today to match the amount that the Japanese are prepared to commit to the global environmental facility?
Second, is the Canadian government prepared to commit new money to a facility in the amount called for annually by its own national round table on the environment?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the government has made both financial commitments and commitments in respect of the substance of the issues having to do with Rio. I certainly would not want the preamble to stand without denying that we have caved in on anything, be it biodiversity or climate change.
The Prime Minister has been in touch with the President on the issues that are coming up and on the need that the conference be a success. Indeed he has been instrumental in encouraging President Bush to attend along with other G-7 leaders.
May 20, 1992

As to the outcome of the conference, we will have to wait and see. There will be further discussions among all the G-7 leaders, not just the President and the Prime Minister, between now and then.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is with regard to yesterday. At 6 p.m., the Acting Speaker indicated to the House that there was a motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 which was deemed to have been moved and he acknowledged the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Earlier that day there were some discussions among House leaders concerning different travel motions for which consent was necessary and we had agreed to the substance of those motions.
My point of order is simply that these matters were raised at an inappropriate time, namely during the adjournment proceedings. I believe the rules are fairly clear on that. It ought not to have taken place yesterday during the adjournment proceedings. I hope in the future that this will not serve as a precedent for further motions seeking unanimous consent of the House, regardless of what the subject matter may be.
I want to indicate to the House that as far as the subject matter is concerned, we have agreed with those travel motions but it was an inappropriate time to raise those in adjournment proceedings.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to support my colleague's intervention. We in the New Democratic Party support the motions, but I would not like to see using that particular time of the day as a precedent for moving unanimous consent motions. Indeed, we support the points raised concerning yesterday.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.
I am sure at least some members will recall, with reason, how I ranted and raged against the House during the debate on the war between Iraq and Kuwait, because of those surprise motions that could be presented any
Routine Proceedings
time of the day or night. Dissatisfied with what it could obtain directly, the government would wait until the member in question was absent from the House or until there was no quorum, to ask the unanimous consent of the House, and do so at any time of the day or night.
I think that members who are dedicated to the principles of the House of Commons and the spirit of harmony that should exist within these precincts, would like to see our standing orders make it sufficiently clear when, how and where unanimous consent can be requested, so that people are not taken unawares, and I am thinking more particularly of what happened last night.
I simply want to be on the record as reminding the House of what has happened before, and I would like to have the assurance that these surprise motions do not become the rule in this House.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the point of order.
I think it is clear that an exception was made yesterday evening. I just wanted to restate that it is the practice and the intent of the government to move such motions at the appropriate time during Routine Proceedings.
In perusing the record, it will be found that what was done was procedurally correct. I want to assure my hon. friends that it is not the intention of the government to establish a new practice or to depart from established practice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has heard the point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.

May 20, 1992
Routine Proceedings
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present to the House petitions signed by many of my constituents as well as constituents in the surrounding area.
These petitioners call upon the government to step up action on refugee cases while exercising compassion. Many of these refugees are suffering from personal and economic hardship as their future is undecided while they await the slow refugee processing.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present 25 signatures on a petition to the House of Commons.
The petitioners say that social and political conditions are unstable in many Third World countries, that thousands of refugees to Canada are trapped in a processing backlog and that many of these refugees are suffering from personal and economic hardships, their futures undecided as they await the slow refugee processing.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to step up action on refugee cases and exercise some compassion.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Scarborough-Rouge River.
Following up on the Citizen's Forum, the petitioners ask that the government ensure that a referendum on constitutional reform proposals is held and that it provide a mechanism for approving the constitutional proposals and some mechanism for a double majority.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions to the House. The first petition is from a number of constituents from the Moose Jaw-Lake Centre riding and states that it is important to encourage all Canadians to take pride in a united, strong and independent Canada.
Although Canadians are normally reserved people and control their patriotic feelings, the petitioners are very pleased to take part in the Proud to be Canadian Project which is sponsored by the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada.
The petitioners therefore pledge their support to protect Canada, as an opportunity to nurture a positive feeling and relationship with our heritage and our flag and to encourage stronger ties with all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.


Rodney Edward Laporte: My
second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from a number of constituents from Elbow, Saskatchewan. They state that whereas the abuse of alcohol is seen as the cause of many of the social problems confronting our society, and whereas the advertising of alcoholic beverages on radio and television is seen to encourage the abuse of alcohol by young people and others, the undersigned, the petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the government to ban the advertising of alcoholic beverages on radio and television. They call on the government to act on this matter.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition, deemed to be certified by the clerk of petitions under Standing Order 36, is signed by constituents of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, all of whom reside in Paradise Hill or St. Walburg, Saskatchewan.
May 20, 1992

The petitioners state that it is appropriate to encourage all Canadians to take pride in a united, strong and independent Canada. The petitioners were part of the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada's Proud to be Canadian Project which is taking place across Canada at this moment.
The petitioners thereby support the Proud to be Canadian Project as an opportunity to nurture a positive, life-long relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be in Paradise Hill for this tour and the signing of that petition.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is again certified by the clerk of petitions under Standing Order 36 and is signed by members of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, almost all of whom reside in the city of North Battleford.
The petitioners are all concerned about the constitutional process presently taking place in Canada. They have reviewed the process by which Canada has undertaken to allow Canadians to participate in the process.
They call on the government to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people which is binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government. They also call upon a regional majority for Canadians in the counting process.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners in this first petition call upon the government to bring forward real tax reform.
They want a simplification of the system. They note that if you have child care receipts you can get an income tax deduction, but if you choose to stay home and take care of your children you cannot. They deplore the fact that common law couples had their deductions changed and not to their advantage.
These petitioners call upon the government to bring about tax reform.
Routine Proceedings


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in another instance, petitioners from my constituency ask that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission monitor the use of foul and inappropriate language on radio and television in both the English and French languages. They feel it is counteractive and contradicts the efforts of parents in their home to rear their children. They want this monitored.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, finally I have petitioners from my constituency who call upon the government to ensure that there is quality education, training, retraining, research and development in our country. How else can you meet the challenges of globalization, enhance competitiveness and increase productivity.
They deplore the fact that there have been cuts to transfer payments, a 3 per cent tax on student loans, six months more interest on loans; tuition fees are increasing; student debt is increasing. They want the government to review all of this.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition collected by Ted Wray who is with the Oakdale Acres Ratepayers Association of my riding of York West.
He collected a number of petitions asking this government to amend the Narcotics Control Act so that the huge financial proceeds coming from drug seizures in metropolitan Toronto, where unfortunately drug abuse is rampant, be shared with local police officers and local organizations rather than having 100 per cent of those proceeds going back to the general revenue funds of the Government of Canada.
The aspect and the objective is that the organizations, local police forces and others who are on the leading edge of trying to combat drugs would be aided by some very much needed tools.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Mountain, Ontario; Ottawa, Ontario; Nepean and other areas in the vicinity of Ottawa.

May 20, 1992
Routine Proceedings
These petitioners join with countless others for whom I have filed petitions in a seemingly endless parade of objections to the high cost of gasoline in this area. My fear is that the petitions are falling on deaf ears because the replies I have seen to some of the previous ones from the government have been totally useless.
These particular petitioners object to the disparity and the high price of gas in the Ottawa area as opposed to other parts of Ontario. They call upon Parliament to urge the government to correct this injustice to Ottawa area motorists instead of filing a host of platitudes every time these petitioners file objections in this House, with the outrageous conduct of this government allowing them to be taken to the cleaners the way they have been for so long.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents who have expressed concern about two Canadian citizens, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who in their opinion are suffering miscarriages of justice.
They are urging the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today, forthrightly and fully: Nos. 235 and 268.


Mrs. Gaffney: Since January 1989, how much federal funding from all sources
has been given to (a) the National Action Committee on the Status
of Women and (b) Action Canada?


Hon. Robert R. de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned, the answer is as follows:
(a)	Since January 1989, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) has received a total of $1,315,000 in federal funding from the Secretary of State.
(b)	No funding has been provided by the Department of the Secretary of State to Action Canada.


Mr. Proud: For the years 1990 and 1991, have any departments, agencies or
crown corporations contributed funding to the National Action
Committee on the Status of Women and if so (a) which ones (b) in
what amounts?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned, the answer is as follows:
(a)	The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has received funding from the Department of the Secretary of State for the fiscal years 1990-91 and
1991-92.
(b)	In 1990-91, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women received $396,000 from the Department of the Secretary of State and in 1991-92, $300,000.


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


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government when I could expect a reply to the Notice of Motion for Production of Papers I tabled on February 26, 1992, as item P-13?
May 20, 1992


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the hon. member's question.
What I can say is that the papers in question are not in the control of the Government of Canada and that it would be appropriate for my hon. friend to address her question to the commission itself, that is the Commission on Reproductive Technology which I believe was the object of her question.
I would ask therefore that the question be transferred for debate if it is unacceptable to my hon. friend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have an application pursuant to Standing Order 52. The Chair has received a letter from the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke. It is very, very important. I would like to hear the hon. member's very short comment.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party decided that an application for an emergency debate regarding the issues arising from the Westray coal disaster was important and was an issue requiring urgent consideration by the House.
First of all, yesterday Canada mourned the loss of 26 Nova Scotia miners killed in an industrial accident at the Westray coal mine. Today Canadians are seeking assurance from their governments, both federal and provincial, that this disaster could not have been prevented. They want to understand the circumstances underlying the operations of the mine and surrounding the accident.
The high level of public concern must be answered at this the earliest appropriate opportunity for this Parliament to discharge its responsibilities to both the dead and the living. The legitimate demand of Canadians for answers to their compelling questions, which have been covered widely in the media during the past week, were appropriately held at bay over this last week by agreement of all parties of this House. We did not feel that it was an appropriate time, and those demands for answers must now be met. A failure to meet that demand we feel can only further disappoint Canadians in a Parliament
Government Orders
already suffering from considerable public disdain and disrespect.
The usual opportunities the House provides will not enable this assurance to be made in a timely manner. The business of the House in the last weeks before the summer recess is simply too crowded to provide for debate during regular hours, and that has been compounded by the addition of the referendum legislation just put before the House.
For that reason I respectfully submit that an emergency debate is the most appropriate means for this Parliament to discharge its responsibilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have listened to the hon. member and also we have looked over the letter and his proposition.
I regret at this time it does not meet the terms of the Standing Orders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When debate ended, the hon. member had 10 minutes of questions and comments.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened very carefully, as I intend to do throughout a debate that is so important for the future of our country, to the comments made by my hon. friend, colleague and neighbour, who incidentally will celebrate his 25th anniversary as a parliamentarian next Friday, on May 29. He was elected to this House on May 29, 1967, and I thought we should mark this occasion. I listened carefully to what the hon. member had to say, and it brought back a host of memories of all the events around this constitutional question.

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
I keep thinking that if we had only ratified the Victoria charter-someday, we will have to write history as it is-we would not be here, rehashing the same subject more than 20 years later. Political observers should take another look at the Victoria charter, in light of the revelations by special advisers who had said, at the time, that Victoria was unacceptable.
I also keep thinking that if we had only ratified Meech Lake, we would not be here discussing the constitutional question once again. In other countries people are killing each other and burning cities and getting into fights about constitutional questions. In Canada, things are different. We talk and talk, and eventually, when we think people are really getting fed up, we finally find a solution, and that is what we will try to do.
I must say that my hon. colleague and friend very aptly expressed-and I speak as chairman of the caucus of Liberal senators and members from Quebec-the wishes of the Quebec caucus in Ottawa, when he said there should be spending limits. We discussed this at length, and I appreciate his emphasis on this point. He also said that this kind of referendum seemed to require a double majority, a majority across Canada and a majority in each of the regions, but, irrespective of the final debate and the ultimate decision made in this House, we will never tolerate imposing a decision on a majority of Quebecers who would be opposed to it. I would not tolerate that, and I know I have colleagues and friends in all parties who would agree this would be entirely unacceptable.
I also urge political observers, colleagues and friends-and I would appreciate the hon. member's comments-to remember that in 1978, just to show there is nothing new under the sun, on April 4, and I am proud to say my memory has not failed me, Marc Lalonde, then minister of state responsible for federal-provincial relations, tabled a referendum bill. Everybody knows Marc Lalonde and I have had a number of vigorous discussions. We often disagreed, but I must say that his presentation on the referendum bill, and I have a summary here of the main provisions of that bill, contains many elements that we also find in the bill before the House today.
In any case, I hope that whatever the tenor of discussions by the party leadership, the government will
agree to accept amendments. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would tell us if we stand any chance of getting through to the responsible minister, who seems determined to argue:

"It's going to be my way or no way." I would like to tell him that it is going to be no way if he thinks it is going to be his way.
On a question of such dramatic importance for the future of our country, I would hope that the government would have the sagacity, the intelligence of accepting major amendments, when the time comes. I would suggest that we should go to committee, not a committee of the whole but I would prefer a committee of this House, to study exactly what this referendum is all about. I would not understand if the political parties did not participate. I could not accept personally if the political parties do not participate together in the drafting of the question. It is unacceptable. I know my colleague is an expert. I am sure he will vigorously defend that point of view expressed by us. He is our representative. We want to participate in the drafting, it should not only done by the government. There should definitely be a limit to the expenses, and there should be fairness for both points of view that will be expressed to Canadians.
I thank him for his views which he expressed yesterday. I trust he will be vigorous in his representation and I would like him to comment further on the few proposals that I just made.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Denis for his statement. In particular, I must say that it is quite appropriate to set spending limits for the yes and no sides. Without spending limits, the wealthier will obviously have more opportunity to put across their point of view and may be able to impose their opinion in such a way that the others will feel wronged in what must be as democratic an exercise as possible.
May 20, 1992

I find it rather strange that the government refuses to impose spending limits by arguing that under the charter, people cannot be forced to get together under a yes or no umbrella. I would tell those who say that Canada is too diverse to have such umbrella committees that Great Britain used such a procedure in the referendum on its joining the European Community.
When the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was talking about this referendum held in Great Britain. Before I was interrupted, I was going to say that the no camp in Great Britain contained ultra-Conservative unionists from Ulster and Trotskyist coal miners' unions, while the yes camp included the Labour Prime Minister and the English managerial class. Moreover, the yes side included some ministers in the Wilson cabinet and some ministers in the Wilson cabinet were on the no side.
That makes me think of the division of opinion now in the Conservative government. Some days, on seeing the minister of intergovermental affairs say one thing and the minister of health another, one wonders whether these two gentlemen are not preparing to be in different camps in the referendum that might soon be held in Canada. But just because the leader of the Reform Party and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois might be on the same side in the Canadian referendum does not mean that there should be no umbrella committees. On the contrary, I think that it is quite natural, in a referendum on a major issue, to find people of different allegiances on the same side. That was the case in the Quebec referendum.
We will recall that the present leader of the Liberal opposition stood with Camil Samson, leader of the Creditiste Party, and the then leader of the Conservative Party, who today is the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. These three people, of very different political stripes, were on the same platform, in the same camp, and that did not prevent the referendum from being held and running smoothly.
I bring up these things because it seems to me that the government is hiding behind the charter of rights in its desire not to set spending limits for the principal camps in a referendum. We think that spending limits are absolutely essential and that the government must understand and accept this. There will be no credible, fair,
Government Orders
equitable and democratic referendum unless the spending of the groups that take part in it is limited.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened yesterday to the debate with a good deal of interest. I was perhaps looking for some passion about our country and expecting to see in the House of Commons a sense of co-operation and accommodation in terms of dealing with this very important issue of legislation for a consultative referendum for Canadians.
Unfortunately I did not hear what I was looking for. Just a moment ago when my hon. colleague across the way asked a question of the member who spoke last yesterday I noted that he made some reference as to whether we should have spending controls on the legislation. The answer suggested that we should and that the government is somehow doing something wrong by not imposing these controls.
I have some things I would like to say about this, and I have some references I would like to make. However I would like to begin by quoting an article in The Ottawa Sun today by Michel Gratton.
In response to my colleague he said that the Liberals "obviously want a national plebiscite on the constitution". He also said:
I can understand the opposition's frustration. They are not in control. It must be particularly hard for those Thideau-era Grits who used to manipulate their adversaries in similar fashion. I don't remember Jean Chretien consulting too many opposition members on constitutional matters.
And I don't remember any of them complaining about "no spending limits" on referendum expenses when the Thideau ministers surreptitiously poured millions into TV advertising to defeat Ren6 Levesque's plebiscite in 1980.
I think it ill behoves any of us to say that we have some answers that are rooted in the past or rooted in absolutes when history has proven otherwise.
What is important in this debate is that we examine all the issues carefully and thoughtfully, thinking not only of our own political concerns, our own regional concerns, or our own particular interests. We must examine the issues carefully and thoughtfully in terms of the interests of the country as a whole and at large.

