1992-05-07

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, entitled: Canada's Children: Investing In Our Future.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-51, an
act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories.
I would like to extend a few messages of appreciation, first to Mr. Sandy Birch, the clerk of this committee who did an extremely large amount of work and gave me a tremendous amount of assistance in the committee.
I would like to thank the legislative counsel and the research staff and the MPs from both sides of the House for their hard work and co-operation in getting this legislation back to the House. I would like to thank them for their persistence in ensuring that any potential problems might be identified.
I think in this case it is appropriate to thank the witnesses. Representatives of the Northwest Territories Water Board and the Dene nation made the long trip to Ottawa to share their expertise and their opinions with members of the committee. I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary and departmental officials for their diligent efforts and assistance to the committee.


Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the same committee which studied Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon territory, with amendments, and extend the same appreciations as the membership in the committee was similar.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a group of constituents in my area I am presenting a petition requesting the enactment of legislation providing for a referendum of the people with respect to the constitutional amendments.

Routine Proceedings
I have certified it as meeting the needs of the House.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today which was in my riding constituency office on the coffee table. As different constituents came into my office on different matters they read the petition and without prompting signed it.
It is a petition with which the House is already familiar, and presented by the parents of the late Nina de Villiers. It calls upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society, and to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.
The petition is signed by constituents of mine in Scarborough West.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Kent county.
Whereas our corn growing industry is of vital economic importance to southwestern Ontario and to Canada, with Kent county the number one grain corn producer on average in Canada, the petitioners are asking the government to undertake a greater federal commitment with better promotion of ethanol blended fuels.
They want a legislated 10 per cent blend for all automotive fuels and new incentives for the community development of grain fed production plants.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table petitions from British Columbia.
Whereas grain has traditionally been transported through Canadian ports and the shipping of grain exports through Canadian ports provides the most direct and least costly route for Canadian grain producers, these petitioners call on the government and Parliament to instruct the Canadian Wheat Board
that all Canadian exports must proceed through Canadian ports.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions, all on the same subject.
Two of them are from the city of Peterborough and one of them is from the county of Peterborough. These three petitions represent a plea on the part of my constituents for the Houses of Parliament to pass legislation which would enable a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.
I am pleased to present these petitions, all of them to be found in order and on behalf of my constituents in Peterborough riding.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, today it is my duty to present more petitions as part of a national campaign to support reinstatement of the Court Challenges Program, a program that, as you know, has enabled Canadians for the past 15 years to defend their constitutional rights before the courts, to have those rights clarified and to obtain recognition through the courts for the language and equality rights in our Constitution.
Today's petitioners are from Ontario, New Brunswick, Western Canada and my own riding of Ottawa- Vanier, and they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to persuade or pressure the government to reinstate the Court Challenges Program which gave Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de -Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 800 citizens from my constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace in Montreal asking that Parliament hold a full debate on Canada's position with respect to the UNCED conference, and in particular, to debate Canada's commitment to the reduction of C02 emissions.

The petitioners are also asking for a debate on Canada's commitment to an UNCED bio-diversity convention and on Canada's commitment to reducing the international debt of developing countries.
The petition also asks that Canada commit itself to the transfer of technology to developing countries, and to put on the agenda things which were omitted, such as militarism and nuclear energy, which have an impact on the amount of money that can be contributed to the earth agenda.
There is also a request that we debate Canada's long-term commitment to sustainable development.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to S.O. 36. Your petitioners from Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories, Lorette in Manitoba, and other parts of our great country are dismayed by the fact that the Court Challenges Program, which concerns the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has been terminated by the government. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider the possibility of reinstating the Court Challenges Program which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 277 will be answered today.