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
On the question of the referendum and why we are doing what we are doing in terms of this legislation there are some very straightforward answers that require non-partisan and thoughtful debate in order to arrive at the right conclusion to serve the country as best as we can.
First, there seems to be confusion in the minds of many of our constituents, our audience out there, about why we should hold a referendum, why it is not binding and whether the Constitution can be amended by holding a referendum.
For those who may be a little concerned or a little confused about this matter we cannot amend the Constitution through a referendum. It takes 11 governments, the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of all 10 provinces, to amend the Constitution. That is the only way it can be done. It can be seven out of ten of those provinces with 50 per cent of the population or some other combination including unanimous consent.
That is what is in the Constitution. The referendum allows us merely to consult with the Canadian public, to get a sense of the direction in which Canadians would like to see us go. It is a reference to the public to ensure that the decisions we are taking in this very important matter, which is of such profound importance to the country, are decisions that are supported by the population in general. We have heard many questions about whether or not the Constitution should have a decision pending on the double minority, majority in all four regions, or a majority in any particular region or any particular province. My answer to that is that if the referendum cannot ultimately amend the Constitution, if it is not binding on the government-and it cannot be because of the way in which the Constitution was amended in 1982-then all the referendum is designed to do is provide a reference point for the decision-makers in the country. Once we have consulted with the country then we will have the kind of direction we need in order to take the next step.
It might be said by some opposition members that this does not demonstrate the kind of leadership that government should be taking on an issue like this. On a question such as this one we need to have as much support for the ultimate decision as we possibly can.
This is not just a question of an election bill, it is not just a question of a budget bill or a matter or policy that affects us in a small way. This is the question of the future of our country. I think that all Canadians are interested in that outcome, regardless of whether the Constitution can be amended by other than the provincial ministers and the Parliament of Canada.
This allows us to consult with Canadians to get their sense of our direction and where we are going. It provides us with the kind of information we need to plot the course of action and take us to the next step so that we can do what everybody wants, which is keep the country together. There is no shame in that. There is no shame in doing absolutely everything that is within our power to keep the country intact.
The other question that continues to arise concerns why there is no limit on the amount of money that can be spent in talking about this question, and saying that people should vote yes or people should vote no. I personally do not know, and I do not understand emotionally or intellectually why anyone would want to do anything to limit the right of individual Canadians to express their opinions on this particular and very important issue.
It seems to me that even if we did not have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is very specific on freedom of speech, as Canadians we would want to have that ability to speak loudly and clearly and to be heard as well as we possibly could. In fact, it does say in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was passed in 1982, under fundamental freedoms in section 2(b): "Everyone has the fundamental freedom: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication".
That guarantees that Canadians can say what they like to say or what they feel that they must say to help us keep this wonderful country together. It helps to ensure that a referendum will allow for the greatest expression of opinion and provide the best possible sense of direction for the first ministers. It is they who ultimately must come to grips with the problem and help us amend the Constitution in a way that will give Quebec a sense of having a home within Canada and allow it to feel free enough to be able to express itself in the manner that an individual province and the individuals within that prov-
May 20, 1992

ince have the right to do in this particular country of ours, which is a great democracy.
We hear comments about fairness. It is not fair if we do not limit the spending. It is not fair if we do not reduce the amount that can be said on either side of the question. I do not understand that myself.
It seems to me that in this country we have some fundamental obligations, some responsibility as citizens. Whether we are members of the political system, members of the public at large, or members of the media or the business community our first duty is to our country and to ensuring that this great Confederation of ours remains intact.
To do that we must provide an atmosphere in which all the partners in Confederation can feel that they have a home which they belong in, and which they stay in because it provides some warmth, some comfort and some hope for the future for them. It is not something that we can force upon the members of the federation.
If we had a unitary country, I suppose none of this would be happening. It would all be so simple because we would not have to deal with 10 unitary states which have come together in a federation.
But in fact, that is not what we have. We have a great federation made up of 11 partners and two, almost three, territories at this time, that have a sense of individuality. That is appropriate in a country of 27 million people spread thinly across 25 million square miles.
It is difficult to keep a country like this together. The only way we can do it is by allowing each of the members of the federation, each of the partners in this country to have a sense of its own individuality, to express itself according to what is appropriate for its own needs and for its own place in our history and in our country. That is true of British Columbia, it is true of Manitoba, and it is also true of Quebec.
We have come to the pass where some members of the federation feel alienated, feel left out. They feel that somehow the country is not giving them what they thought they were going to get when they first came to Confederation. Therefore, we must rethink our approach to doing things, take a step back, take another look and ask whether there is some better way.
Government Orders
First of all, we have to know that the country wants to stay together. When the committee I co-chaired with Senator Beaudoin, which travelled across the country over the last few months, had completed its deliberations and tabled its report, a poll was conducted by Environics for the Council on Canadian Unity.
It was very clear to us from the results of that poll that, in fact, the one thing a large majority of Canadians can agree on is that they want this country to stay together because 71 per cent of them supported what was in the report. I would be quite surprised if 71 per cent of them actually had all the details of what was in the report at their fingertips.
Even more encouraging about that Environics poll was the fact that 65 per cent of Quebecers supported what was in the report. That tells me also that there is a large sense of wanting to remain in Canada, of wanting to belong to something greater that will lend strength to all parts of Quebec as well as the rest of Canada.
A referendum will allow us to get a sense of direction from every comer of the country, from each of the individual parts. However, we have to be extremely careful that we manage this referendum in a way that will not create alienation in any of the parts.
It would be unfortunate if we were to isolate any part of the federation by drawing very hard lines in the sand saying that there must be a majority here and there must be a majority there so that there is a binding decision. That is not the exercise.
The exercise is to consult, to think and then to determine the next step in a thoughtful way that does what it can to use the information we obtain by holding the referendum to bind the country together rather than use it in a way that might ultimately have just the opposite effect.
I want to say again that the Constitution cannot be amended by holding a referendum. The only way the Constitution can be amended is through the consent of the legislatures of the country, of the 10 provinces and the Parliament of Canada.
In the case of most of the issues that are on the table right now and later between the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the first ministers, most of those issues can be settled by seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population and the Parliament of Canada

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
consenting. One or two issues, such as amending the amending formula itself, require unanimous consent.
It is important that all members of this House and all people in Canada understand that if a referendum is held, it is a matter of reference. It is a matter of governments and all members of Parliament seeking direction to do one thing and that is to keep the country together. In spite of our own particular political stripe or particular partisan bent, we are all bound together by that same, individual, single goal. If we do not keep this country together, there will not be a Parliament, a referendum, or podiums for people to take partisan positions.
As the debate continues, I hope all members of Parliament will put their country first, put their partisan and personal interests aside just for a moment. Members should work toward a solution that will keep the country together, give all parts of the federation a sense of participation that will avoid any kind of divisive action that would alienate any more parts of the country. I appreciate the opportunity to say these few words today.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I have a question for my colleague, the former chair of our parliamentary committee. It seems only a few days ago we were doing this in the committee, over that five or six month period.
I would like to ask her about the idea people have that in this bill there should be the concept of regional majorities. I know she was not on the amending formula committee which was co-chaired by her friend the senator and the member for Edmonton Southwest.
In that particular committee we had a unanimous report in terms of a consultative referendum. In that referendum wording we said we should have a double majority. We said that if there is a referendum: "The referendum should require a national majority and a majority in each of the four regions: Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic, and the west".
How would we interpret the results of a referendum if indeed we do not have that in the bill? Would she agree for example that before we proceed with amending the Constitution we would have to have the support of the population of Quebec? If she agrees to that, would she not also agree that we would have to have the support of western Canadians, Ontarians, or Atlantic Canadians?
I have always been of the view that before we can change the Constitution we have to have the support of an overwhelming majority of Canadians. It is not just an ordinary law; it is a very special document, it is the basic law of the country.
If we do not have the four regional vetoes in there in terms of a double majority, what advice would she have as to how we should interpret the results of that referendum?
There are all kinds of results. I would not want to speculate what they might be. I know the Prime Minister may be making a statement later as to how he would interpret the results of the referendum, but I want to know what advice she may have for the House as to how we should interpret those results?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the question. It is a valid one.
I do not think it is really a question of deciding at this point in time how we would interpret the results of the referendum or try to predetermine what we might actually see when a referendum is held.
It is very important, as I said before, to be flexible enough in terms of the consultation process with the public to allow for that determination to take place when we see the results.
Right now, if we draw hard lines in the sand and take positions and say that we must have a majority in Quebec, we must have a majority in Ontario, we must have a majority from the regions, then we are already asking for resistance and that will reduce the impact and the overall importance of this consultation process we are going through.
If we must go through it, it is extremely important that we be veiy careful that we do not do it in a way that will create some sense of alienation or some sense of isolation in any of the individual parts of the federation.
The hon. member mentioned he was on the Beau-doin-Edwards committee. I know he played a very important role there. There was unanimous consent about the regional vetoes and the double majority. But he will also recall that met with a very sharp rejection by those regions. Therefore, it is one of the questions we have to answer and one of the reasons we have to go so carefully.
May 20, 1992


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the hon. member's riding and mine are separated only by the Assiniboine River. I always take note of what the hon. member says. I certainly share her love of country and support her patriotic remarks on behalf of this great country.
I am wondering whether the remarks she made this afternoon are perhaps better suited for the referendum debate itself, if we ever get to that, if the government does call a referendum, and we have to debate exactly what the question is. I say that only because I think that the previous speaker, at least today, should be concerned more with the mechanics of the referendum.
That brings me to the issue of a double majority. Our party believes strongly in a double majority provision in any referendum.
Let me attack it from this perspective. We are all minorities. One way or another, we are all minorities. There are only 295 members of Parliament in Canada and as a body of people, we are a minority in Canada. I come from the province of Manitoba, as does the hon. member for Winnipeg South. In the context of Canada, we are a minority. The people of Quebec are a minority in the context of Canada. Canadians, even though there are 27 million, are a minority in the context of the whole continent. When it comes to North Americans, we are a minority.
I raise that because one of the strong arguments against referenda for a long, long time has been the fear that referenda can be used by majorities to trample on the rights of minorities. That has always been the concern of having referenda. I can relate to that argument. I always fear when people talk about referenda that the instrument can be used by the majority to trample on minorities.
With that concern and with that fear, it leads me and my colleagues on this side of the House to support a double majority. That is the very provision in a referendum that will protect minorities in this country.
We in the west are a minority. We do not want a majority of Canadians to gang up on us when it comes to reshaping the Constitution. I am quite sure that Quebecers feel the same way. They do not want Ontarians or
Government Orders
people from Atlantic Canada or the west ganging up on them.
So how do we protect Quebecers? How do we protect people from western Canada? How do we protect people from Ontario? Even though there are nine million, in the context of the country they are a minority. I cannot think of a better way to protect minorities in this country in a referendum than to incorporate a double majority provision.
I would like my hon. friend from Winnipeg South to comment on that.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my neighbour for his very good question. There is nothing to say that ultimately, when we see the results of the referendum, it may not be one of the considerations.
Obviously it is in the government's interest to protect everybody in Canada and that is very difficult. That is one of the reasons we have been so reluctant to enter into this whole issue of having a referendum. Clearly there are some downsides to it and it is still a big if.
What we are presenting here today is the ability to hold a referendum. It does not carry with it a guarantee that that is what will happen. By happy chance, if we can come to a consensus, which is really the only fair way that protects all minorities, about how to keep this country together, then a referendum need not be held. If one were held it would only be a matter of rubberstamping what had already been achieved through consensus.
I respect and appreciate the hon. member's question. It is a difficult one. That is why it is so important not to draw too many hard lines or tight rules around how we will or might interpret the results of a referendum, if indeed we absolutely have to have one at some point in time.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear the government has failed to consider the impact of its decision to ask the House to adopt this bill and its decision to hold a Canadian referendum in circumstances the government may be said to have created.
Today, May 20, is the 12th anniversary of the 1980 referendum in Quebec.

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
My point is that we know what a referendum is like, and we know how traumatic it can be. We have seen the consequences and we are keenly aware of the political and democratic requisites for the referendum process. It so happens that the referendum that may be held as soon as the bill before the House is passed does not meet these criteria, Mr. Speaker. It does not meet the criteria for political legitimacy, because to us in Quebec, it is not legitimate. And as for being democratic, as far as Canada is concerned, it is not.
When I say it is not legitimate, I mean that the motives behind the government's action are patently suspect and extremely negative. It is painfully obvious that its real purpose is to do an end run around the referendum Quebec is about to call itself. After two years of dilatory measures, of successive failures of initiatives like the Spicer commission that turned into a regular circus, the proposals tabled on September 24, 1991, which were practically stillborn, the Beaudoin-Dobbie report which has now been shelved after only a few weeks, it seems as though this government all of a sudden wanted to prevent Quebec from holding its own referendum.
Why? It so happens that for the past two years a major movement has been growing and taking shape in Quebec, leading to the rebirth of the sovereignist movement. Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of the Canadian malaise and our political landscape, the major issue is Quebec's sovereignty. We can talk until the cows come home, we can waste our time on contitu-tional commas and semi-colons, we can use increasingly convoluted formulas to dilute the distinct identity of Quebec, but basically, we are just trying to evade the real issue. The real issue is: Will Quebec become sovereign, yes or no? In any case, that is what Quebecers have on their minds. I am not saying everyone will say yes, but in Quebec there are a lot of people who think Quebec should become sovereign and who want to be able to answer a question dealing with this particular subject. And this led to a commission of inquiry known as the Belanger-Campeau commission, which sat for nearly one year. Three members of this House sat on the commission, and I was one of those members. This commission, whose members represented all activity sectors in Quebec, including labour, business, communities and all political parties, reached certain conclusions. Of course it could not reach a consensus on sovereignty or federalism, but there was one conclusion on which we all agreed and that was the enormous cost to all of us, in Quebec and Canada, as a result of the uncertainty in this
country, an economic cost that is impossible to assess, a financial cost as well as a social cost and political cost.
Our society is not preparing for the major challenges of the future. While the world is busy building and rebuilding, Quebec and Canada are playing these introspective games. We have an education system that has to be renewed. We have to develop new technologies. We must redesign our national fabric, in Canada and Quebec, and meanwhile we are wasting our time on an endless discussion which contributes nothing to this debate. Why? Because some people, and these are mostly politicians or governments, do not want Quebecers to say what they want. But until Quebecers have voted in a Quebec referendum held under the auspices of the State of Quebec, by answering a question that deals with sovereignty, and until a decision is made, nothing will be settled.
Anything done by this government under siege, which is trying to use a referendum as an election platform and wrapping itself in the Canadian flag to save its own skin, will be useless. It is not getting us anywhere, and since this referendum is not legitimate because it does not answer the real question, because it will not resolve the real problems, the Bloc Quebecois will never feel bound by the results. Never. We will just be back to square one.
We are well aware that this referendum which the present government is preparing to hold is also an act of impotence, an admission that its own efforts have failed. This government had promised to make an offer to Quebec. Quebecers know that the political situation may produce an offer of renewal or lead to sovereignty. The Belanger-Campeau commission concluded that Quebecers, like Canadians, by the way, had two options: sovereignty for Quebec or thoroughly renewed federalism. Supposing federalism can be renewed and that an offer might still come from the federal and provincial governments, the Government of Quebec created a parliamentary committee to study any offers that might come and would be binding on the federal and provincial governments.
May 20, 1992

This government had the obligation to make an offer, but it failed every time it tried to come up with one. So when the government tells us now that it will hold a referendum, what is it saying? It is telling us to forget about offers. Forget about the discussions going on in Montreal today and that have been going on throughout the country for some time. This government has two strategies. There is the strategy of the minister responsible for the issue, which is to try to come up with an agreement, and the strategy of the Prime Minister, who has concluded that the negotiations would fail.
By preparing to hold a referendum, Mr. Speaker, he is telling us: "The current negotiations are a farce. I know that my minister responsible is a naive man who is wasting his time and wasting the country's time. In fact, this country needs something to stir up the electorate, so that I can then hold an election on the basis of a yes vote that I will get on a phoney question." That is what is going on, Mr. Speaker. Let us be logical and open our eyes.
While we are wasting our time on what is supposedly a referendum debate, we are just discussing a life buoy that this government, which is dangerously adrift, wants thrown to it.
We in the Bloc Quebecois will not go along and take as hypocritical a stand as some others. I was there the other day when the Leader of the Official Opposition tore his shirt on learning that the bill would be tabled. He denounced its undemocratic character and added shortly afterward that he would vote for the bill, even without amendment, regardless. What inconsistency. That shows the government's tricks and the opposition's inconsistency. Inconsistency is a kind word; why not use another word that is in the dictionary, but I do not know if it is parliamentary: "hypocrisy". This same Leader of the Opposition tells us-and the hon. member just reminded him-that we should use the democratic rules provided in Quebec's legislation, rules that he speaks of with admiration today, rules that allow fairness in public funding for both sides. What a wonderful law. What a wonderful democratic requirement Quebec has. We should apply it to the federal government. But that same Leader of the Opposition, who was a minister in the Liberal government during the 1980 referendum that we are celebrating today, was determined to systemati-
Govemment Orders
cally violate Quebec's democratic legislation by tipping the scales with money and unlimited federal spending.
This makes me draw a parallel with the present bill. When I just said-and this is my second point-that this bill is not democratic, I believe that the argument may apply to all of Canada. I am a sovereigntist, but not because I believe that the federal government or the federal state is undemocratic. I am one of those who believe that, whatever the future of Quebec, whatever path it takes, it must maintain the democratic institutions that we have lived with for over a hundred years. I am one of those who are generally proud of the democratic tradition under which Canada operates, despite its shortcomings and weaknesses that we denounce from time to time but that in general do not break the continuity of this country's democracy.
I say that this referendum is an infringement on Canadian democracy and if ever a referendum were held in such conditions, it will be a scar on Canada's history and sully a very fine tradition that will always be an inspiration to Quebec. Why do I say that? It is, for example, because of the issue of unlimited spendings.
In every country of the world, at least in democratic countries and especially in ours, there is a requirement when an election is held, because it is an important decision, to put a ceiling on expenses and to ensure that one party will not be able to spend more than another. It is an old rule that has always prevailed. Elections have been held in Canada since the charter of rights came into effect. Nobody ever disputed that rule and I am convinced-this is a legal opinion which is worth what the others are worth and probably less-that the Supreme Court will never allow the law of the jungle to prevail, it will never substitute the power of money for the power of citizens when what is at stake is an issue as important as the future of a country.
Yet the government tells us that there will be no ceiling on expenses. Today I heard in the hallway-I do not know if it is worth anything, I have not seen the text-that the government leader intends to impose a very strict limit on the expenses of each committee, but that he would not limit the number of committees. This is a joke. This is the kind of amendment to be expected from this government. I can just see them show up tomorrow and tell us that they are generous and that they have listened to the voice of democracy. Mr. Speaker, they will come and tell us that they have

May 20,1992
Government Orders
decided to impose a limit on the expenses of the committees. However, they will not limit the number of committees. There can be as many committees as there are Canadians. This is another joke by this government.
What is more serious, even though it often goes unnoticed, is the fact that the government itself, in its management of public resources, will not be subjected to any spending limit regarding the referendum. In other words, ministers will travel in Challenger aircrafts, civil servants will criss-cross the country during the referendum campaign, and they will be able to do just about anything with the government's money, the taxpayers' money, to influence the outcome of this exercise. Officially, it might be true that no party in this House will have access to public funds, but in fact one party will have such access.
This legislation enables the government and the government party, namely the Conservative Party, to use without any restriction, as that government likes to do given the deficit that we have, the public funds, the taxpayers' money, to come out a winner.
Mr. Speaker, if this is the kind of country in which Canadians want to live, the kind of referendum that they want to hold, and the kind of public administration that they want, fine, but us Quebecers say no and this referendum is null and void even before it is held. I can tell you that we will fight it everywhere in Quebec; we will challenge not only the question, but also the admissibility of the referendum, its anti-democratic character, and we will ask the people to vote against such an anti-democratic measure. I can assure you that there will be federalists from Quebec who will vote against the question because they feel that this intervention is shameful, unacceptable, and it goes against their idea of a fair and equitable society.
I have one last point regarding the content of this legislation. It is the issue of majority. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the motto of Quebec is "Je me souviens" and there is a date in the recent history of Quebec as well as in the recent history of Canada that nobody talks about; I am referring to 1942. Let us not forget that the conscription in 1942 was one event that tore the country. The general feeling of Quebecers then, which has been
transmitted from generation to generation since, is that Quebec was the victim of steamroller tactics in 1942. The federal government then used the Canadian majority to bury the Quebec minority, even if our province was opposed to the conscription.
Consequently, we all believed that this government, when it would resort to a referendum and pass the required legislation, would allow for a double majority. I believe several members of the government said so before, to free themselves from the syndrome of 42, the conscription syndrome. But no, Mr. Speaker, there is no end to their excesses because they are in a state of utter confusion and helplessness.
Now, there will be only one majority. Some will claim, on the evening of the referendum, that Canada has decided that yes we had to go ahead by approving the empty question that Canadians will be asked, even if Quebec is a minority as regards the result of that referendum. Indeed, the legislation does not officially provide for any other interpretation than the global result for the whole country.
There is already in there a negation of the principle of the existence of the Quebec people. There is a fundamental negation of the right of Quebec to self-determination, which is a principle that last year, in August, this government mocked when, for publicity reasons, the few thousand militants that had gathered in Toronto to boast about having recognized the right of Quebec to self-determination, walked singing "O Canada" and hugging each other. This is the same party today that tables a bill which negates, in its essence and foundation, the principle that it recognized in Toronto last year.
We can only conclude, regarding this government, that a verdict will be necessary. There is of course an artificial majority here, which does not reflect in any way, as we know, what people in Quebec and in Canada think. The verdict will be a general election. Those people across the floor are all about to be evaluated by the population. That is why they wait as long as they can, that is why they will go to the very end of the five-year period provided by the Constitution. That is why they do not dare come before the population; that is why they hide behind an artificial situation which prevents them from getting the
May 20, 1992

sentence that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, we are ready. A decision will have to be made.
My second and last conclusion concerns the Government of Quebec. We have in Quebec a government whose premier has, because of historical continuity, the obligation of preserving the fundamental prerogatives of the state of Quebec. The first responsibility of the Premier of Quebec is not to be a party leader or to tiy to regain power or to remain in power: It is to ensure that the fundamental rights of Quebecers and of the Quebec nation are preserved. The first of those fundamental rights is of course the right to decide in Quebec, Quebec's future.
This same premier ratified the report of the Belanger-Campeau commission which says that there must be a legislation requiring the government to hold a referendum on sovereignty in October 1992 at the latest. The same premier had the National Assembly pass a bill that contains precisely that conclusion and that requirement. We must demand from that premier, and this is what we expect from him, that he does not watch the federal parade at a time when the presence of the state of Quebec is required in a fundamental and essential way.
Therefore, we believe that if English-speaking Canadians want a referendum, which is legitimate, to define the kind of country that they want, the kind of offers that they would like to make to Quebec, so be it. It is totally legitimate, provided it is done in a democratic way. But at the same time, the central issue must be resolved and it must be resolved only by the logical decision-makers, the legitimate decision-makers, namely the people of Quebec. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the steamroller is put into action once again.
I promise you that a great number of members of the Bloc Quebecois will be here, maybe a little farther from the curtain than we are now, with more seats, to again defend the cause of Quebec and to resume a debate that costs a lot to everybody, solves nothing and only makes the situation worse. I call upon realism, I call upon political courage, I call upon the need to make the real decision, which is to decide whether Quebec will or will not be a sovereign state. Leave it to the people of Quebec to decide.
Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the member for Lac-Saint-Jean a question.
Once upon a time, there was another Quebec separatist who was a democrat. His name was Rene Levesque. I heard the speech of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean who claims to favour a referendum within Quebec, but not a referendum across the country. Does the hon. member favour democracy in Quebec but not across Canada? That is my question.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the decision Quebecers will be asked to make in the referendum is complex, but one of its elements is quite straightforward. Is Quebec a sovereign nation whose aspirations will be embodied in a sovereign state? That is a fundamental question that cannot be left up to others to decide. Outsiders cannot decide whether or not Quebec will be sovereign. According to the basic principles of democracy, this referendum, which will determine the future of the people of Quebec, must be held under the auspices of the state of Quebec. It only stands to reason. We must not forget that the word democracy contains the word "demos", the Greek word for "people". Democracy is power exercised by the people, which is as it should be. The power at issue here is the power to determine the future of a people, in this case, the people of Quebec.
Basically, the hon. member and I disagree, not on the concept of democracy but on the identity of the people in question. My hon. friend believes there is one people, the Canadian people, while I believe there are two peoples, who will not go their separate ways because they hate each other but because they are fundamentally different, because they have entirely different concepts of what their future should be and of their collective values, political structures and the kind of government they want.
My hon. friend believes that the federal system is a good system for governing this entity called Canada. I say they cannot be administered together, because the people of Quebec want a weak central government and a strong state of Quebec. My hon. friend believes that under a federal system, the central government must be able to govern, and he is right. But it so happens that since we are two peoples, there is one too many in Canada. Or there is one missing, depending on one's

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
perception. To us, what is missing is the Quebec nation, which we must create.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Lac-Saint-Jean has to do with our responsibility as members of Parliament who, when we come to this Chamber, are given a mandate to speak for Canada.
I do not speak just for Toronto. I do not speak here for Ontario. We try to the best of our ability when we are here not just to speak for our own ridings, but we try to work on behalf of the whole country.
When the member was giving his speech, he talked about the fact that the government would be using taxpayers' resources to try and keep this country together.
Does the member think it is wrong for those of us who want to keep the country together, even though we may have a different view of the direction of the country? Does he not think it is our responsibility and duty to the best of our ability to try and keep this country together? If we did not do that, our constituents would wonder what we are doing in this room.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think with my hon. friend that in a normal federal system when the members are elected in their ridings they must abide by a fundamental duty of protecting the integrity of the country. He is right on that.
We were elected in Quebec. We were elected-that was my case-in a situation where we thought that the Meech Lake Accord would be ratified and that, basing our hopes on this, it would be possible after that, because there would be a climate of generosity and tolerance, to strike a new deal defining the different responsibilities and attributions of Quebec and Canada within the federation.
Meech failed. Meech was rejected and it changed everything. It showed that there were fundamental differences in this country. It showed that a member coming from a Quebec riding would be always obliged to defend Quebec first. It showed that we could not be here as sovereignists forever, that we must be here only the
time it takes to achieve sovereignty, that there would be members acting as members in the House of Commons who would have to defend the country, their country which would be English Canada, and that we would be or other people would be in the parliament of Quebec.
It is a very particular juncture, a transitional juncture where we have to resolve the crisis. We happen to be here. We will seek an additional mandate to come back here with a large number of people, believe me, to complete the job we have undertaken, which is to apply a political solution to a political problem.
Whatever you say, you might wish this to be a unique country, one country, Canada, but it happens that it is two countries, two political entities. We Quebecers feel that we are a people. We have different views of the kind of government we need to be governed, and we think that it can only be achieved through sovereignty and two political structures: neighbours acting in the fulfilment of their aspirations remembering that they have geographical, economic and historical bounds.
Personally I think that we will always be friendly countries, that we are doomed to be friendly to achieve some kind of agreement on the common things we have to do together, but first it goes through sovereignty of Quebec and then maybe something would be possible.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the Toronto convention, where it seems that the Conservative Party first recognized Quebec's right to self-determination. I would simply remind him that in Toronto, our party just reiterated Quebec's right to self-determination, since that right had been recognized in 1980. I think that he should remember it, because at that time he was working for the other side on the Quebec referendum. I also took part in the Quebec referendum.


Pierrette Venne: On what side?


Marc Ferland: I was on the no side, and I have never been ashamed of it.


Mr. Lapierre:: It's been quite a change.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, he said in his speech that the referendum was undemocratic. I have a lot of trouble understanding someone saying that a referendum is
May 20, 1992

undemocratic when it is Canada-wide, but that the Quebec referendum was democratic.
I think that holding a referendum in Canada in no way takes away the right of French-speaking Canadians who live in Quebec to express themselves on the federal government's offers. I think that there is nothing wrong, reprehensible or undemocratic about that and it in no way takes away the Quebec government's right to use Bill 150, which we respect.
So I do not see how my friend opposite can say to us today- He should remember, Mr. Speaker, that not so long ago, he represented Canada in Paris and was proud of it. He said that Canada was the greatest defender of rights and freedoms in the world and an example to follow. Today he tells us in front of everyone here in this House that holding a national referendum is undemocratic. I would like him to explain that to me.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to answer the very vicious personal attacks to which I am accustomed. I already did so and will do so at the appropriate time and place, but I want to return to the essential point-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Well, it's very hard to get through to the hon. member.


Lucien Bouchard: -which challenged the use of the term "undemocratic" that I used to describe the bill and a referendum that would be held in the context of the circumstances he mentioned.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is elementary. As sure as can be, this bill is undemocratic. It is not undemocratic because it asks Quebecers to vote; it is illegitimate, which is even worse.
It is undemocratic because it contains no spending limit and will let our friends opposite go and see business people, engineers, architects, banks, big companies, government suppliers to contribute in order to influence the debate and load the dice. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that in the Quebec referendum, which my colleague just mentioned, the Government of Quebec gave the federalist side a million dollars and the sovereigntist side a million dollars. Will this government dare to do the same? We know very well that it will not. It has the impudence and the indecency-A member from
Government Orders
Quebec in this House has the nerve to accuse Quebec of not being democratic when it set an example for Canada and the federal government, which it should follow today, of respecting both sides.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and member for Lac-Saint-Jean was just saying that, on this day, 12 years ago, on May 20 1980, the people of Quebec were voting in the Quebec referendum. I was listening earlier, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Portneuf who stated he was on the no side. So was I, along with the Chretiens, Mulroneys and Ryans. I was indeed, and I was looking forward to this renewed federalism which rejected Quebec in 1981. Today, I wonder and I would like to put the question to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Nearly two years have gone by since the failure of Meech, on June 23, 1990. In a month or so, two years will have been spent in this House debating the issue and striking committees to try and resolve the constitutional deadlock we are in. I would like to ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean about the statement the Minister of Labour made the other day to the effect that a Canadawide referendum would have no legal value. Would that not tend to prove that the government is afraid of the results of such a referendum? Would it not tend to prove also that it is only a diversionary tactic aimed at confusing people, especially the people of Quebec?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is relevant and stresses the blatant vagueness of the referendum because they are trying to have it both ways. That is the kind of language we have grown accustomed to with this government. I am not as good at it as I was two years ago. At any rate, it is obvious that this government is talking from both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, it is telling us that the referendum will change absolutely nothing, that it will be meaningless. On the other hand, when the results will be out, it will want to base its future course of action on these results. I think that it fools no one, and I thank the hon. member for this great question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that we are now, under Standing Order 74, in the 10-minute period with no questions or comments.

May 20, 1992
Government Orders


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, today's debate represents one of the most important principles of a democracy. We are here to debate the framework within which the people of Canada will be able to decide their future. Canadians must be able to chart their own course. They must be able to be completely certain that their wishes, as expressed in a national referendum, will be respected.

Mr. Speaker, we must recognize the fact that the Constitution belongs to the Canadian people. It does not belong to politicians or bureaucrats. We must give Canadians a chance to have the last word on any proposal for constitutional reform.
A Canadian referendum would give Canadian citizens outside Quebec a chance to say yes to Quebec and give Quebecers a chance to say yes to Canada. All Canadians must be able to say yes, not just those who live in Quebec or in provinces that plan to hold their own referendums.

We must trust the people of Canada. We must give them final say on any new constitutional agreement. That is why I welcome any legislation that will enable the people of Canada to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the bill gives the government the right to decide whether it is appropriate to hold a referendum, while the Liberal Party believes it is essential for Canadians to approve the proposals for constitutional reform in a referendum.

When Canadians go to the polls to express how they feel about the Constitution, they must have a sense that they will be listened to. They have to believe that the ballot they cast represents a real and fundamental contribution to the future of this nation. To do anything less I believe is a betrayal of the democratic process.
I understand that there are entrenched legal and constitutional mechanisms for the amendment of the Constitution. I know that in order to change some clauses of the Constitution we need to have the co-operation of the federal government and seven out of ten provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the
population and absolute unanimity for others. Despite these facts, we have to recognize that a Constitution has to represent the people that it is intended to govern.
If we want to address the problems that our society does face, we have to put the debate over distinct societies, Senate seats and various clauses and permutations to an end. I know that the people of Canada will take advantage of a national referendum to put this issue to rest.
The process that the government has put into place is flawed. I believe that the largest and most fundamental flaw is that the government is not committed to respect the results of the referendum. Not only must its commitment respect the wishes of the entire nation; it must take into account the regional divisions of Canada.

Proposals for constitutional reform should not only require the approval of the people of Canada as a whole, but should also be supported by a majority of the population in each of Canada's major regions, including Quebec. The Prime Minister, however, has refused to promise to give up any constitutional agreement that did not receive the support of all Canada's regions.

We are a federation. We have prided ourselves on balancing the interests of different regions of this country. This must be reflected in this legislation. I hope the government will consider certain amendments that will make the process morally binding at least on the leaders of this country.

Mr. Speaker, we must avoid even the remotest chance that any part of our country might be excluded from the constitutional renewal process.
The referendum legislation must recognize that each region in our country should be comfortable with the new constitutional proposals.

We are not here to accommodate the interests of a few. We are here to make sure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, feel that they are part of the process and are part of the solution. If we are to reach a true national reconciliation, all parts of Canada must be
May 20, 1992

satisfied that their interests are protected in the new Constitution.
Another one of the glaring flaws in this legislation is the fact that there are no spending limits. What in effect this bill enables governments to do is spend unlimited amounts of public tax dollars on the positions they take. The potential exists that taxpayers could be financing both sides of the referendum question with an unlimited amount of money.
During the last federal election Canadians were bombarded with propaganda from third parties on the merits of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Millions of dollars were spent by big business while few could afford to meet this advertising onslaught. We need to set maximum spending limits and targets so that this exercise is truly democratic.
I know that some members opposite will say that they cannot limit the amount of money that third parties spend during things like referenda. They feel they will be challenged before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the legislation. They are afraid that the judges of the Supreme Court would see such a limitation as a violation of the free speech provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No one is saying that we must prevent organizations or individuals from expressing how they feel about a potential referendum question.
The first section of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms says quite explicitly that government can set limits to these rights as long as they are reasonable in a free and democratic society.
I believe that by setting these types of limits on spending, we will be contributing to the democratic process rather than detracting from it. Bill C-81 should facilitate a fair and open debate over the future of Canada and enable the people of this country to have their say through a referendum that will, at the very least, be morally binding on the government.
This bill must stipulate that all regions of the country must have a say in how the constitutional issue will be resolved. That means we need a truly national referendum. I know, for example, in my province of Quebec we will be having a referendum in the coming months. I am also aware that several other provinces have expressed an interest in holding referendums on the Constitution.
Government Orders
What will this patchwork result in? No one really knows. But the Canadian people also have the right to respond to a national question. They have the right to express themselves on a question that is the same in Charlottetown, Halifax, Saint-Laurent, Sudbury or Calgary.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is no clause providing that the government shall consult the opposition parties on the wording of the referendum question. The government has offered only three days of debate in the House on the wording of the question. This would enable the opposition parties to suggest amendments but would exclude them from the drafting process.
This bill should include a provision that the question must be approved by a majority of at least two-thirds of the House before it is put before the Canadian people. We in the Liberal Party believe that Canada needs a referendum in which Canadians will be able to determine the future of our country by answering a question that is clear and specific.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments. Debate.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-81, the referendum legislation which the government has proposed. I rise with some sorrow because the government has deliberately introduced legislation that is flawed.
The government knows that there is a lot of will in this country to have a national referendum on the Constitution. I for one have a lot of concerns with regard to a national referendum because I believe that there is always the danger that minorities may be ignored when it comes to a national referendum, that they may not be fully protected.
But even with those reservations I was willing to give the government a chance. I believe there are some mechanisms that can be put in place to ensure that minorities are protected and at the same time allow for both national and regional participation by the citizens of this nation.
When I came back yesterday morning to the House and read the legislation, I was appalled with what the government has done. The government has not simply introduced legislation that enables Canadian citizens to have a referendum on the Constitution, it has deliber-

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
ately taken a number of clauses that allow it to manipulate that whole electoral process.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, I serve on a committee that is meeting in another room in this building where we are discussing changes to the elections act. We are having those discussions after the royal commission, set up by the Prime Minister, spent $18 million listening to Canadians, studying and researching how we conduct elections in this country, how we finance elections in this country, and what limitations can be put on spending during election processes in this country.
When I look at this legislation I see that the government has taken its agenda on electoral reform. It has ignored what the Lortie royal commission has done. It has deliberately gone against the basic tenets of the royal commission.
The royal commission talked about very severe spending limits for third party advertising. This government has made that wide open. The royal commission talked about an almost all-inclusive definition of election expenses to make sure the public knows what is being spent by those who are for a candidate, those who are against a candidate, those who are for a party, those who are against a party or, in this case, those who are for a referendum question or those who are against a referendum question.
What we see here is not what the Lortie royal commission promoted. What we see here is even weaker than the present electoral law of this country. The government has not only gone in the opposite direction of Lortie. It has managed to weaken the present clauses that we have in this country.
This legislation is cynical. It speaks of a government being driven by its own agenda, its own electoral campaign, and not by any real concerns for the future of this nation.
When I rose today I said: "I rise to speak in sorrow". I mean that. This legislation could have been much better written. It could have been written so that all members of this House, with the possible exception of a few, could have been proud of that legislation. We could have all felt like participants in the wording of the question. We could have all gone out across the country and said that
the referendum was fair and why Canada was worth saving. It would not matter to us who our allies were. They could be Liberals. They could be Conservatives. We would be out there working for the future of our nation.
The previous Liberal member who spoke said that she would support any referendum legislation. I cannot give this Prime Minister a blank cheque. I cannot support this legislation as it is written. The government has spent $18 million listening to Canadians on electoral reform, on why it is necessary to have electoral fairness. This legislation goes against that very concept. The government says that it cannot limit spending or restrict the number of groups that would participate because it might received a charter challenge. That was one of the issues the Lortie royal commission looked at. It believed-and its advice was sought as well-that our Constitution allowed reasonable limits.
At this time I have proposed a number of things I do not have time to go into. We have prepared proposals for the government House leader on how they could clean up this legislation, on how we could have reasonable limits on spending and on how we could ensure federal and provincial governments do not overspend and still respect the charter. However we say there should be expenditure limits based on the voters.
We believe provincial and federal governments should be limited in the amount they can spend. We believe we can make the limits real by taking the Lortie commission recommendation and ensuring there is no co-ordination, no pooling of efforts on the referendum question, and by saying that no group can belong to more that one referendum committee.
There are ways to ensure the charter, to ensure spending by public, to allow it to spend money, but at the same time to ensure we have a fair system. We have made recommendations in a number of other areas.
I realize that my time to speak is very limited and I do have an amendment to offer this House. Before I make that amendment, I would ask the government to seriously consider what it has presented to this House and consider the fact that the Canadian public is very cynical about politicians in general, but especially about this government.
May 20, 1992

When they see this legislation, if it is not amended, and when they see large corporations spending multimillions of dollars and doing a lot of things behind the scenes that are not going to be reported, and that is what happens under this legislation, which I said is weaker than the present election laws of this country, Canadians will become more cynical about this nation. It will cost us the votes of the people who believe in a strong and united country because they cannot support the Prime Minister, they cannot support the government and they cannot support a cynical process.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, the principles of which are objectionable in that the bill fails to:
(a)	specifically provide for limits on campaign spending by individuals, organizations and governments;
(b)	require that the results of the referendum are interpreted to ensure support and participation from all regions of Canada; and
(c)	apply rules of campaigning to the governments of Canada, the provinces and territories.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will take the hon. member's amendment under advisement and rule on it a little later today.
[Translation}