Mr. Milliken: What are the Department of Finance's projections with respect to management of the payments for servicing and reducing the national debt that are provided for under Bill C-21, and how many person-years have been assigned to this function?
Government Orders


Hon. Donald Frank Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Managing and implementing the payments for servicing and reducing the debt will not involve any additional expenditures or person -years. The government already requires its accountants to keep track of all its revenues and payments by category. This can be easily handled with normal staff levels over the course of the year.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of correctional investigator, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the House proceeding with this bill today for two or three reasons.
First, the bill was reported by the committee on justice and legal affairs in this House on Tuesday morning during Routine Proceedings.
The bill was ordered to be reprinted at the request of the committee for the assistance of members of this House in considering the bill at report stage.
The report of the committee was a lengthy one and it recommended numerous changes to this particular bill. As a result of the late night sitting on Thesday and various other factors, on Wednesday I understand Votes and Proceedings was not available in this House until very shortly before Question Period. Certainly, it was not distributed to the offices until during Question Period, so it was not there for me to see until after

Government Orders
three o'clock, although it was available here in the Chamber.
The reprint of the bill was not available until this morning. If a member wished to go through the changes the committee had made to see what amendments the member might wish to give notice of, it had to be done before four o'clock yesterday afternoon with Votes and Proceedings that were available in offices at about three o'clock, unless the member was diligent enough to go to the Table and ask for a copy of the extensive report from the committee.
Frankly that is not long enough. It is fine for the members of the committee who are familiar with the amendments that were proposed there and who are familiar with each section of the bill having gone through it clause by clause. For other members of the House who have not been privileged to serve on the committee to have to go through a lengthy report like that without the benefit of a reprint showing the location of the clauses and what changes have been incorporated into the bill, it makes it extremely difficult to try to draft amendments.
I am concerned about this bill. In fact I have a private member's bill to amend the Penitentiaries Act which I would have been pleased to move as an amendment to this bill. As it has been called so quickly after the report to the House from the committee, I find it very difficult to get this in. It is a major piece of legislation and I do not want to make light of it, but it is close to 120 pages of the bill.
I was in committee all yesterday afternoon. I started at 3.30 p.m. and went to almost 6.00 p.m. When am I supposed to be able to do that if I do not have the tools to do it with and do it quickly? I submit they were not here.
I am prepared to suggest that one amendment alone would do but I would ask the indulgence of the House. If Your Honour does not wish to defer consideration of this bill to a more reasonable time, or the government House leader does not wish to do so, that I be permitted by unanimous consent to put my amendment.
I will reluctantly give up my right to move other amendments in the interest of expediting the business of the House, but I have not had a chance to go through the bill. I have not had a chance to go through all the amendments and I find it frustrating that I am in this position today. I do not know how many other
hon. members may be placed in this position because of the speed with which the government has moved.
I admit that part of the reason for the speed has been the excellent co-operation of the opposition in allowing so many bills through yesterday. Had we obstructed and held those up, perhaps we would not be discussing this this morning. The Solicitor General himself knows how co-operative we have been in dealing with his bills. I had hoped that the same co-operation and understanding might prevail today.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand in support of what the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has just argued. Even though yesterday I did give my consent to the minister to proceed, at least I indicated to him that it was okay with me to proceed this morning at report stage, later in the day it came to my attention that it would not even provide enough time for me to meet with my own legislative committee and my caucus to go over the changes. It was an oversight on my part when I concurred that we could proceed today.
The point is very valid. Report stage is the stage at which all members or any member of this House may enter into debate on technical matters and on very detailed matters of a bill going through passage in this House.
I truly believe all the time that is absolutely necessary should be granted at report stage for preparation. I do not mean an inordinate amount of time but certainly a reasonable amount of time so that other members who are not familiar with the bill in detail have a chance to study the bill so that they too can offer amendments at report stage.
I would agree with the member for Kingston and the Islands. Perhaps we could agree to set aside a greater length of time on Monday or possibly Tuesday of next week to proceed in the interests of those members who are not part of the committee.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with care to the comments of my two friends opposite. I understand the difficulties that they find themselves in. All of us here in this House, with our committee work, are faced with the challenge of managing our time and in organizing our work.
The basic question that has been raised is a question as to whether the proper procedure has been followed by the officers of this House. My inquiries indicate that it has been.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is quite correct that the House has been burdened with extra hours of debate and that the printing facilities have been heavily taxed as a result of that.
Journals and the other publications of the House will indicate that the text of the amendments from the committee were printed in Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, May 5 and that the text of the motions to be proposed at report stage has also been printed.
I believe it is correct that the bill as amended and reported was only distributed this morning. I do not dispute that. You will find, Mr. Speaker, that in all this, proper notice times have been given and that the appropriate 48 hours has elapsed between the reporting back of the committee and the scheduling of report stage debate.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I support what my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary said about the House leaders' agreeing that things should proceed in the way that they have and we should proceed today with report stage.
The bill has been subject to excellent committee work as reported to me by my staff and officials. There has been a spirit of co-operation and effort from opposition and government members on the committee to produce a bill and to do the fine tuning that is necessary after listening to witnesses. I am quite pleased with what has come out of committee. We are now prepared to proceed.
My hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands has given us a long tale of woe about how difficult it is for him to organize his life. We have all noticed that. I want to do what I can to assist him so that he can come up to the speed of the other members of the House. We all want to participate in helping him.
He has made a suggestion that he has an amendment he wishes to place before the House at report stage with unanimous consent. I would agree to that on behalf of the government with one proviso.
Government Orders
If we could have it in advance to examine substance and in this case to examine style so we can be sure there is a possibility of accepting this amendment. We do not want to nit-pick words and put an amendment on the floor which could be debated and supported if possible.
We are prepared to go ahead with report stage as the parliamentary secretary suggested to debate in the groupings that the Chair has ruled. If we could stand my hon. friend's amendment down we could consider that at the end of report stage.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate support for what the Solicitor General has said but at the same time support the comments of the hon. member for Brant.
The time of this matter proceeding back to the House has indeed been very short. I am in the position of one who was not a member of the committee. I had to monitor the proceedings of the committee as best I could. I was trying my best to be co-operative with the government and trying to find a way to put forward an amendment which hopefully the government would adopt, but because of the timing of this matter, there was not that opportunity.
The amendment that my staff worked on and put forward I understand is now in some question because the reprint of the bill has shown an entirely different wording of the section that we were looking at. The reprint of the bill just arrived on my desk about two minutes ago.
Although I certainly understand the government is within its rights to do this and I have no objection personally, I would like to say I understand and agree with the Solicitor General when he is critical of me in not consulting with him earlier. It would have been helpful to have had a little more time and there would have been an opportunity for fuller consultations if that had occurred.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, to expedite matters this morning, might I suggest that we have all party agreement or unanimous consent to waive the notice on Monday and allow members who want to work on amendments to file their amendments late so we can debate them on Monday. Those members who were not on the committee of course.

Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the Solicitor General for the suggestion he has put forward. I hope that the hon. member for Don Valley East could be accommodated in the same way.
I can say to the Solicitor General I know he is a very diligent member of this Elouse. I am sure he has read my private member's bill which was introduced almost a year ago, on May 24, 1991, and is aware of the amendment I want to move. I am sure he finds the style stunning and most agreeable and that he will want to agree to the amendment as soon as it is moved.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the co-operative tone of the exchange.
I could not help but note that the hon. Solicitor General and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands know each other very well, their work habits and their diligence. I think it was probably a great addition to this House to hear these remarks this morning.
Having said all that, I am not completely sure what the hon. members have agreed to do. I felt that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had finally persuaded the Solicitor General, that even with the great diligence for which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is known, he was just barely unable to get his amendment in on time and would like to file it later.
The Solicitor General, in a moment of enthusiasm, responded by saying it would be on the condition that he has a look at it first. I remind both the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the Solicitor General that I will have to have a look at it also, perhaps last.
In any event, the hon. member for Brant has made another suggestion. First of all, let us stop at the one suggestion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Is there agreement in the House that the approach which the Solicitor General indicated would be acceptable be proceeded with?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brant has suggested that other members who are not members of the committee be given the consent of the House to file late. If that proposition goes to the House and the
House agrees, of course, we can do that but "late" is very open-ended.