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, why referendum legislation today? Why is the government tabling such a legislation before the House? First of all, we must go back a little in our history. In 1980, there was a referendum in Quebec, in which people said they agreed to a renewed Canadian federalism by ultimately saying yes to the possibility of a renewal of our country. Then, in 1982, there were discussions where, once again, Quebec found itself isolated and could not respond positively to the proposal it received at the time.
Later, in 1987, the Prime Minister succeeded in getting the agreement of the ten premiers on what is called the Meech Lake Accord, that is the five conditions put forward by Quebec so that it could say yes to the Constitution of Canada.
During the three years that followed, some premiers opposed the accord and our government, through our
Government Orders
Prime Minister, succeeded once again in getting the premiers to sign it. A few months later, the same premiers did not honour their commitment, so that the Meech Lake Accord failed and Quebec found itself isolated once again. Then, despite some difficulties at that time, our government set up some committees: the Spicer commission, and then, the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, which was supposed to analyse the constitutional amending formula and which did an in-depth analysis of the referendum issue.
Then there was the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, which also dealt with the referendum issue and which was somewhat saying that the government should hold at its discretion a referendum in case of a deadlock or in order to get a national consensus. But meanwhile, since the tabling of the Beaudoin-Dobbie report, there have been ongoing constitutional discussions between the first ministers or their representatives, and we might indeed end up with a deadlock during the next few weeks.
If in fact we cannot reach an agreement at the table and if we cannot obtain resolutions from each of the legislatures in order to renew our federalism, what shall we do? Shall we let the country go to pieces or shall we ultimately risk consulting the people? I think that in such a context, if there is an impasse, before Canada is divided we should go to the people. Even if the only legal way to amend the Constitution of Canada is to obtain resolutions from the different legislatures, a national referendum through which the Canadian people could express its opinion would have a tremendous impact. Given that situation, a piece of legislation on referendums seems absolutely necessary to me, even mandatory, since we must recognize that the possibility of an impasse really exists.
Mr. Speaker, what is our role as members of Parliament in such a context and how are we to analyse this bill? What are the really important values? Justice and the values of our democracy of course.
In 1898, a referendum was held in Canada on the issue of prohibition. At that time, the Quebec vote was diametrically apposed to that of the rest of Canada. In 1942, there was another referendum, a plebiscite on conscription, and again Quebecers expressed an opinion quite different from that of the other Canadians. Nonetheless, two years later, the Prime Minister decided to

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
introduce a bill to force everybody into accepting the conscription.
That is why today, for this bill, I spoke of the importance of the double majority. Why am I talking about the double majority? The Beaudoin-Edwards committee examined this question extensively and declared: "We recommend that a federal law be enacted to enable the federal government at its discretion to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal whether to confirm the existence of a national consensus or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions. The referendum should require a national majority and a majority in each of the four regions-Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and the west".
Even if the referendum is a consultative one-and I understand my colleagues for suggesting that perhaps it might not be necessary to entrench the double majority in a bill-I maintain it would be better to mention it in a bill to make it clear that there should be a double majority, whether in the four regional divisions or in Quebec, precisely to prevent a repetition of what happened in 1942.
My second point is the question of how fair it is to limit expenses. Experts say that, under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (aside from freedom of association) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" and that these rights make it difficult to put a ceiling on expenses in the event of a referendum.
I am not a lawyer, but I had the opportunity to sit on the Beaudoin-Edwards and Beaudoin-Dobbie committees where the issue of the charter was reviewed at length. Another section of the charter states that: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In that context, I think that this particular section is as important as section 2 and that we should really seek to put a ceiling on expenses to prevent potential abuse.
As members of Parliament, there are things we can do when a bill is tabled by our government. We can try to make it better. That is why I still do not rule out the possibility of tabling amendments to our bill over the next couple of hours to ensure it is as fair as possible and in keeping with our rules of democracy. That is the context in which I intend to table, in a matter of hours, these amendments to the referendum legislation.
I have another important point to make and it is that we need a referendum act. If indeed a deadlock were reached, not having such an act could definitely be more detrimental to this country and all the values we want to uphold. We need that piece of legislation. And, in that context, I will work at improving it, using my position as a member of Parliament to make the bill better. After that, we will see.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Chair has examined the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Churchill and finds it in order. Debate, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate at second reading on Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
It is unfortunate that every time this government proposes something, it is on a rush-rush basis. It has been almost two years now, so the government could be much further ahead, it had ample time to introduce a bill on referendums that we, on this side, have long demanded. The government always claimed it was not necessary, it was difficult.
Now that we finally have a bill, the government is telling us that we have to pass it as quickly as possible, because otherwise it will be impossible to hold a referendum this fall. I would like, first of all, to point out to the House the fact that the Leader of the Opposition said on April 21, 1991, and I quote: "We need a process, a constitutional framework based on principles which will allow us to resolve the actual impasse quickly and equitably for Quebec and Canada as a whole." In that same speech he was proposing an approach while, as I said, the government was still dragging its feet. In order for this approach to succeed the federal government had
May 20, 1992

to hold a referendum. At that time we would have liked this referendum to be held at the beginning of 1992, in the spring, but the government now proposes fall 1992.
We support in principle the concept of a referendum but not in the way proposed by the government. Today the government wants us to pass a bill allowing for referendums, but it tells us that it might not use it. I do not understand. If we come to a constitutional agreement with the provinces, why not let the people of Canada have their say? In my opinion, the referendum should not be used only when there is no agreement, it has to be used as well when there is one, so that the question is settled once and for all.
When the Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1981-82, if we had had a referendum act, where we would have asked Canadians and Quebecers for direction on the matter, I am sure that in Quebec and in every other province the people would have voted yes and the issue would have been settled once and for all. The then premier in Quebec would have had no other choice but to accept the people's verdict, and that would have been the end of it. Whereas, we now have to go through that all over again.
What I am concerned about at this time is that even if the federal government and seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population came to an agreement, if we do not hold a referendum, some groups in Quebec would not accept the proposals, and we would have to start all over again. Also, if we were to amend the Constitution with a referendum based on the bill before the House, some groups in Quebec would still challenge the results since this not very democratic legislation is so lacking.
So we have not solved the problem, even with a referendum to be held pursuant to this bill. It is very important for me and for my colleagues in the opposition, that the government amends this bill. I was glad to hear the previous speaker, the hon. member for Jon-quiere, say that as a member of the government, he would be proposing some amendments. I hope he will be able to convince his colleagues on his side to amend this bill right away, so we can vote for it in a democratic fashion.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, why do we always have to start from scratch? Yesterday, when he introduced his bill, the leader of the government in the House of Commons quoted a 1978 report which has never been approved. However, in 1981, Quebec went through such an experience, they held a referendum and passed some bills. Why not use that model? In 1980, I was involved in the referendum campaign, as the majority of politically active people in Quebec. I joined the no campaign, because I was opposed to sovereignty association. We won, but that did not stop the people on the other side of the issue from feeling betrayed, since they did not have the same opportunities. The same spending limits, the same rules applied. So, why should we fear such a form of democracy?
Since democracy is very important to the Canadian and the Quebec people, why not have a bill allowing everyone, from every political stripe and every region of the country, to feel free to speak their minds during the referendum campaign. That way, when we got the results, we would know where we stand. It is incumbent on the premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada, on the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to amend the Constitution. I do not think any politician in this country would dare ignore the will the people choose to freely express, according to democratic principles.
Unfortunately time is running out. There are just a few months left, because one way or the other, you have to bear this in mind, Mr. Speaker, if the federal government continues to lose whatever precious time we have, Quebec will decide on its own. If we do not establish some democratic rules, I fear we will not only lose the referendum, but also our country, a beautiful country everyone envies and we can stand to lose because we are stuck with this piece of legislation.
I do hope the government will agree to study the issue of double majority because it is very important. Quebecers must feel that their vote will count. If they are refused, most Quebecers will vote no, and we will start all over. But if they are accepted, it is settled. We can solve the constitutional issue and turn to economic problems.

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
So it is important for the double majority to be part of this referendum bill. The whole issue of election rules is important, Mr. Speaker. It is unacceptable not to have spending limits in a democratic society. I also find it unacceptable that there are no groups. The government is not required to report and it can spend as much as it wants. I especially think that when a government represents a political party, it is dangerous for the democratic process.
As for the whole subject of election rules, Mr. Speaker, we spent $19 million on the Lortie commission. We have a referendum bill so that people can express their opinions. Although it is not an election, why does this bill not include the Lortie Commission's recommendations, after $19 million of the taxpayers' money was spent on it?
So I ask the government and government members to put pressure on the House leader, who is piloting this bill, and on the whole cabinet to present us with amendments as soon as possible or a new bill that will respect the basic principles of democracy. That means a double majority, spending limits, more equitable election rules that are in tune with our time and not an election law from 20 or 30 years ago.
You are telling me that my time is up. I hope that my colleagues on the government side, like one who got up-I hope that others will talk to their minister so that this bill is completely changed.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Parliament of Canada finally has a plebiscite bill before it for debate. We have waited a year and now we have it.
My father, who was in the Canadian army during World War II, taught me an expression which they often used in the army. It was: "Hurry up and then wait". The parliamentary version of this is the other way around. Here we have to wait and then hurry up. We are now being asked to hurry up and get this legislation approved in a very short time.
It is important that we deal with this legislation in Parliament and hear argument about amendments and how it can be improved. The government House leader indicated last Friday that he would be open to debate and
amendments. As recently as today he indicated that he is planning some amendments himself and is discussing these with other parties in the House.
This bill is important because it is enabling legislation that will permit the men and women of Canada to be participants in the process of constitutional change. We have the bill and now we can work on improving it.
We should take into account that the last time Parliament debated legislation for a plebiscite was a decade or more ago, when the government of Prime Minister Trudeau felt that the same approach was necessary. Another time before that a plebiscite actually was held, that was half a century ago in 1942.
If we very briefly look at some of the things that are different this time around we can see that we are making changes in our democratic society. I will give three examples. First, compared with 1942 the franchise is broader now. It includes people as young as age 18 and it includes, because of the 1960 changes in the election law thanks to the Diefenbaker government, Canadian Indians, Inuit and Dukhobors, it includes people who had been excluded. We are going into this plebiscite with a broader franchise.
Second, unlike the plebiscite 50 years ago we are seeing disclosure of the sources of funds that are being contributed to the process. These were unheard of ideas half a century ago in Canadian electoral law.
My third example concerns the equitable distribution of broadcasting time. These again are new ideas that reflect our revolution as a democratic society. However, what more needs to be said about the 1992 plebiscite bill?
First, the title itself, referring to referendums, is a misnomer because the spokesman for the government refers to it as a plebiscite. It is a non-binding vote. Yet we have a bill that will have to be amended to change the title from referendum to plebiscite.
Last Friday I was told that this was not possible, that the government had received legal advice that you could not use such a name. Today I understand that there will be an amendment to change it. That is good. It makes me doubt a little bit more the authenticity and depth of the legal advice which the government might be relying on in this bill. If it has that problem with the title of the bill then I am more concerned about the kind and quality of the legal advice it is getting with respect to the charter
May 20, 1992

arguments, which get to the more profound dimensions of this legislation.
The fact that we have enabling legislation before the House is very important because in a mature democracy there surely must be on the statute books the enabling rules that will permit a direct vote by the people when Parliament decides it is important to allow the Canadian people to share with us the risk of decision making, and to live with the consequences of making that decision.
Seven of our provinces have such legislation. Both of the territories do. It is more than high time that we in the Parliament of Canada put permanently on our statute book this kind of enabling legislation. Which makes me think that we should amend the provision of the statute that puts a three-year sunset clause on this bill. What is the magic about 36 months? Why should this enabling legislation disappear after 36 months?
As a very minimum we should instead put in the legislation the kind of provision we find in the Lobbyist Registration Act saying that after a certain period of time a committee of Parliament will consider Parliament's experience with it and come back before Parliament with recommendations on what kind of changes might be warranted in the act.
We are a long way yet from getting the kind of legislation that I would like to see, so that we would have in the Constitution an entrenched requirement that any amendments to our Constitution would require ratification by a popular vote. That is no radical idea, certainly not for a parliamentary democracy. Our Australian cousins have been doing that since the year 1900. They have found that on 32 trips to the polls to amend their Constitution, eight times the electors have approved the amendment and the rest they have turned down.
In a parliamentary democracy if you cannot persuade a majority of the people that the amendments you want to make to the Constitution should be made then I do not think that you have a political right or a legal right, or a moral right, to change the Constitution. Ultimately in a democracy our system rests upon the consent of the governed, not their coercion but their consent. The whole elaborate superstructure-our Parliament, our courts, our police, our financial institutions, all of our organizations-has its place in our society because the Canadian people consent to this system and agree that is how it should operate.
Government Orders
We must be sure that the Canadian people are partners with us in any changes that will be made to the Constitution. It is my hope that our minister and others who are negotiating in Montreal today, and next week in Toronto and so on, can come before us all with a package of amendments that will modernize the Constitution and renew Confederation. Then we will have a chance under this legislation to go before the Canadian people and let them express their verdict on the question at the polls following a good campaign on the issue.
As for the value of having enabling legislation, I might just mention as a footnote that in 1914 Prime Minister Borden had great difficulties with the Canadian Senate. He decided in 1914 that it was time for Senate reform. He wanted to go to the people to get a mandate in a plebiscite for that kind of Senate reform. However, as he prepared for that he discovered that there was no enabling legislation in the country. By the time the Privy Council drafted it and it was ready to be brought before Parliament we were into World War I and that whole issue was off the agenda.
There have been many times in this country when our leaders-especially the veteran mature prime ministers who have been in office for some years, be they Laurier, Borden, Mackenzie King, Trudeau or Mulroney-have come to the conclusion that there is something important in the way our system functions requiring that the people be directly involved in expressing their verdict at the ballot box in a direct vote, as a plebiscite.
Therefore, we come again to write yet another line or two in this long chapter of the Canadian quest to get direct legislation that will permit a vote.
I do not agree that this is the best bill we could have. That is why I will be working with others to support the amendments that are being proposed; amendments that would see the sensible structure, as we have in the referendum bill in Quebec, of two umbrella organizations. These organizing structures do not force people to participate in a certain way but enable a fair division of broadcasting time, a fair presentation of both sides of the issue, a fair allocation of funds and a responsible limiting of expenditures in accordance with the norms that have developed over the past two or three decades in Canada to ensure that our political processes, be they elections or plebiscites, are not a rich person's game. Canadians have an intelligence that should be addressed on these

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
issues rather than simply being bombarded by the group that can spend the most money.
There are many ways in which the legislation can be improved. I am here in Parliament with my colleagues to work for those amendments and to see that this legislation is improved. I am certainly glad to be supporting it because this is a day that many of us have waited a long time to see.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand in the House today to address the federal referendum legislation.
At the outset I would like to say that there are a couple of principles that are particularly important whenever one considers legislation of this type, particularly one that is so important to the future of Canada and all Canadians.
We must check the principles against this particular legislation in order to ensure that it addresses the legitimate needs of this country and its people.
I think most colleagues would agree that the Constitution belongs to the people, not to the politicians and not to the bureaucrats. Canadians should have the final say on any constitutional reform package. On that measure the proposed legislation falls short.
As well, I believe that our national referendum should allow Canadians to say yes to each other. All Canadians should have the same opportunity, the same chance to express their views on the same question or questions, not only some Canadians and not only some Canadians in a series of provincial referendum questions.
I want to remind my colleagues, as well as listeners, that it was the Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of the hon. member for Beausejour who first proposed a national referendum to get us out of this constitutional impasse a little more than a year ago. It was part of his nine point plan to bring about some sort of constitutional resolution in our country.
Canadians are disappointed that it has taken the government some time to get its act together. They recall that this kind of legislation had been promised in the throne speech of May 1991 and the government backed away from that promise shortly thereafter. It was promised again in November and the government backed away again. Finally it has come forward. That is a good sign and I hope that it is something that works out well for all of us.
I was surprised right from the beginning as a member of two constitutional committees, the Beaudoin-Ed-wards constitutional committee and the Beaudoin-Dob-bie constitutional committee, that the NDP has not been supportive of a national referendum. At most it has given lukewarm support, if any at all. I am surprised at that particular position because it seems to me that the legislation has a lot of merit which the NDP has not considered as deeply as it might have.
I want to commend the government for finally having come forward with referendum legislation to permit Canadians to say yes to each other.
However, I still have many concerns and here are some of them. The referendum is still only optional. That breeds uncertainty and causes some considerable anxiety: will it happen, will it not, when, where, et cetera?
It has no spending limits. I recognize there are certain difficulties with spending limits, but at the same time and with all due respect some limits could have been established among fair players.
I am surprised that it would appear we are looking at a majority of Canadians and not a second majority, a majority of the four or five large regions of Canada would have to say yes.
I would have liked to have seen as well a commitment from the Prime Minister and his government to withdraw any constitutional agreement if it did not receive support from the majority of all regions of Canada, quite apart from the over-all majority.
Perhaps my greatest concern is with respect to the question, deciding upon the question. Clearly there has to be consultation. Clearly the government has to approach this with an openness of spirit and a commitment to consult and to come forward with the best
May 20, 1992

Government Orders
question or questions that will get the support of all parties.
If it were not to do that I fear it would get into serious difficulties, and we know what the potential price is if that were to occur.

What also bothers me, is that there are quite a few questions for which there are still no answers. I mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating because I think this is very important. Will there be a referendum, yes or no? If so, where? Across the country, in certain provinces or regions? We do not know the answer. And of course, when? We do not have the answer to that either. I think all this tends to create a feeling of uncertainty that is not well received by most Canadians.

Will all Canadians throughout this great land be able to vote on the referendum?

We do not know that either.

Will it be a vote on the same questions? Or, will the provincial and territorial questions, if there are some, somehow be able to replace those that would be posed in a national referendum? What is the question? What are the questions?

Yes, what is the question and what will the questions be? To me, that is the crux of this debate.

Another element which is closely related and equally important is: How will it be drawn up? Will the government simply come forward and say: "Here it is"? Or, will the government consult with the various parties in the House and with other Canadians in order to ensure that it is as sensitive, as comprehensive and as meaningful as it might be?
I will take this opportunity to make certain suggestions. If somehow after this exercise, assuming there is a referendum for the whole of the country, we have not addressed the aboriginal question of self-government, we are in serious difficulty.

If we have not addressed the distinct society Quebec wants, we are in serious trouble.

We cannot avoid the question of the veto. That question must be addressed and there are a number of proposed solutions. One is clearly found in the Beau-doin-Edwards constitutional committee report where there is a proposed approach to having a majority in regions and it is defined therein.
We must also sort out either on the referendum question or elsewhere the whole question of division of powers. We cannot continue to have the dysfunctionality that we now have and the difficulties that it causes. Very often it is unclear what level of government delivers what services for its people.