An hon. member:: Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us deal with that point. I would like to hear the hon. Solicitor General.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, harking back to my former career as House leader, I would say this about that proposition.
There is no question that we have moved quickly on this bill, and that is thanks to the co-operation of members. We have moved with the agreement of House leaders who presumably have a relationship with their caucuses to deal with proceedings of the House and amendments. We have members who are not connected to any of the three parties and therefore do not have that relationship with a House leader, which is helpful.
All that being said, I believe when the government business was mentioned last Thursday, our House leader did indicate that we would proceed with report stage of this bill, providing it cleared committee at today's business.
My hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands is here today and has a specific amendment. For any other member in that position, I would entertain that argument. If there are others here who have decided that in their scheme of things what they want to accomplish, that they want to be here for that debate and on these motions, I think they should have made their case.
The difficulty of my hon. friend from Don Valley East is one of change of wording to accommodate debate of the motion. I do not have any difficulty with that. The motion is on the Order Paper, and it just requires a renumbering or whatever when we get into debate. That is debate on a motion put on the Order Paper by a member of this House who is here to debate it. I do not have any trouble with that.
With those two provisos, my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands has a motion he wants to debate, we stand that down and do it last after reviewing it, naturally, giving yourself an opportunity to review it, too. We agree beforehand on exactly what my hon. friend from Don Valley East needs to do to debate his motion in the context of the bill that is before the House. We proceed now on report stage.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the position of the Solicitor General with respect to this matter. I would just like to say there is one other part of this that I would hope he would perhaps be prepared to accommodate, and that really does relate to the point the hon. member for Brant is making about allowing until Monday for the further filing of amendments. If that were the case and if my amendment, which was put together very rapidly, were allowed to stand down until Monday, I could have discussions with the Solicitor General and his staff so that we could accommodate the situation.
I would hope that the Solicitor General might be prepared to do that.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: I rise on the same point, Mr. Speaker. It is important, with respect, for the House to remember that this bill was reported on Tuesday, which gave members only until 6 p.m. on Wednesday to put forward amendments. Beauchesne says on page-


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me just a moment. I will hear the hon. member. We have people in the Chamber watching this and there are people right across the country watching this, and I just want to make this point: The rules have been perhaps strictly applied, but they have been followed absolutely correctly. This is a dilemma that we have been in before, when after the report comes out of committee and report stage is called, even though it is within the rules, sometimes there can be difficulty in going through the mechanical and the political things in preparing for it. In this case, the rules have been followed very carefully.
I also want to point out to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and others who have had more difficulty than they would wish in being able to prepare. That of course was because physically it was not possible for our staff to get the revised version of the bill in their hands, partly because this House decided to debate a very important matter on Tuesday night, as has been pointed out.
I just want hon. members to know that I cannot bend the rules. The hon. member for Don Valley East may have been suggesting that somehow or other the Chair could come to his rescue. He shakes his head. I thank him for that, but that is where we are.
The hon. member for Scarborough West was about to quote Beauchesne, and I will hear him. I happen to
Government Orders
know that the hon. member for Scarborough West has some concern with the grouping of the amendments. I am going to deal with that in a minute. It may not be necessary for the hon. member to go any further at this time.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what you said, and as always I respect it. I think it is important that the House be reminded of the purpose of report stage.
While we can technically comply with rules, surely we must remember what is the purpose of report stage. We are, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said, dealing with an extremely important bill with implications for inmates and with implications for society at large.
What I want to point out, through you, Mr. Speaker, is the section of Beauchesne on page 211 which reads in part that the purpose of report stage:
-is intended to be an opportunity for Members who were not members of the committee to propose specific amendments not dealt with by the committee.
That is the purpose of report stage, not to jam through the bill as quickly as possible and get it to third reading. It is a specific opportunity that the House has decided under the Standing Orders to permit members who were not members of the committee, who are concerned about the subject matter, to rise in their places and offer amendments.
I was on the committee and I am ready, as best as I can be, with my submissions. I also only got the reprinted bill probably five minutes ago. I had considered the amendment of the hon. member for Don Valley East, my neighbour in fact, last night. I had not had an opportunity to look at the reprinted bill. I notice that there are difficulties in that respect.
I am urging the House to consider the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Brant, because of course the House is the master of its own destiny.


Mr. Speaker:: Just so that anyone watching or listening knows what is going on, hon. members really are negotiating on the floor of the House. We do not always do that, but it seems to be what is taking place. I think first of all we have one agreement and that is with respect to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I think the problem of the hon. member for Don Valley East with his specific motion is probably satisfied by the comments of the Solicitor General.