So the division of powers is one of the essential issues. [English]
I would also suggest we need to address in a very sensitive way one group that often feels left out of any constitutional discussions and debate on perhaps the Canada clause. It is those Canadians who have come from other lands, those Canadians who are of ancestry other than aboriginal, English or French. There is a wonderful opportunity, if it is done correctly and with sensitivity, to ensure they feel they are a full, significant and meaningful partner in this country.
In concluding, I have a few short comments to make. We have a unique opportunity to try and settle the constitutional question once and for all, to find a solution that will not please all Canadians but the majority of Canadians, so that we can get on with the major challenges facing our country today: the economic situation, unemployment, poverty, the fact that so many people have to go to food banks. It seems to me this is a golden opportunity to try and settle the matter and start doing something about the recession in this country.

It is a great opportunity for Canada and for Canadians. If this proposed referendum is used sensitively, I think it can finally bring constitutional peace to our great nation. If used improperly, however, it could be the end of our great country. It could create a lot of divisions. I am not just talking about the division between the rest of

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
Canada and Quebec, I am talking divisions within the whole of the country.
Therefore, I urge the government to listen and listen very carefully to the people of Canada, to listen to the various political parties to see what it is that they have to offer, to make sure that this particular initiative is one that bears very positive fruit. I urge the government as well to co-operate with all parties. This is a time to rise above partisanship. This is a time to do what is right for Canada and for all Canadians.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, as I begin I would like to repeat what my colleagues have already stated. This legislation is a precautionary measure. No decision to hold a referendum has been made. At the present time there is no federal legislation to permit a referendum. This legislation would make a referendum possible.
In February 1992 the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee report stated: "We recommend that a federal law be enacted to enable the federal government at its discretion to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal".
Canadians from across our country spoke to the committee and recommended that a referendum be considered. Many Canadians are pleased that the government is listening to Canadians and following the advice of the committee, the advice that was endorsed by all major parties.
Legislation must be in place to allow a referendum before the Chief Electoral Officer can begin to make preparations to hold a referendum. It is estimated that three months are needed for such preparations. That is to say, if this legislation were to be passed by mid-June, then the Chief Electoral Officer would be able to have everything ready for a referendum no sooner than mid-September.
The government is simply looking ahead, seeing that there may be a decision to hold a federal referendum and saying if this decision is the one taken, then let us be ready.
I would also like at this time to reassure all Canadians that this legislation would only apply to a referendum called by the federal government and would not in any
way affect the right of provinces to hold their own referenda if they choose to do so.
Canadians know that the referendum our government is considering is a referendum on constitutional reform. As the Beaudoin-Dobbie report noted, one of the most positive results of the patriation process is the degree of interest expressed by the people of Canada in their Constitution.
Since 1982 the people of Canada have insisted on being involved in all aspects of constitutional change. I believe this characteristic of Canadians is one of our strengths as a nation.
There are many forms that public involvement can take and a federal referendum should not, at this stage, be ruled out.
As a member of Parliament from western Canada, it is appropriate that I remind my colleagues from central Canada that Canadians living in the west have felt excluded from decision-making in the past. The huge population concentrated in the centre of our country seems not to always hear the suggestions or concerns from the west. Whenever anyone feels that his thoughts and ideas are not being heard it is frustrating. The more significant the issue, the more irritation is felt at being ignored or overlooked.
Historically there have been 44 advisory referenda or plebiscites held in Canadian provinces. Of these 44, 31 have been held in the four western provinces. So it is not surprising that many westerners believe that a referendum might be helpful. It is important to western Canadians and I believe to all Canadians that suggestions from all regions of our country be considered.
This government is doing that. This legislation says clearly we are seriously considering a referendum. If we decide that a referendum is the appropriate tool to use we will be ready and able to use it.
There are five possible ways to amend the Constitution of Canada. These five possibilities have been in place since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. The general procedure in section 38 of the Constitution Act requires the consent of Parliament and seven of the provinces with 50 per cent of the population. This section of the amending formula is the one that the government is planning to use during this cycle of constitutional reform.
May 20, 1992

Some Canadians are wondering why the government can use this less stringent section of the amending formula when it was necessary to have all 10 provinces verify the Meech Lake Accord. The answer is that the Meech Lake Accord contained an amendment to the amending formula itself so it needed unanimity to be accepted.
The current proposal is not expected to include any amendments to the amending formula. Therefore, the current proposal is expected to need the approval of Parliament and the approval of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population.
Some people wonder if there are safeguards to assure that the referendum is fair. This bill does not change any safeguards for fairness that are already established under Canadian law. The Canada Elections Act would provide the basic framework for the referendum and this includes practical aspects such as the qualifications of voters, et cetera.
The wording of the question posed in a referendum must be voted on and approved by both the House and the Senate. So there is no possibility, nor is there any wish on the government side, that this be a secretive process. If the government does decide to hold a referendum, a referendum proclamation must be issued within 45 days following the approval of the question that is to be put to the Canadian people.
Any federal referendum call today must be consistent with the Canadian charter of rights and fundamental freedoms. The advice we have suggests that limits on spending on umbrella committees, for the yes or the no sides, are not expected to meet the requirements of the charter and therefore are not included in the legislation.
In order for everyone to be aware of the major participants in a referendum campaign, groups which intend to participate in the referendum in a major way-that is anyone who intends to spend more than $5,000-must register and disclose all expenses and contributions, including the names of the contributors of over $250.
Some people have asked why the government is not required to register in the same way other campaign participants are if it spends on this campaign. The registration requirements in the bill are intended to
Government Orders
make sure the public knows who is spending significant amounts of money to present their views. Government spending is already visible and governments are accountable to the public for all their spending.
There are other safeguards to ensure fairness. It is necessary that the referendum campaign be at least 36 days long and that gives everyone an opportunity to present his views. Free broadcasting time will be allocated equally to both sides of the question. There is no provision in the legislation for public funds to be given to those campaigning. There will be equal opportunity for all sides of the issue to purchase additional time in the media. It is also worth noting that there is a sunset clause included. That simply means in three years this legislation will cease to exist.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the purpose of the legislation is to be ready to hold a referendum if the government wishes to do so. The government is listening to the Canadian people and wants them to continue their involvement in the constitutional process. There is strong regional support for a referendum on proposed constitutional change. The government is responding to this recommendation and is seriously considering the possibility. Finally, a federal referendum would be a fair referendum.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to make a few comments on Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
The first comment I would like to make concerns the title of the bill itself. It is my understanding from repeated comments by the Prime Minister and other members of the government that we are not going to have a referendum, if there is a vote at all. They keep talking about a plebiscite and it certainly piques my curiosity when we have a bill come before the House that refers to a referendum. I am not aware it even refers to the word "plebiscite" any place in the bill.
I am pleased the government has finally brought forward and introduced legislation. I can only say it is a start. I am certain the constituents in my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings are pleased because we in Prince Edward-Hastings, and we in the Liberal Party, have been calling on the government now for well over a year to come forward with some sort of enabling legislation.

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
At the present time Canadians are seeking direction. However, when we look at the legislation, it is noticeable that the government continues to act as though it thinks there is only one voice that Canadians need to hear and that is the government's voice. It thinks it is the voice of an infallible ruler.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is a debate going on in this part of this House. I would appreciate it if the gentlemen who wish to talk or discuss something would go behind the curtain.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I began to wonder on which side of the House the debate was going on but I did check and my microphone was on and theirs was not.
I repeat that the government seems to think that it has the complete and only right to speak on behalf of Canadians on this issue. We know the folly of this notion because this is the same government that is jamming legislation down the throats of Canadians and has been for a number of years now. It is the same government that continues to lose its credibility with the Canadian public.
I do praise the government for bringing forward the legislation, but I fault the government for the quality of it. The government has unashamedly pronounced on the form of this legislation, reserving for itself the authority to determine the question, and that at a later date without any consultation. This, in spite of assurances over the past number of months from the highest ranks of the government benches, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the Prime Minister, that opposition parties and the Canadian public would have input in the legislation.
I remind Canadians again, that did not happen. The bill was presented to the opposition parties. There was not any discussion whatsoever and it was presented as we see it here today.
The government has not only failed to consult on enabling legislation to conduct a plebiscite or referendum which I repeat should have happened, was promised to happen but it does not seem to realize that this is an issue of our nation's destiny. We must make it very clear to the Canadian public and to Parliament there may not be a vote at all, so let us not be naive enough to think that just because the legislation is there it is going to be used.
The reasons for that simply evade me. Why? I recognize as well as anyone the potential for divisiveness that a national referendum would hold but such a risk must be taken when the contrast to not doing it is the risk of not holding a vote at all.
My colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond put it appropriately in the House yesterday. He said that Canadians:
-are an intelligent and educated people and they usually demonstrate a remarkable sophistication in their political behaviour. The Canadian population of 1992 is as well prepared as a whole as any group of officials, elected or not, to make the decision on the basic structure of its government. It is unreasonable and unconscionable to suggest otherwise.
So I state again that the government has an obligation to conduct a vote.
This description definitely applies to the constituents in Prince Edward-Hastings riding who have regularly challenged me on every facet of the constitutional debate with insights that quite honestly continue to educate me well beyond the understanding of these issues that comes from many of the presentations and speeches I have heard in the House.
There are reasons why a referendum or a plebiscite must be held on this government's final constitutional package. A national vote would go a very long way toward addressing the public's cynicism, a cynicism which arose after the collapse of the Meech Lake proposals in the wake of the political engineering and the closed door negotiations that took place at that time.
Second, the final say in the matter rightfully belongs to the Canadian public. Third, a referendum will finally allow us as a country to put this matter to bed once and for all.
I do not believe that a referendum should be an option. It should be an obligation and it should be mandatory for the government to conduct one. In fact, a referendum should be mandatory before any future government proceeds to revise the Constitution of this country. The people must not be excluded from the process of changing the way they are governed.
The Constitution was created for people, not for politicians and bureaucrats, and being their property it is also their sole right to permit such changes. If a referendum is going to be held, it should go well beyond what Bill C-81 is proposing at the present time. As has been stated even by government members in the House here today, it needs to be fixed, it needs to be improved. The vote must be held nation-wide, giving every citizen in all regions of the country an opportunity to express
May 20, 1992

their opinion on the same question or questions. I repeat, every citizen in all regions.
The results in order to carry any weight in the government's consideration of whether or not to proceed must reflect the clear majority of the will of the nation and the will of the nation as a whole, as well as the feeling and the will of each region. This will provide a clear demonstration of our collective will to remain united as a country, while at the same time preventing any misinterpretation, claiming the imposition of a constitutional arrangement by any portion of the nation on another portion of the nation.
Further on the issue of conducting a fair vote, this legislation must be amended to make the process transparent and equitable for all sides of the issue. I am glad to learn that there is some indication by the Elouse leader today in an announcement that there will be some changes introduced and amendments introduced that will provide some spending limits on the registered committees.
We must ensure that the losing side will not be allowed to claim the vote was bought by the rich and the powerful. This means that both sides must somehow be limited in their over-all expenditures.
The government House leader said last week in the House and again this week in the House that he is open to amendments and changes to improve the bill. I hope we can take him and the government at their word. It needs some improvement. It needs to be changed. We must take the present Bill C-81 and fix it and make it better.
This is the challenge before us as a Parliament, it is the challenge before us as a country. I know that if the will and the desire is there, we can rise and meet that challenge.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak at second reading of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada. It is very easy to support in principle the idea of a constitutional referendum. As my colleagues who have spoken before me have indicated, the principle
Government Orders
of a referendum on constitutional matters is one that we support.
Now our challenge as parliamentarians is to look at the specifics. The specifics are very important in terms of defining what it is that we are setting out to do.
We all support the principle of hockey, if I might use it as an example. The rules in hockey have always been carefully outlined and understood by all the participants because the rules have been defined and upheld by a group with responsibilities, a group which for the most part has the respect of all the participants in that hockey game. Of course, I speak of the referees and the league itself which have set the rules.
Not your favourite team, Mr. Speaker, the Edmonton Oilers, not the Toronto Maple Leafs and certainly not the Vancouver Canucks or the Montreal Canadiens would step on the ice in a Stanley Cup final game without a referee. They certainly would not step on the ice without a set of rules. Not all of their skill, their determination, their energy or their emotion would help any of those teams succeed in their chosen goal and victory without division or discord if those rules were not understood, agreed upon and enforced with the co-operation of all of the players.
We are not playing hockey and the future of Canada is not a game. But as a country in crisis we are skating on very thin ice. We want to play the game. We want to enjoy the game. We want to enjoy our country with all its diversity, its history, its people and, more important, we want to enjoy its future, but discord and division is threatening our enjoyment of that future.
A national referendum in these exceptional circumstances is one way to ensure public participation in the decision-making process that will once again help us to enjoy our country, to enjoy the game and put the referee back on the ice in the most important game of the year.
When I speak to my constituents, the support for a referendum is almost universal. In fact, for most of my constituents the outline of how it is put together and run is somewhat secondary. For the most part they take it for granted that when a referendum is called, the rules will be in place and all you need is a question and they will help to provide the answer.

May 20,1992
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, you know from your own election experience that it is not that easy. Our task as parliamentarians is to provide the rules and make those rules acceptable not only here in the House of Commons, but to people right across Canada. Unless those rules are accepted by all the participants before the game begins, the results of that game may be held in suspect.
My colleagues from Yorkton-Melville and Churchill who spoke earlier outlined some of the matters of concern that they have and I share about this referendum bill. Those concerns are so great that they throw doubt on our ability to accept the principles laid down by this legislation. Therefore, we suspect that Canadians would not be well served if these are the only rules they have to play by. Those concerns, as outlined, include the fact that there are no spending limits, that cabinet alone can trigger the timing of the referendum; that the question to be asked will eventually be decided by government despite the discussion about parliamentary vote; there is no awaiting the results to ensure that the regions feel included in this whole process. That latter concern is my main concern at this moment.
The current constitutional debate in western Canada focuses primarily on the reform of the Senate. Why? Canadians feel left out of the process and, in fact, feel left out of the country because the decisions made in the populated centres of Canada, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, are often made at the expense of the rest of the country because of that large population base in the centre of Canada.
Western Canadians feel let down by the House of Commons which is accountable to the population centres of the country. Therefore, they want a Senate that is more accountable to the regions and that serves as the hub of most of the argument we hear, not only in the coffee shops but in the forums and reviews brought before the Spicer commission and others.
Now we have a referendum bill which does exactly what western Canadians fear most. That is, leave in the hands of the voters of central Canada the powers of decision-making within constitutional reform. We have to get out of this way of thinking. We have to write the rules that will ensure that western Canadians are not again ignored in this process. There must be a way to
ensure that the interpretation of the results of this non-binding referendum ensures that the government weighs the views of western Canadians well.
My colleague, the member for Yorkton-Melville, said yesterday in this House and I quote: "I think that it should not be possible to change the Constitution of Canada without the massive support of Canadians. If there were a national referendum on the federal government's major proposals like those in the report that the parliamentary committee published two months ago, and western Canadians were opposed, I think it should be out of the question to change our Constitution without western Canada's support".
I could not have said it better. The member for Yorkton-Melville outlined what I hear on the streets of my constituency daily in that very brief comment.
In an article in The Ottawa Citizen published May 17, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a referendum expert and a member of the government party said, and I quote: "If we call ourselves a democracy, we must not be afraid to use democratic procedures". Well, we are in the process of defining one of those democratic procedures and we are in the process of establishing the rules that will guide that democratic procedure.
In the spirit of co-operation which comes from my personal desire to rebuild a fragile Canadian Constitution, I urge the government to put its partisan desires aside and create a more acceptable, fair and equitable procedure to ensure that we have a strong referendum should it become necessary to do so. The Constitution, as has been said, does belong to the people of Canada, not the politicians. Therefore, is it asking too much that we create a referendum process that will over time help to rebuild this country and this nation? Is it too much to ask that Canadians are able to truly participate in the democratic decision-making process in this unique and unusual and most exceptional period of time, at a time when Canadians are more cynical about government than at any other time in our history? Is it too much to ask that government take the time to build an all-inclusive process that will help to rebuild respect for participatory democracy inside a united Canada? Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is too much to ask. In fact, I consider it a very minimum.
May 20, 1992	COMMONS DEBATES	10967


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us could be an important factor in resolving some vital decisions at this stage in the political history of our nation. That is one reason why I am particularly gratified to have an opportunity to participate in this debate.
Like many other members here, I am sure, I have heard from a number of my constituents who expressed interest in the idea that they and all other Canadians could have some direct influence upon the decisions that are to be made about our Constitution. In fact, I have received some petitions signed by several hundred residents of Durham constituency. The wording of these petitions should be noted. They request a referendum in which the Canadian people could vote to accept or to reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government, with the result to be binding on Parliament.
While one can understand the reasoning behind that wording and even sympathize with it, the circumstances we are dealing with here do not permit such a final and binding public decision. I believe it would be useful and helpful to spend a few moments explaining why.
To begin with, I would suggest that it would be immensely helpful if all of us involved in this debate would use precise language when describing the type of vote that is proposed. In saying that, I must add an important qualifier; that I am only referring to those of us who speak in English. My capability in the other official language is such that I would not attempt to comment on the fine nuances. However, in the English language there are two words that do describe the type of popular vote proposed here. One is referendum, the other is plebiscite.
There is a difference in the meaning of these two words, a distinction that may seem subtle but that is also very important. Throughout much of the discussion the two words "referendum" and "plebiscite" have been used as though they were interchangeable and synonymous, which they are not. I fear that this could well be confusing and even misleading.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines plebiscite as, and I quote: "In modem politics a direct vote of the whole of the electors of a state to decide a question of public importance; also, by extension, a public expression
Government Orders
with or without binding force of the wishes or opinion of a community". The same Oxford Dictionary gives this definition for referendum: "The act, practice or principle-of submitting the direct decision of a question at issue to the whole body of voters". In fact, a plebiscite is an expression of opinion by the people, with or without binding force; while in a referendum the voters are asked to make a direct and final decision.
It is extremely important for all Canadians to know and understand, if such a vote should prove necessary, that what they are being asked for is an expression of their opinion in a plebiscite. I understand that the government will bring forward an amendment to clarify the title and the language around this bill. Whether it is binding or not, that expression of opinion obviously would be a very significant consultative procedure. Elected politicians in our form of parliamentary democracy could only ignore the outcome at their own peril.
However, the vote in that plebiscite cannot decide the matter finally. For constitutional reasons it cannot be binding upon this Parliament or upon the legislatures of various provinces. There is a very simple reason for that, something that we do not have the power to change unilaterally. The formula for making constitutional amendments is enshrined in the Constitution itself. That formula, adopted by the federal government and the provinces in 1982, requires that any amendments to the Constitution must have the approval of at least seven provinces representing no less than 50 per cent of Canada's total population.
There is nothing this government or this Parliament can do to alter that without the agreement of the provinces. That obviously would be virtually impossible amidst the current ongoing constitutional negotiations. This Parliament has no power to tell the provinces what they must do on constitutional amendments.
These are very important considerations. While I have dwelt on them at some length, I believe it is essential that all Canadians have a clear understanding of exactly what we are doing with this legislation and why. There is some consensus that public dissatisfaction over the outcome of the Meech Lake negotiations was due as much to the process followed as to the actual content of the agreement. People felt that crucial decisions were being made about their future and that they were closed out of the discussions.

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
To be fair to all politicians involved in the Meech Lake discussions, the process was not their fault. They had to use the only procedure that was then available to them. However, today and in the future Canada's people must also have a part in that process.
I recognize that there could well be a requirement for a constitutional plebiscite within the coming months. However I also believe that this form of public consultation, be it through a plebiscite or a referendum, should only be used on rare occasions when needed to settle the most contentious issues.
One reason that I suggest such restriction is the tremendous expense involved. It is estimated that the cost of holding any plebiscite would exceed $100 million, and this is at a time when all of us are deeply concerned about government expenditures and reducing the deficit and national debt.
Any such vote on any contentious and emotional issue carries the risk of being veiy divisive and it could accentuate the existing divisions within our country. I am told by those who voted in the 1942 conscription plebiscite that is exactly what happened then; communities, provinces, religious and language groups became pitted against each other. To this day in my area there are families who still bear the emotional scars of that conscription plebiscite.
All of us have heard about the family members in Quebec who took opposing sides in the 1980 sovereignty referendum and who still, 12 years later, have not been able to reconcile or heal those fractures.
We must do all we can to ensure that Canadians understand that this legislation is a necessary precautionary measure, that it will permit the federal government to consult all Canadians if that will bring the current round of constitutional negotiations to a successful conclusion.


Mr. Richardson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) I would move that this House continue to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment for the continuation of second reading of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Unless we have unanimous consent it cannot be done under a point of order. Do we have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that it cannot be done under a point of order, it has to be done during debate.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons is currently examining Bill C-81, legislation that will enable the federal government to hold a national referendum on the Canadian Constitution.
The Canadian experience in that field has not been successful. The current Constitution does not provide for a binding referendum. Consequently, our referendum will only be consultative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. Could I have just a little order? I would like to hear the hon. member's speech.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since Confederation, Canada used the consultative referendum approach twice: the first time in 1898 on the prohibition issue, and the second time in 1942 on the conscription issue. That last experience left a bitter feeling among a lot of Canadians. On the other hand, in the current political context, where people want to take a more active part in the debate, instead of leaving the decision to the elected representatives, the referendum approach deserves serious consideration.
Mr. Speaker, it is a change of policy for me who used to oppose referendums, but since this government has destroyed or has almost finished destroying the people's trust in politicians, I think that, today, we must let the people decide on such important issues as the future of our country.
In so doing, we will have to pursue the objective of a new Constitution that will preserve the linguistic duality, the regional interests and the national unity. That is why
May 20,1992

on April 21, 1991, the Liberal leader was the first to suggest the idea of a national referendum by proposing a nine-point action plan, including a national referendum with a double majority.
For the Liberal caucus, it is clear that all Canadians must be consulted and, consequently, be able to express themselves on the same issues in all parts of the country. It is clear that in addition to a national majority, the constitutional amendment proposal must be approved by every region of the country. The Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces and the territories would thus have a veto. In that way, the double majority protects regional interests against an imposed national will.
If one of the regions decided to reject the proposal, the federal government should not follow through with its constitutional amendment project as presented.
Liberals regret that the Conservative government did not include this double majority provision in the bill before the House. Also, in order to keep this referendum from being divisive, the government must ensure that it has an appropriate set of rules since, as was noted by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, and I quote: "Such a mechanism can easily fall into the hands of wealthy interest groups."
That is why the Liberal caucus believes it is important to limit spending by both the yes and the no sides. We believe that a referendum must take place in all fairness. We favour umbrella committees and a reasonable spending limit by each side of the issue.
Canadians do not want the result to be bought; they want it to be well deserved. Unfortunately, the Conservative government's Bill C-81 contains no spending ceiling.
Announced a year ago in the Speech from the Throne on May 13, 1991, the legislation on a national referendum was presented to the House a year later. The referendum process is off to a bad start. Let us be honest: the Conservative government had promised to consult the opposition parties. It did not consult us. It informed the House leaders of its plan-that is all.
I suspect that the government's intention with this bill is to set up a mechanism for calling a snap federal election. At least that is what clause 38 of the bill leads
Government Orders
us to believe. It says that no enumeration shall be required if an election is called within a year of the referendum date. Furthermore, no clause in the bill says that the government must consult the opposition parties on the wording of the referendum question.
The government has proposed only three days of parliamentary debate on the wording of the question, thus restricting, in my view, the right of members of this House to speak on the question. Nevertheless, it is important for members to ensure that their constituents are perfectly aware of what they will be asked to vote on. The government's failure to consult here is a bad omen for what this referendum campaign has in store for us.
We Liberals, Mr. Speaker, think that any constitutional change at this time should be approved by all Canadians and all regions of this country, not only one province, but all regions. Canada's future depends on the choice that we will have to make. We think that the final decision must belong to the people directly.

While I may support holding a referendum in principle there are a number of aspects of this bill which concern me. One of these aspects is the absence of spending limits on referendum expenditures. There are no spending limits in Bill C-81. The only provisions are that groups spending more than $5,000 on a referendum campaign must be registered and contributions over $250 must be declared.
Without a ceiling on spending by various groups during a referendum campaign the process will be flawed because the amount of money a group has to spend will become more important than the free democratic expression of Canadians.
Canadians do not want a result that has been bought. They want a result that is fair and deserved. The question of spending limits is a question of fairness, not of freedom.
We have only to look at the example of the last election to show us the dangers inherent in the absence of spending limits. The report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing notes: "Third parties, including individuals, corporations, labour unions and other groups spent more than $4.7 million on advertising for the 1988 campaign-most of the money

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
was spent on the issue of free trade-four times as much money was spent to promote free trade as to oppose it".
We do not want to repeat the experience of the 1988 election, particularly when the unity of our country, Canada, is at sake. The referendum campaign must not become a free-for-all with those with the biggest wallets dominating the debate. The government may argue that spending limits contravene the right of freedom of expression as guaranteed by section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We can look at the Alberta court decision in 1984, brought on by the challenge from the National Citizens' Coalition. This decision found that the relevant section of the Canada Elections Act on spending limits on a third party was an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression.
The federal government decided not to act on this decision by the Alberta court. Furthermore, Elections Canada decided not to enforce the law, even though the court decision was not binding outside of Alberta. The result of these decisions, as the report of the electoral reform notes, was to destroy:
-the overall effectiveness of the legislative framework for promoting fairness in the exercise of freedom of expression and of democratic rights during Canadian elections-Without fairness, we may continue to have a "free" society, but we would certainly diminish the "democratic character of our society".
However, the charter does provide for reasonable limits on the freedoms guaranteed by the charter.
In the exceptional case of a referendum, it seems to me we should carefully examine the danger of uncontrolled spending by various groups versus a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.
If the government hesitates to go to court on this matter, why not refer-and the government can do it-this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision on whether spending limits contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the government was concerned about democracy it could have done so. It had the time to do so in the last year, it could have done so earlier.
In conclusion, I want to quote from an opinion by Professor E. P. Mendes, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario.
I would suggest the appropriate standard is that laid down by Justice Sopinka in the R. v. Butler decision that Parliament is entitled to have a "reasonable apprehension of harm" resulting from the dangers which the legislation is attempting to avoid. It would be quite easy for the government to have proved in an appeal from Justice Medhurst's decision that there is a reasonable apprehension of harm resulting from unlimited spending during elections or referendums.
Perhaps the reasons why the government did not appeal Justice Medhurst's decision and why they do not wish to put spending limits in any referendum legislation have nothing to do with Charter of Rights and Freedoms or with law at all.
I claim that Professor Mendes' decision is something of which we should take note.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into this debate. I welcome the opportunity to say a few remarks on this potential plebiscite or referendum facing our nation.
Before I say anything on the bill, I would like to praise the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a truly democratic Conservative, for a long time a voice in the wilderness, someone who has been promoting referendums, plebiscites, and more direct democracy. I think a lot of praise is due my colleague.
I would also like to thank the federal government and the Prime Minister, for considering the referendum, the plebiscite legislation. It is a big step for the government to be considering this kind of a method of solving some of our nation's problems.
I would like particularly to take this opportunity to say thank you as well on behalf of my constituents to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. He is trying to do his best for Canada. He is in his 20th year in federal politics. Twenty years is a long time to serve your country. There have not been all that many wins. There have been a lot of difficulties and failures along the way for anyone in public life that long. I would just like to pass along my thanks to him.
He is doing something for Canada, and most of the people in this Chamber are doing something for Canada too. The people who are here right now to debate this bill are doing something for Canada. The people here care enough to make sure the right legislation is going to be in place to ensure the future of our country.
A few moments ago those watching this debate could not hear but there are a few people in this Chamber who are taking exception to some of the remarks I am
May 20, 1992

making. They are members of a political party that has been an obstruction to this country.
It is tough to sit in this Chamber sometimes and look across and see a few members who do not share a vision of Canada but who view this nation as being broken, battered, bloodied and knocked down in the world stage, from being a modern country that most people in the world die to live in to some Third World country which would have an economy just a fraction of the size that it is today.
Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe it is a good thing there are separatists in this Chamber now. Maybe that will help wake up a few people. Maybe the whole referendum and plebiscite situation will in the end be good. It may take people and shake them by the shoulders and say to them that your country is at risk. Your country is at risk because there are people who sit in the federal House of Commons, in Parliament, who want the destruction of this country. I think if some of my constituents are wakened by that it will have been a worth-while, useful exercise.
In terms of referendum or plebiscite or whatever we are going to call it I would just like to say, based on the feedback from my constituents of Halton-Peel, that this is something they very much want. It is very much the kind of thing they have been asking for, that is a direct mechanism to become involved in what has turned into an all too long constitutional debate.
As with everything else there are good things and bad things about direct democracy. There are risks and rewards, plebiscites and referenda. I think back to the Meech Lake accord experience. The polls showed us after Meech Lake failed that roughly 70 per cent of Canadians did not agree with Meech. However, the same poll showed us that about 73 per cent of Canadians did not know what was in the Meech Lake package. Had there been a referendum, direct democracy, a plebiscite on the failure of the Meech Lake accord or the success of it, it would have failed. Circumstances led to that failing anyway.
There were other influences at play during the time the Meech Lake accord was being discussed. A lot of my constituents were probably turned off the whole package by Quebec's language laws and changes to those laws which were brought in around the same time and which a lot of people confused with what was in the Meech Lake accord.
Government Orders
It is ironic now that my constituents may see the day coming before long when they are asked to vote in a plebiscite on something that essentially may ratify what was in the Meech Lake accord that most people did not understand and rejected.
The question could be asked whether this is the right time for a plebiscite or a referendum. Maybe it is the right time after the Spicer commission, after the Beau-doin-Edwards report on constitutional change, after the Dobbie-Beaudoin report on the specifics of how our country may be renewed, after all those constitutional conferences that hopscotched across the country ever week, after the "ordinary Canadians" were involved in this whole process and after all the weekly meetings of bureaucrats and the meeting now in Montreal. After all these steps maybe it is time to test the waters of democracy, to take the risk, to take the gamble, to take the leap of faith.
We will likely have one more step and that may be a first ministers' conference in perhaps a week or two or three. We do not know that. The first ministers will obviously be trying to come up with a negotiated settlement. At that point the referendum or plebiscite future will be cast in stone. We will know whether we will have one in order to break a logjam or whether we will have one in order to ratify an agreement that has been negotiated by our first ministers.
In any case, there are important rules for all of us in this campaign. Individual members of Parliament have an obligation, a responsibility to use their offices and their resources to make sure their constituents know what they will be voting on. There is nothing more important than public education in this whole thing. Whether you agree that Canada should be saved and remodelled or whether you agree that Canada should be split, divided and broken, whatever you think, you should know what you are voting on. Members of Parliament from all sides have to use their offices to make sure we are telling people the truth.
Government has a role. Federal and provincial governments all have a role in making sure that the issues are understood if and when this plebiscite arrives. We all have a responsibility to make sure that the propaganda, the empty rhetoric, the lies, the untruths and the misrepresentation of those who want to destroy Canada are fully explained, are dissected and are shown to people.

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
I noticed in a newspaper article yesterday that the bill we are debating now, and I will read the sentence, "was greeted in the Commons with howls of dismay from the opposition and the threat of court action from the Bloc Quebecois". If the Bloc Quebecois is so worried, so scared, so frightened of this particular legislation that it is willing to take the government to court, we might be on the right track here. We might be doing the right thing if the separatists who sit in this Chamber are so mortified at the idea of going to their own people for a choice. We are probably on the right track.
The referendum, the plebiscite campaign marks the beginning of the battle for Canada. Let us make no mistake about it. The stakes are that big.
The weapon in the battle for Canada this time-it is not like the Battle of Britain, it is not like the other battles we have seen, it is not weapons and artillery, planes or bullets. We have one weapon in the battle for Canada, and it is the truth. We want to tell the truth to Canadians about what is going on.
In Quebec right now the leader of the Block Quebecois and the leader of the Parti Quebecois are going around that province telling people: "You can be independent, you can go from Canada, you can leave Canada and all you do is say that you are no longer part of Canada and you are no longer subject to their laws".
They are also telling them in Quebec: "You can take a hike from Canada and you can still use a Canadian passport. You will still be protected by the Canadian military, you can use the Canadian dollar, you can have access to the Canadian economy and you can even have the Queen". They are telling them all this stuff.
They do not want to hear it. They are so afraid that right now somebody in Montreal is listening to this debate.
What will happen if they take a hike from Canada? It is gone. Canada is finished. There are people in my riding who are not going to let the separatists think they can take a walk from Canada and still have the Bank of Canada setting low interest rates and taking care of monetary policies. There are people in my riding who say there is no way their tax dollars, $12 billion a year, is going to go for the Canadian military to protect-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like the hon. member for Shefford to take his seat or else go behind the door. Please. The hon. membei for Halton-Peel has the floor.


Garth Turner: There are other people who are separatist from the rest of Canada as well. I will give these guys a break right now.
There are people who are separatists from other regions of Canada. There is Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Do you know what Preston Manning is saying? It is interesting that the House leader for the Bloc Quebecois is giving me a hard time. He is one of the biggest fans that Preston Manning's got. Do you know why? Preston Manning says: "Let Quebec go and determine itself".


Jean-C. Lapierre: Self-determination.


Garth Turner: That is right. Preston Manning says: "Give Quebec the right of self-determination. Let Quebec define itself and if it leaves that's fine. Let the rest of Canada define itself. Perhaps there is an economic union between the two of them". It sounds an awful lot like what we are hearing from the Bloc Quebecois.
When you think about it, Preston Manning and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean have the same goals, to sever Canada and to become princes of their own little fiefdoms. For the rest of us in the Chamber, no way.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to speak in favour of the concept of Bill C-81, the referendum legislation.
We in the Official Opposition agree with the idea of a referendum. In fact we have been calling for a referendum for over a year. When our leader presented his nine point plan back in April of 1991, a referendum was one of the main points.
We believe that the Constitution belongs to the people, not to the politicians, not to the government, not to the bureaucrats, but to the people.
The Constitution differs from other laws because it is the basic law of the land. It is the Constitution which gives the Parliament of Canada authority, as well as the federal government and provincial governments. We believe that all Canadians should be consulted and that
May 20,1992

they should have a final say in this constitutional reform package.
This government has been flip-flopping for more than a year on the question of a constitutional referendum. In the throne speech of May 1991 it promised referendum legislation. In the early fall of that year it backed away from the promise and then by November the referendum was back on again. Then it was off again.
Now we have legislation before us, Bill C-81. However, this legislation does not say that a referendum will be held, it says that a referendum may be held. In other words, it does not require the government to hold one. I believe that is the fundamental flaw in this legislation.
A referendum is the only way to give real legitimacy to the constitutional reform package. The people of Canada will no longer accept backroom deals. We had the Meech Lake round, and as we heard the Prime Minister admit and say, he rolled the dice. Canadians want a chance to say yes to each other and yes to Canada.
A second flaw in this bill, and I believe it is a major flaw, is that it ignores the principle of regional majorities. I believe there must be a double majority. In other words, there must be a majority of Canadians who vote for the constitutional reform package, but on top of that there must be a majority in the different regions of Canada.
This bill does not require that. It does not require that there be a majority in each region. It does not require that each region must agree with or support the constitutional proposal. I think that regional majorities are important. If we had a referendum and a region of Canada, such as the western part of Canada, voted against the constitutional package then I do not think we should proceed.
I believe that there should be a double majority, that across Canada the majority of Canadians agree but there also should be a majority in each region. Otherwise, for the government to push ahead would cause disunity and division within the country.
A third weakness in this legislation that we have before us is in the process of writing the question that Canadians would be asked. It is very important what the question is, how it is worded and how it is put.
Government Orders
In the past in Canada the three political parties have worked together on many matters of great national importance, This certainly happened during the 1981-82 constitutional process as well as during the 1987-88 constitutional process. There is no reason why all three parties should not be actively involved in writing the referendum question.
Yet this is a government that has failed to consult the opposition on the legislation we have before us today. It promised that it would consult the opposition. It promised that its members would consult us. Yet all the government did was inform us as to what would be in this legislation.
Furthermore, this legislation does not provide for any consultation on the question that would be in the referendum with opposition parties.
I think that is wrong. The other parties should be consulted. The question should not be worked out exclusively by the government. The government proposes only three days of debate on this very crucial referendum question. Three days. Unless the debate is extended it would mean that only 25 per cent of the members in this House of Commons would be able to speak on this question.
On top of that, the opposition members would not be allowed to propose any substantial changes. They could make only minor amendments to the legislation.
That is another thing that is wrong with this. In such an important matter only 25 per cent of the members of this House will have the opportunity to take part, and the 25 per cent who can speak would not be allowed to make any meaningful amendments to the question.
There is no reason, no reason at all, for the government not to consult the opposition on this important issue.
Finally, the referendum fails to address significant proposed changes to the Canadian Elections Act that were recommended by the royal commission. One concerns spending limits. I certainly am one who feels that there must be spending limits, otherwise people with the money will be able to hire the best PR people and the best organizers, and then maybe it will be money that will change the results. It is important that we have limits