Government Orders
In order to get us back on track, I ask the government parliamentary secretary to perhaps reply.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some willingness on the part of the government to see how we go with report stage.
I think that as we proceed today we will get some kind of indication as to problem areas. Members who have a concern with a particular clause may be able to signal that. I think there would be a willingness on the part of the government to deal with individual clauses in a more or less flexible way.
That having been said, I think we have a basic difficulty in front of us. It is true that we had been proceeding expeditiously. It is true a lot of that speed has been due to co-operation from members opposite. I welcome that and I am most appreciative of it.
We would I think be foolish to suggest that we would like to move away from anything of that nature. What I believe would be appropriate, would be to begin the report stage proceedings and if it appears appropriate to perhaps stand a particular clause for a particular reason, the Solicitor General may wish to examine that as we get to it.
However, I believe it would be appropriate to get underway.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary and other members.
What I am going to do is read the Speaker's ruling on the amendments. I am going to accept the hon. parliamentary secretary's suggestion that we begin debate on the first amendment.
The hon. member for Scarborough West I know has some concerns, and I can tell him right now that we will take a second look at it. I am going to proceed.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: This is of course Bill C -36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of correctional investigator.
There are 21 motions and amendments to Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of correctional investigator, standing on the Notice Paper for report stage.

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Solicitor General, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the Solicitor General, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley East, will be debated and voted upon separately.

I am coming now to that part of my ruling that the hon. member for Scarborough West has indicated his concern. I am not going to read that at the moment because we are going to have a second look at it. I am continuing on.

Motion No. 18, standing in the name of the hon. member for Brant, appears to be introducing into the bill a concept which was not envisaged when the House gave the bill second reading and agreement in principle. Therefore, in accordance with citation 698(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition I must rule this motion out of order.

Motion No. 19 in the name of the hon. Solicitor General of Canada will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 20, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West, will be debated and voted on separately.



Motion No. 21, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West, will be debated and voted on separately.

I will now call Motion No. 1


MEASURE TO ENACT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is to amend clause 23(3). For a minute I want to give a brief history while members of the committee are here.
The original bill just had a clause 23. Via a Liberal amendment at committee stage we accepted that it would be broken down and new subsections (2) and (3) would be added. The new subsection (3) which was added stated that no provision in any act of Parliament respecting privacy shall operate. It is clear, now that officials have had a chance to look at it, that it is probably a little too wide. Therefore, the minister is proposing a motion that would restrict it to:
No provision in the Privacy Act or the Access to Information Act
shall operate.
It is a reality that there are certain other sections of bills and of statutes passed by Parliament that do impose confidentiality. They are thinking of the Statistics Act, and I suppose they are thinking of certain provisions of the Income Tax Act.
This amendment will in no way stop the service from getting all the important and relevant information vis-a-vis an offender. That was why this was added, so that the CSC could get all the information and then submit it through to the National Parole Board so that everybody would have good information when these offenders came up for parole later on in their sentence.
Government Orders
I believe members will agree that this amendment is important in terms of the Statistics Act and certain parts of the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the comments of the hon. member who just spoke.
The purpose of the amendment at committee was to remove clogs and barriers that appeared to me and others to exist, and I believe they still exist, in the information flows among public servants responsible for enforcement, the area of corrections, policing, and other areas.
The target of the original amendment was any barrier to any information that was relevant and set out or described in the Corrections Act, the intent being to collect together all the relevant material information needed to manage an offender's file properly within Correctional Service Canada.
It appeared over the last few years-and I make specific reference to the justice committee's investigation of the tragic escape of Daniel Gingras from the institution in the Edmonton area of western Canada-that the committee attempted to obtain information from Correctional Service Canada but it would not release information to the committee citing the Privacy Act.
Ultimately, after approximately one year of parliamentary manoeuvring, a subsequent Solicitor General eventually made the information available. However it took a year of manoeuvring by Parliament to get it. Just as officials in Correctional Service Canada and even the minister were reluctant to release information because of the provisions of the Privacy Act, so too are almost every official in those ministries. They rely on the Privacy Act provisions to contain information within their ministries.
I did not want that circumstance to impair the good functioning and information flows to Correctional Service Canada when it was managing offender inmate files. The target at committee was originally thought to be not just statutes of Parliament but actually provincial statutes as well. For reasons that are constitutional, reference to the provincial statutes was removed and the small privacy target was left.