May 20, 1992
Government Orders
because it is only with limits that Canadians will perceive this referendum as being fair.
If it is perceived as being unfair by Canadians then the losing side will say: "Well, it was manipulated, it was bought". I feel very strongly that there must be spending limits.
I know that my time is running out. However, I want to repeat that I support the concept of a referendum. I feel that the referendum must be mandatory, not optional as is provided for in this legislation; it must include the principle of regional majorities or it is not fair, and there must be spending limits.
I have other concerns as well. However, in the limited time that I have those were the three points I wanted to mention.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago to the day, following the referendum in Quebec, I was standing there with the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, Claude Ryan and all the others that had supported the no campaign. We were promised a renewed federalism. In 1982 with the patri-ation of the Constitution, English Canada got a renewed federalism, but Quebec was left on the sideline.
Following the election of the Liberal Party of Quebec in 1985, one of the first issues discussed at the National Assembly had to do with finding a common ground to allow Quebec to reintegrate the Canadian Federation with dignity.
That resulted in the Meech Lake accord, which had been ratified by ten premiers as well as the Prime Minister of the country. We know the outcome of this sad story: on June 23 1990, the Meech Lake accord died. Since then, we have spent practically two years talking about the Constitution in this House, while industries close down, thousands of people lose their jobs, our young people experience problems, and our old people are looking for security. We in this House try to destroy rather than build. Mr. Speaker, contrary to those who might claim that this destruction is caused by the Bloc Quebecois members, it is English Canada that has simply refused to allow Quebec to reintegrate the Canadian Constitution.
Now we are debating Bill C-81. This is a fraud; it is a diversion to create confusion, given the fact that it will be an empty consultive process that will cost Canadians and Quebecers some $110 million. This is ridiculous. It is ridiculous because it has no legal value. This referendum will not change anything; it will not solve any problems because people representing the government have told us that they do not want to hold a referendum; it is just in case.
We found that out today at the federal-provincial constitutional conference that is being held in Montreal. They waited to be in Montreal to create a common front of five anglophone provinces asking for an elected, equal and effective Senate. We know that Quebec is against that, as is Ontario, but what is worse is the fact that the same English provinces are telling Quebec that there will be no right of veto for Quebec or a distinct society as described in the Beaudoin-Dobbie report.
This is a far cry from the Meech Lake Accord, from the five small conditions that would have enabled Quebec to reintegrate the Canadian Constitution. However, Quebec is no longer interested in that stuff. We no longer talk about language, culture and the civil code. This is no longer what Quebec seeks. Indeed, the Liberal Party of Quebec approved the Allaire report during its congress in 1991. That report recommended 24 powers for Quebec: a major decentralization. On the other hand, Canada precisely wants to keep a strong central government. That is where the problem lies. We understand that in Quebec. We do not want to keep English Canada from continuing to have a strong central government. We agree on that. But we are also agree that Quebec wants to decentralize to the point of forming a country. The country that is missing within this Canada is the state of Quebec, next to it. We want friendly relations and exchanges. But from a political point of view, Quebec wants to choose its own laws. And that is the fundamental principle that the members of the Bloc Quebecois stand up for on this side of the House. We want to protect the higher interests of Quebec.
A while ago I was listening to some members who were calling us separatists. Maybe they should look at themselves in a mirror, Mr. Speaker. They are the ones who refused us access to the Canadian Constitution. As a matter of fact, we should remind the hon. members who accuse us, members of the Bloc Quebecois, of being illegitimate, that all the Quebec members in this House
May 20, 1992

are illegitimate since we do not belong to the Canadian federation, being left out in 1990.
Before passing such judgment, maybe members on the government side should look at themselves. When polls for the last two years or so give them 13 per cent, one wonders whether even their own family members are going to vote for them. We worry about that, because this could split families, recreate all over again the situation we experienced in the eighties with the referendum.
In the interest of English Canada as well as Quebec, we should pay more attention to the referendum which should be held in Quebec before October 26, 1992. Let Quebecers decide their own political future. We should wait until that referendum. We respected the result in 1980, so why all the tricks now, especially within a bill which allows unlimited spending. There is no Yes umbrella organisation and no No umbrella organisation.
We learned today on the 6 o'clock news that the government might propose amendments to, precisely, limit spending-


An hon. member:: A fraud.


Gilles Rocheleau: An umbrella committee will not be able to spend more that $10 million. That is one committee, but you can have any number of them. It is farcical, Mr. Speaker, it is the rape of democracy.
We consider it unfortunate that hon. members from Quebec should be willing to go along with that. One wonders whether it is not simply a way for this government, which is in trouble and does not find support in the population, to use public funds in a referendum, since it will be able to spend at will. By the way, you might have noticed that on TV, every evening, every day, during intermissions, during hockey games, "O Canada" is being sung about every five minutes.
In the interest of Canada and Quebec, I hope that opposition members, and indeed the Conservative members from Quebec, will refuse to venture into something which could have dire consequences for the future of Canada as well as of Quebec.
Government Orders


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this bill. This is a piece of legislation that has attracted a lot of attention.
I think, though, the important thing to do is not so much to focus on the piece of legislation but to recognize what this legislation does, once passed through this House. It will give the government the power to hold a plebiscite or a referendum to consult the people of Canada on the future constitutional agreements that we reach and the arrangement that we collectively come to, if it should be decided that referendum is important or that referendum is necessary.
We should consider this on a number of levels. Perhaps the most important is the role that the Canadian public can play in expressing its views on the Constitution. The second clearly would be the role that a referendum could play in ensuring that this country stays together, to break a deadlock and to confirm a consensus that may be there.
We would be fooling ourselves entirely if we did not recognize that a referendum, whether or not we like it, rightly or wrongly has some inherent difficulties and some inherent dangers as my friends and colleagues from Quebec well know. As anybody familiar with the recent history of Newfoundland and Labrador will know, a referendum hangs on. It stays. The wounds that it creates are long term and very serious.
We should recognize that perhaps the most important debate in this House should a referendum become necessary will be the debate surrounding what form the question will take and what it will be. The debate over the last two days has been very fruitful and it is important that it continue.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That this House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the continuation of second reading of Bill C-81, an
act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
And more than 15 members having risen:

May 20, 1992
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


William C. Winegard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or Standing Order 78(2) with respect to an allocation of time to the second reading of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage of the bill.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on behalf of the constituents of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, for a very short period of time on Bill C-81, the referendum legislation.
My constituents, like all Canadians, welcome the decision of the government to pass referendum legislation. However, Canadians regret that it took the government so long to understand exactly what the people of Canada truly want.
On April 21, 1991, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada gave a speech in Montreal on the Constitution. In that speech he called for a national referendum on the Constitution. Indeed, the government picked up on the idea and mentioned in the throne speech last May that it would seek a way to consult Canadians on this important issue.
Unfortunately it has taken the government a full year to act on its promise. Unfortunately I guess my time is up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. I know it would have been a great speech.
It being seven o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Derek Vincent Lee: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (CSIS Act) to authorize the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) to review the operations of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address this item of Private Members' Business which I consider a most important issue. I understand that other members of this House feel the same way.
The motion asks for the government to amend the Security Intelligence Service Act to authorize the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the business affairs of CSE, the Communications Security Establishment.
This issue has been floating around this House for a couple of years now with virtually no adequate material response on the part of the government.
The first thing I want to do is describe the agency which, for all intents and purposes, is unchecked or unmonitored by Parliament or other external agencies within government.
This particular agency has a budget of about $250 million. I say "about" because no one in this House knows what the budget is other than, perhaps, two or three ministers who sit on the Privy Council Committee on Security and Intelligence.
The second thing we know is that it has about 850 employees, about, but we are not sure. We are also advised that approximately 1,100 Department of National Defence employees work in the endeavour.
What is the endeavour? It is twofold. The Communications Security Establishment provides information, advice and consultation to government departments on the security of their communications. That is internal-external security so that when communications are made
May 20, 1992

in any mode, they are secure and, hopefully, unmonitored by parties who might want to monitor them.
The second role, and this is the one I speak mostly to this evening, is that of signals intelligence gathering. This $250 million a year agency gathers communications signals, basically out of the air, not just in Canada but elsewhere in the world from its bases wherever it has access. We do not know where all those bases are for the same reason we were not told the budget or the number of employees or a lot of other things the agency does. We do know where the agency's office is located and we do know who the head of the agency is.
Before I go further I would like to give some credit, although I am a little sheepish about doing it. I have to give some credit to The Globe and Mail, not to the government, for investing a lot of time and hours in researching this Communications Security Establishment. Its series of articles on this by Mr. Peter Moon was quite a good series and provided yours truly with basically the only blueprint, the only collected set of information about this particular agency. That, I suggest to Canadians, should be an insult to them; not the good work of The Globe and Mail but the fact that Canada's Parliament does not have this information and cannot get it.
Why is Parliament interested? Let us review quickly the role of Parliament. In essence, there are books written about the role of Parliament but it boils down to a couple of basics. One of them is that the Crown, the government, does not tax the people without the consent of Parliament and, second, it does not spend the people's money without the consent of Parliament.
Parliament does other things in that role. That includes legislating, that is passing the laws that authorize the spending. Parliament also monitors government. Parliament is separate from government. It monitors in its committees and other processes what government does on behalf of Canada's citizens.
I want to point out that CSE, notwithstanding all the things that it does, bears no relation to any of those functions because there is no statute governing CSE. There is no statutory law that describes what CSE is or what it does. We will get into a bit more detail later as to
Private Members' Business
what CSE does. As well, there is no law or instrument that sets out the mandate for CSE. No one really knows precisely what CSE is mandated to do.
I am saying this from the floor of Parliament, whose job it is to know what government is doing. There is no specific accountability for its spending. I cannot determine what kind of money it spends. The $250 million figure that I just bounced before the House I think came from The Globe and Mail study because I cannot get it in any of the committees. It is simply not there.
For all the other reasons we have just discussed, there is no monitoring because CSE sits out there beyond the reach of most of the parliamentary scrutiny devices and monitoring devices. The bottom line is that there is no accountability by this agency for what it does and for what it spends. That is an unfortunate circumstance. I am hopeful that the process here in Parliament, which includes the debate on this motion, will provide a solution that is acceptable to the security and intelligence framework that we have in this country and which is acceptable to Parliament.
I have no doubt that the taxpayers, the people who pay the bills, are of the view that Parliament has to satisfy itself. We here in this House, all of the members, have to assure ourselves on behalf of our electors that this agency is operating within a law-there is not a law now-and that it is spending properly our tax dollars.
This signals intelligence gathering began during the last war. As far as I can ascertain, it was not until the year 1975 that there was any legal reference to it in government records. It is a pretty pitiful list of references. There is a series of three statutory orders which are expressed or articulated as subsidiary legislation of other statutes. I think one is the Treasury Board, another is the Financial Administration Act and the other is the Public Service Employment Act, all basically exempting this particular agency, which had come into being, from any scrutiny under those agencies.
Just so that you know this is non-partisan, the government that did that was a Liberal government in 1975. There has basically been no change. It could have been any government. The environment in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s was I think very much different in terms of civil liberties than the environment is today. I

May 20,1992
Private Members' Business
hope it is different in relation to government accountability.
One of the problems at CSE, one of the reasons why we find it difficult in Parliament to monitor it, is that the government, probably not by design but just by historical evolution, has permitted the agency's existence to divide into two separate pieces. They are as follows:
The agency in 1975 was moved from the National Research Council where it must have been a "project" for many years. It moved to the Department of National Defence and it exists there today as a section of the Department of National Defence. Presumably, there is a colonel or a general who, I believe, is unnamed who has administrative responsibility for this. That is, financial and administrative responsibility lies with the Department of National Defence.
However, who controls the policy and operations-and the real word here is operations-the day-to-day functioning, the things it does? The answer to that is the Privy Council Office. The Privy Council Office is basically the Prime Minister's Office. It is the office of public servants who run the Prime Minister's function in this country.
As far as I know, the Privy Council Office does not account to any parliamentary committee, especially in terms of operations which they call top secret, top secret umbra-we will not go into too much jargon here-or simply secret.
Little guys like us in this House of Commons probably would never get within a hundred feet of that secret or top secret information, most of which we do not have to get close to anyway. But when we are monitoring we have to have the ability to find out what is going on.
What is my concern about CSE? What is our concern in Parliament? Is it just a spending and monitoring issue? No, it is not. In particular, this agency has the comprehensive ability to eavesdrop anywhere it wants. I am talking about total comprehensive eavesdropping, principally based on eavesdropping of electromagnetic signals or transmissions.
Anything that moves and creates a pattern is ascertainable by this agency, by its net. It has an intelligence-gathering net. There is an additional wrinkle in this which I will get to later. But all electronic signals, everything that moves in Canada, is trappable, receivable, nettable. All phone conversations, all fax machine transmissions, all radio frequencies, even those that are encoded and enciypted, are trapped or trappable within the net used world-wide by CSE and its brother or sister components in other countries.
This is going on right now. They could be listening to me right now, quite possibly. They certainly could. This is certainly carried on with our internal monitoring system. Now they probably do not want to listen to me, but they might be. They have a net that is capable of doing that. They have a net world-wide capable of picking up this information and screening it through one of only three CRAY supercomputers in this country. That is a very expensive piece of machinery, but it basically is able to analyze all of these signals and, I suppose, to read them using key words, and to draw out those which it wishes to retain. It puts them into its own coded retaining language. These are then submitted to further analysis in Canada, the U.K., the U.S.A., Australia, or in other countries.
That is what they are capable of doing. That is why we are concerned that this agency is not monitored.
I want to mention the problem of reciprocal exchange agreements between CSE and other countries. The United States National Security Agency is perfectly capable of listening to what I am saying now. If it wants to listen, it does it. It has satellite transmission capability as well as satellite networks and earth transmission networks, and CSE is a part of it. It is not illegal. It is listening from up in space or some place else. It is doing it from Buffalo. It does not matter.
If it is listening, and it is capable of doing it, it takes the data to Maryland or West Virginia to the National Security Agency where it is coded. If Canada wants that information, CSE can get it. It runs it through the super computer checking for key words. It sees somebody is talking about CSE. All of that can happen. The Austra-
May 20, 1992

lians can do it, the British can do it. It is that trading, that subcontracting capability that we are not able to monitor.
We do not know whether data that we are using in Canada is obtained legally, illegally in other countries, whether it is eavesdropping, whether it is a breach of Canadian statutes, U.K. statues, Australian statutes, French statutes. They are getting the data and they are using it, we think for a good purpose. We know it is for a good purpose. It is for our national security. That covers a lot of territory.
Now that we know it is out there and the capability is there, all of our privacy is therefore at risk. We are not monitoring in this country.
What has Parliament said about this? A couple of years ago Parliament did a five-year review of the CSIS statute, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. I served on that committee, as did two or three other members in this House here now. They are here because they are concerned about it. They had a number of things to say about this.
First, they wanted to note the capability and they ended up by making a recommendation. Even though CSE was not part of CSIS, it gives data information to CSIS. That was confirmed. The committee recommended that Parliament formally establish the CSE by statute, which does not exist now, and second, establish the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which already exists to oversee CSIS, as the body responsible for monitoring, reviewing and reporting to Parliament on the activities of CSE concerning its compliance with the laws of Canada. That was the recommended solution.
The recommendation was not adopted. I want to refer to the government's response to that report. It admitted the problem. I do not accept the statement that "a broad accountability system for CSIS is in place". I am not going to go through the details. It is not there. I am telling this House as a member that the accountability is not there.
Even if there is some Public Service accountability, which I am not familiar with, there certainly is not in this House. "Nevertheless, such an accountability system can always be improved and the government has been considering providing the Minister of National Defence with some additional capacity for review of CSE. Once the decision is taken-", et cetera. There is no mention of Parliament, no mention of parliamentary accountability.
Private Members' Business
The Security Intelligence Review Committee made reference to it in its 1991 report. The former chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Mr. Ron Atkey, stated recently in an interview: "We need a system that will provide some accountability and some assurance to you as a private citizen that you are not being abused". To date, we do not have that.
The government's response to that committee was inadequate. It did nothing. Members were so dissatisfied with the response of that report that from all sides they created a parliamentary subcommittee to deal with national security.
Someone has said that CSE is accountable to the general law. That is true, but they are in the same area that the RCMP was in 15 years ago. Mounties who were sworn to uphold the law broke the law with the bam burning incident some 15 years ago.
If the Mounties were able to break the law, if they fell into that trap, how much more likely is it that civilians not sworn in the same way would also break the law? I am not accusing anybody. It is a problem. I want to encourage this House to adopt this motion. I want to make Canadians aware this is a matter of very serious and important unfinished business, and that a statute and legislation are necessary.
Canadians must have this degree of accountability. They should insist upon it. I am hoping the House will adopt this motion.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion concerning the role of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, also known as the SIRC within the national security system.
In 1984, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIC) Act and the Security Offences Act established a new legislative framework to govern Canada's national security system.
The new legislation was designed to create a balanced and accountable system for the protection of Canada's national security interests and the preservation of the democratic way of life of its people. It provided the main legislative framework for the national security system, assigning security intelligence to CSIS, and confirmed

May 20, 1992
Private Members' Business
the security enforcement and the protective security mandate of the RCMP.
Embodied in the legislation was a set of interlocking principles to shape and guide the operation of the system and each principle can be associated with one of its major participants.
The legislation incorporated a clear mandate and strict controls of the activities of the new service. The inclusion of ministerial oversight and sophisticated review mechanisms ensured that the service would be effective and that the rights of individuals would be respected. Balance was a distinguishing feature of the legislation.
The need to protect national security was balanced by respect for individual rights and freedoms. The need to provide the service with sufficient powers to produce effective security intelligence was balanced by statutory controls and policy direction.
The need for CSIS to employ certain intrusive techniques was balanced by the requirement for prior authorization by a minister of the Crown and the Federal Court. The need for secrecy was balanced by ministerial accountability and informed independent review.
The national security system assigned specific and distinct mandates to CSIS and the RCMP. The service's primary mandate is to be found in two provisions of the CSIS act: the definition of "threats to the security of Canada", and the description of the service's duty to collect, analyse and retain information and intelligence on "threats to the security of Canada".
In order to fulfill its mandate the service undertakes counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence investigations of various types and duration.
The CSIS mandate is conditioned by the limits and controls specified in the act, by ministerial directions, and by the service's own operational policies and procedures. Certain powers employed by the service are subject to the requirement to obtain a judicial warrant.
In view of the complexity of CSIS activities and the importance of securing public confidence in the integrity of the system, the CSIS act provides for an independent external review body, the SIRC, reporting to Parliament through the Solicitor General on the activities of the service. The act also establishes the function of the inspector general to conduct independent internal reviews of the service for the Solicitor General
Like other government departments and agencies,
CSIS is required to pursue its objectives with full respect for the law including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Legislation governing the creation of a security intelligence agency has a special need for a policy framework, if there is to be public confidence in how the agency operates. Ministerial direction helps to ensure that the Solicitor General, who is accountable to Parliament, is the linchpin in the legal and policy framework.
The principles of ministerial control and accountability are central to Canadian parliamentary democracy. The CSIS Act ensured that the minister would have full knowledge and power of direction over the policies, operations and management of CSIS and also supplies the minister with the means to control and guide the service.
The function of the inspector general forms an integral part of the over-all accountability process. The CSIS Act established the inspector general's reporting role to the minister.
The terms of the act assign the inspector general a review and a monitoring function with respect to CSIS, and no information other than cabinet confidences may be withheld on any grounds.
By serving the minister directly, the inspector general maintains a measure of distance from the minister's policy and operational advisors in the ministry secretariat.
Canadian are protected by limitations in the CSIS mandate and the scope of prescribed activities of the service, by the conditions of the warrant process and the complaint and review processes provided in the act.
In the performance of its duties and functions, CSIS has no authority to counter or deter threats to the security of Canada. Furthermore, information is to be collected only to the extent that it is "strictly necessary". Investigations are to be initiated only when suspicions are based on "reasonable grounds", and the investigations themselves are to be conducted in a reasonable manner.
May 20, 1992

The definition of threats to the security of Canada excludes lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjuction with any of the activities referred to in the CSIS act.
Judicial authorization is required for the exercise of the most intrusive powers of CSIS and is granted only after a rigorous internal process of approval is completed, including consultation with the Deputy Solicitor General and the approval of the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General conveys his views to the service through written ministerial directions and his intentions through the approval processes, for example in approving warrant applications, and in regular meetings with the director.
Assistance to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence in the collection of foreign intelligence excludes investigation of Canadian citizens and permanent residents and corporations, and must occur within Canada.
The director of CSIS is required by law to report on illegal activity of any member of the service in the performance of his duties.
This represents a brief discussion of the system governing Canada's national security. A recent review by the special committee found that it is basically sound, has served the nation well and should be preserved.
Mr. Speaker, let me now turn to the role of SIRC, which is an innovative and important component of the national security system established by the CSIS act.
Responsibility for this independent external review function was given to the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), a non-partisan committee of privy councillors which reports to Parliament through the Solicitor General.
SIRS'S review role is a cornerstone of the accountability framework established by the CSIS act. SIRC has a mandate to review the propriety of CSIS activities, with emphasis on the delicate balance between national security and individual freedoms.
Private Members' Business
Given SIRC's importance as presently constituted, the government does not agree with the proposed statutory amendment which would expand SIRC's role. In the government's view, it would have the effect of either diffusing SIRC's functions with respect to CSIS or diminishing ministerial accountability.
The SIRC, created in large part to act as Parliament's surrogate in the sensitive area of security intelligence, consists of five part-time members who are privy councillors but must not be sitting members of either the House of Commons or the Senate, and is assisted by a small staff of researchers.
The members of SIRC see their part-time status as a great advantage which assists them in maintaining their independence and objectivity. By retaining their chosen career as their main professional activity, they avoid becoming captives of the system.
Finally, through daily accountability in the House of Commons, supplementary and main estimates process, standing committee hearings, special committees (terrorism), the subcommittee on national security, the tabling of SIRC and other special reports, and parliamentary review of the legislation, Parliament is the ultimate review body.
Mr. Speaker, this illustrates that the CSIS act, which created SIRC's review role, was well thought out. The special committee, when it reviewed its provisions and operation, found the CSIS act basically sound. As presently constituted, SIRC well serves its intended purpose.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, we indeed live in strange times. Just last week in the United Kingdom the British Prime Minister admitted that MI-6 actually existed when it was in fact founded over a century ago.
The motion we have before us relates to a Canadian institution, the Communications Security Establishment, which has been in existence for about half a century, perhaps not under that name. Parliament still has absolutely no control over that body, and for all practical purposes it does not exist either. In fact, we do not have anything in the estimates, they are hidden in the Department of National Defence estimates.

May 20, 1992
Private Members' Business
I just had the ordeal of listening for 15 minutes to a speech that had absolutely no relevance to this motion. A speech on CSIS and SIRC was relevant to the debates of spring of 1984, but of absolutely no relevance to the debate this evening. I do not think the parliamentary secretary even made a passing reference to CSE. She certainly said nothing about its operations.
I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, for bringing forward this motion this evening because I think it is very timely. It is timely not only because it concerns a highly secretive information-gathering agency which has no parliamentary responsibility. It is about the accountability of a secret organization. That is what we are discussing and debating tonight.
In 1992, when Canada is not at war with anyone and no one is plotting war on Canada, we have a secret agency that can listen in on virtually any kind of electronic transmission anywhere in Canada, indeed anywhere in continental North America. We do not even know how far it goes beyond continental North America.
The Communications Security Establishment, which originated some 50 years ago in the National Research Council, I think it was part of its communications directorate, has remained under the cloak of secrecy ever since. The reason it has is because it is a secret organization and therefore it is involved in secret activity. That secret activity is listening in on all the electronic communications of foreign embassies in Ottawa or consulates in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver or wherever they happen to be. It listens in on all kinds of government traffic. It is also responsible for the security of government information and government documents. It is really the security agency for Parliament Hill, and perhaps I should say for cabinet, the Privy Council Office and the office of the Prime Minister.
I would not object to that if it was simply a security agency of government to protect information within the Government of Canada from foreign eavesdropping. If that were its only activity, I would not be standing up this evening and demanding greater accountability because I can understand that part of its operations.
Every prudent government in the world has that kind of security or at least attempts to have that kind of security. I am not denigrating the capability or the expertise of CSE. I have no way of doing that because I do not know anything about it. As a parliamentarian I am not allowed to know anything about CSE. I am precluded not by law or statute but by some arrangement within the PCO. On that part of it I simply have to stand back and ask like any other citizen: "I have no right to know, therefore what can I do?"
I can stand here on my feet tonight and verbally blast away at the government and say: "Look, that part of CSE's operation may be acceptable in its secrecy, but the other activities of CSE, that is the electronic eavesdropping on foreign embassies, the electronic eavesdropping on citizens, not necessarily of this country but in the United States, for example"-and I will get to that in a moment-"and CSE's ability to tap into sources south of the border with respect to electronic eavesdropping in Canada should be scrutinized".
Now the member who moved this motion said earlier that it has the capability, and I agree with this, of listening in on virtually every fax machine transmission, every telephone call, every cellular telephone communication. Anything of an electronic nature can be tapped into.
We are told by the minister and by his senior personnel in the Solicitor General's office that CSE does not operate in any illegal manner, that is it does not collect information in this country on Canadian citizens in an illegal manner, in a manner contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. I will accept that argument because the National Security Agency in the United States assures American congressmen and senators that it does not eavesdrop on American citizens contrary to their Bill of Rights.
But there is no law in North America prohibiting NSA from getting in touch with the CSE in Canada and saying: "I want you to keep track electronically of so-and-so resident in South Dakota or Alabama". CSE can do that and pass on information to the NSA, therefore circumventing any American law. The National Security Agency, buddy-buddy that is with the CSE, can do exactly the same thing and eavesdrop on Canadian citizens, contrary to Canadian law but circumventing that law.
May 20, 1992

That is the part of CSE that disturbs me. That is the part of CSE that I would like to know a little more about. I would like to know whether or not in fact the sourcing of its information, whether or not it comes from the Americans, the British or the Australians, is done in a manner that is in accordance with our rights here in this country, with our Criminal Code and with our charter. That is what I want to know.
As far as I can determine there are no legislative safeguards. There are no oversight safeguards. There is no committee or subcommittee of this House that has any jurisdiction over CSE. We cannot put a question on CSE in this House in Question Period either to the Solicitor General or to the Minister of National Defence. He will get up and answer that because of the national security involved with that agency he is unable to answer the member's question. We cannot put questions in committee. We can ask the Minister of National Defence to appear but we know ahead of time that he or she will not answer questions on the CSE.
This motion, if passed or adopted, would mandate SIRC to have the same oversight power or responsibility with respect to CSE as it has with CSIS, but SIRC does not have that mandate. The government will not give SIRC that mandate.
We need a couple of things here. I agree with the motion completely. The Security Intelligence Review Committee should include the Communications Security Establishment as part of its mandate. It should be the citizens' oversight committee for CSE just as it is for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
But I would go further than that. I would mandate CSE's existence by statute. I would bring in a bill. It would be thoroughly debated in this House at all stages. It would go to a committee. The special committee has already looked at this at least in part, but now we could devote our entire resources to CSE. We would come up with a bill just as we did with CSIS. Therefore it would be statutorily established instead of tucked away somewhere by tradition, by some kind of secret arrangement within the Privy Council Office for only the eyes and ears of only two, three or four top public servants to have any control over or any counsel over the operations of CSE.
Private Members' Business
We live in a democracy. We are not at war. We are under no stress. Surely CSE should come under parliamentary mandate. It should be statutorily established by an act of Parliament. SIRC, as stated in this motion, should have the right to oversee its operations as a citizens' committee watch-dog on the Communications Security Establishment.
I see my time is up.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate. As a member of the special committee that studied CSIS with my other friends who are in the House, I did agree and sign the report that said that CSE should have its own legislated mandate and that SIRC should be mandated to oversee CSE.
My friends from Scarborough-Rouge River and Brant have gone into detail on the Communications Security Establishment and what we know. Certainly the minister has primary responsibility. That is our system as it exists today. In that regard the CSE is apparently under the Department of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence would have authority over that particular agency and a reporting function to Parliament in that regard.
I would like to say there is no indication that anybody's civil liberties have been offended by CSE. Therefore, why are we bringing this particular matter forward? Why was this motion brought forward? We saw, as was indicated in the early 1980s, that the RCMP security establishment, sworn to uphold the law, did run afoul of the law in regard to national security matters.
As a result it was decided that the security service would be made a civilian agency. It would be given its own legislative mandate. Certain checks would be put in place in order to defend the civil liberties of Canadians. Those were outlined very well by the parliamentary secretary and included SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, as well as the inspector general.
We found in our review of CSIS that these organizations have functioned well and have protected the civil liberties of Canadians. We looked at other areas of the security establishment in this country. We understand there is security apparatus within the Department of External Affairs, within the transport department and with CSE, to name a few.

May 20, 1992
Private Members' Business
To make sure that the civil liberties of Canadians were protected and that we did not have any incidents where those civil liberties were offended and as a result there would a great uproar in Parliament, it was decided by the committee that we would recommend that CSE be given its own legislative mandate and, since SIRC had worked so well in overseeing CSIS, that SIRC be mandated to oversee CSE as well.
CSIS in the act, as was pointed out by the parliamentary secretary, has its own legislative mandate in regard to threats to the security of Canada. Surely the CSE could be given a similar legislative mandate as a standard by which it can be judged in its picking up of the various electromagnetic signals and which it would take into consideration.
It is my belief that there are memorandums of understanding between CSIS and CSE, so there is some exchange of information. Obviously the memorandum itself is secret and should remain so, but the mere fact of a memorandum of understanding indicates that there is an agreement as to what information will be turned over to CSIS in certain circumstances.
It is not out of the question for people who have the responsibility, as we do here in Parliament, to want to know what that information is. We should be able to get at that particular information. We should know in general terms what the budget of the organization is so that we can fulfil our oversight function, and also so that we can ensure that the civil liberties of Canadians are protected.
Our first choice would have been a model similar to the United States. When we were doing our study on CSIS we found that in the United States all the security intelligence agencies are overseen by two congressional committees, one of the Senate and one of the House of Representatives. They have access to all the information in regard to all the security establishments in the United States, including their NSA.
We in Canada did not go that route in overseeing our security intelligence service. We decided we would do it through the Security Intelligence Review Committee, made up of Privy Council members who were mandated to actually take the place of Parliament because it is a secret organization. Obviously it is important to the security of our country. They were to take the place of Parliament, and that is why the Privy Councillors were put in this particular position.
We on the committee accept that concept. We found that it was working well. As was mentioned, the Security Intelligence Review Committee does look at what CSIS does. It delves into various matters to ensure that the civil liberties of Canadians are protected, and we can see that in its annual report. Obviously that has an effect on CSIS and it makes sure that the civil liberties of Canadians are taken care of and are not abused.
Our thinking on the committee was that we should put all the security intelligence apparatus under some form of oversight, that includes the other ones I mentioned and would be found in the report.
We feel there was a reaction in the early 1980s to what had gone on in the RCMP security service. CSIS was established and the model is working. Now in a time when we do not have a great crisis we should look at our entire security establishment and establish oversight in the other areas as well.
CSE is an organization shrouded in a great deal of secrecy, rightfully so. However, what is occurring there? There are no indications that there have ever been any civil liberties that have been abused by this particular organization, but we do not know. As members of Parliament we would like to be reassured that no aspect of our security intelligence apparatus in this country is offending any of the civil liberties of Canadians.
SIRC has worked well in terms of the oversight of CSIS. We suggested that it be given additional responsibility and its oversight be extended to CSE. I can understand the argument that SIRC has worked well on a part-time basis. One of the things we were concerned about in our study was that SIRC had not been co-opted by CSIS. We found no indication of that.
One of the reasons we felt that had occurred was because of the part-time nature of its oversight function. If it is felt that this would be too much of a burden for SIRC and would take away from the part-time nature of its job then why not create another body similar to SIRC to oversee CSE. Privy Councillors can do the job in this case also.
My personal preference would be to put that entire oversight function within a parliamentary committee. We have done that to a certain extent with the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General which we have formed.
May 20, 1992

If we are going to proceed on the basis of the SIRC model, which has worked well, I would urge that we go ahead with a legislative mandate for CSE, set out what it is that it is collecting and in what terms, such as threats to the security of Canada, a similar definition as is put in the CSIS Act that we could compare it against and make sure that is what this particular organization is collecting.
There may be an argument that it cannot get the co-operation of the National Security Agency in the United States. We heard that one from CSIS when SIRC was established. SIRC went to the United States and found that once the initial barriers were broken down, it could co-operate and the Americans were satisfied with the security intelligence agency.
In conclusion, I would support a legislative mandate for CSE. I would like to see SIRC or a SIRC-like body set up in order to protect the civil liberties of Canadians in regard to CSE but not only in CSE, in every aspect of the security apparatus here in Canada.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this particular motion. I had the pleasure of serving on the review committee that studied CSIS.
The motion of my colleague for Scarborough-Rouge River is an excellent one and really gets to the heart of the matter. He is being very skilful in what he is doing because all of these spy agencies, if you can use that terminology, should be included under a review or oversight function. He is starting with CSE which is the more serious one and which does not even have a parliamentary mandate. I am sure as time goes along and after the government sees the wisdom of this motion and enacts it, we will see other agencies fall within the ambit of a review agency such as SIRC.
On that review committee of which I had the pleasure to serve, we had a recommendation. I believe it is recommendation 87. I quote: "The committee recommends that Parliament formally establish CSE by statute and establish SIRC as the body responsible for monitoring, reviewing and reporting to Parliament on the activities of CSE concerning its compliance with the laws of Canada".
Private Members' Business
That was an excellent recommendation but the government chose not to deal with that particular recommendation. There were a number of recommendations in our report that the government refused to deal with. It only adopted one or one and a half recommendations which is unfortunate. Ron Atkey, who was the chairman of SIRC, gave a very interesting radio interview in March 1991 in which he talked about the recommendations which we came up with as parliamentarians and submitted to Parliament. I again quote because it is illustrative of what is going on here:
None of these recommendations were earth shattering. Why were they rejected? The explanation may relate as much to the malaise in our parliamentary system. It seems there is simply not the time and inclination to debate important legislation in a non-partisan way these days. It is also clear that the government wanted to avoid at any cost the commitment to introduce legislative changes. How convenient for CSIS which really never wanted to limit itself to investigating terrorism and espionage.
This little part is really illustrative.
And wasn't this just super for the Communications Security Establishment, that huge vacuum cleaner in the sky which has frightening capacity to invade the privacy of Canadians in a variety of ways but which has no legal mandate and which is not accountable to anyone except to the Department of National Defence and the Privy Council Office, the principal users of the data gathered.
That is very illustrative. There is the head of SIRC as he then was saying this is a very serious situation. This was a simple recommendation which came forward in our study. It is the same recommendation which the member for Scarborough-Rouge River is putting forward to Parliament again. That is to put some oversight, some control, some protection on the privacy of individuals. CSE is aptly described as the huge vacuum cleaner in the sky which is scooping up information all over the place. And we have no control over it, no say as to what is going to happen.
Both Mr. Atkey and Mr. Jean-Jacques Blais are no longer on SIRC, but when they were, they made some comments. There was an article in The Globe and Mail in June, 1991. I quote again from Jean-Jacques Blais who said: "My knowledge of the Communications Security Establishment was very superficial indeed when I was minister of defence." Ilien later on he says: "-and I am sure that the minister of defence today has no better knowledge relating to CSE than the Solicitor General had prior to the establishment of the review process."

May 20, 1992
Private Members' Business
So, here we are again, looking at two people who had an intimate knowledge of what is going on with CSE and an intimate knowledge of over-all data collection, and as a lot of people call it, the spy agencies that are here in Canada. They all say that they know nothing about what is going on with CSE. There is no parliamentary mandate; it was established by an Order in Council. It is not overseen by Parliament or by SIRC.
Now everyone knows the review committee said that in addition to SIRC there should also be a parliamentary review involved. We went so far as to see a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General established for that purpose.
I am sure everyone realizes there is a lot of work in these committees. We do not set these committees up frivolously. We do not set them up just to have another name or a title. This particular committee that did the review and the subcommittee that is working now are hard-working committees designed, quite frankly, to protect Canadian privacy. That has to be something that is fundamental to this country.
Right now in private conversations in homes or businesses or in any organization, that huge vacuum cleaner in the sky could be scooping all of that information up and utilizing it some day, putting it in a file or a data bank and storing it away so that some day that could be used against someone. That is fundamentally wrong. The idea of having a spy agency doing all of the things that have to be done, the idea of data collection in order to protect Canada is absolutely essential.
We are into all kinds of arrangements with a number of countries in sharing information and protecting one another. There is nothing wrong with that. But as Canadians we have to be satisfied. I feel I have to be satisfied as a parliamentarian that these agencies are not carrying out any abuses, and that the work they are doing is the proper work.
That is where SIRC comes in. It can do in private that type of research and report to Parliament and say: "Yes, CSE is functioning properly. No, it has not taken any intrusive steps without proper reasons and without going
before the proper organizations or courts to get the necessary permission to carry out these intrusions." All those sorts of things would then be laid before Parliament and we would have an opportunity to look at them and decide that we need not worry, everything is working fine.
Instead we have a situation in which we have an organization without a parliamentary mandate, without being overseen by Parliament or SIRC, now functioning in our Canadian society and continuing to monitor everything that we are saying. As a former great leader of the Liberal Party said, it is "interfering in what is going on in the bedrooms of the nation".
Quite frankly, I can tell by the look on your face, Mr. Speaker, that is a concern to you and it is a concern to us on this side. That is why my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River is bringing forward this motion which will see the necessary protection to Canadian privacy if it is adopted.
I hope that the government will see the benefit of an all-party committee's recommendation that this be done. I heard my colleague opposite talk about the same types of things that we are talking about on this side. It is unanimous among parliamentarians. We need the executive branch to deal with this and make sure that Canadians are protected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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.

It being eight o'clock, the House stands adjourned until ten a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 21,1992