Government Orders
However I concede that there may not be a real need to address every single act of Parliament including the Income Tax Act and Statistics Canada. We probably do not need information from those statutes to manage offender files properly.
I did want to signal on the parliamentary record that other members of Parliament and I do have concern about the effect of the Privacy Act on good information flows to and from Parliament, to and from Correctional Service Canada, and between ministries so that the safety of the public comes first when dealing with offender files.
I would support this amendment.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly in support of this amendment.
I do not think it was the intention, and it certainly was not my intention, to support the amendment at committee that would have provided that an act of Parliament be included here. I think we should limit it to the two acts mentioned in the government Motion No. 1: the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
In listening to testimony, members of the committee heard time and time again where the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act had both stood in the way of accessing information. I know that the change in Motion No. 1 does not throw those acts open to public availability or accessibility, but certainly in the internal operations of the Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board I do not think there should be any substantial impediment to the flow of information. I think information should be as complete as is possible so that all the authorities at all the stages in an inmate's life during incarceration are available for the appropriate purposes.
We would support this amendment.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I have a very, brief intervention just to advise the House of two things.
First, yes, indeed we on this side support the amendment but I want to illustrate flowing from the discussions that we had previously why this amendment is necessary. Unfortunately the amendment is necessary because of the speed with which the government has attempted to push this bill through. There was not enough opportunity for the Liberal Party to get its amendments in, in time, before the two-week break
in April. Therefore there was not sufficient time for the government to consider those amendments and cogitate on them.
When we moved the amendment the discussion in committee did in fact pertain to the Privacy Act and the difficulties that the two members spoke about previously, but because of this speed factor again we passed this amendment. Now it is necessary, on due reflection, for the government to come back and deal with a motion that was already dealt with, already amended at the committee and ask that it be amended again.
Had this bill been given the proper opportunity to work its way through the parliamentary system without this rush and without this after-burner syndrome this amendment, and in fact these comments and this debate, would not have even been necessary.
Having said that, it is quite clear that it is the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act that is of concern. We certainly appreciate the government bringing this to our attention and accepting the spirit of the Liberal amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-36 be amended in French version of Clause 83 by
striking out line 35 at page 34 and substituting the following
therefor:
"spirituel ou d'un aine apres consultation du Comite consultatif autochtone national et des comites regional et local concern^."


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, other members have seen this motion. It is a technical motion that brings the French version into conformity with the English text. It is brought in relation to the services obligation to make available to aboriginal inmates the services of an aboriginal spiritual leader or elder, after consultation with the National Aboriginal Advisory Committee.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


Alan Redway: Government Orders
It is a situation that causes concern about the appearance of justice being done and the ability of the justice system to deal properly with concerns of the public in such a situation.
As a result I have put forward this amendment in consultation with Inspector Ian Russell of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. This amendment would allow a police officer to make an arrest in those circumstances without having to get a warrant. However, it would mean that all of the other normal procedures would be dealt with. There would be an opportunity to review the whole situation to see if the terms of parole had been breached or had not been breached at a later date.
This is an effort to ensure that the public has confidence in our legal system. Right now the public believes that the police are at fault and they have a lack of confidence in the police.
If the House adopts this amendment that will eliminate this concern. However, if the House chooses to reject this amendment then quite clearly the concern of the public is properly focused, not on the police department, which would like to be able to act to protect the public in those circumstances, but on the members of this House who have decided in their wisdom that it is not appropriate.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I want to put before the House a number of reasons why this motion is unacceptable. I want to assure my friend for Don Valley East that his motion has been considered, not only by the minister but by the officials. There are a number of very good reasons why it should not be accepted.
The board delegates its authority to Correctional Service Canada employees who suspend conditional release. This applies across the whole country and there is a large number of people to whom that authority has been delegated.
In delegating this authority the board must be able to ensure consistency, as well as knowledge of how the warrants are being executed so that there is a common system across this whole country.
Annual reviews are used to ensure the proper use of these delegated authorities. Expanding delegation outside of the CSC would eventually result in an abrogation of the board's mandate and would cause problems and discrepancies across the country.
Correctional Service Canada has a 24-hour response network in place. This is known by the police
community and is certainly available to it. This practice ensures that CSC can respond to emergency calls.
Conditions of conditional release can change throughout a person's sentence. Given the number of problems of communicating information to large numbers of individuals, in other words all police forces across the whole country, it is not always possible that they would be aware of these changes. In most cases, the police will have to call the duty officer to confirm the conditions of release.
I am advised that duty officers are able to issue suspension warrants if circumstances require it and police may arrest on the strength of knowledge of that warrant.
It is essential that both CSC and the board maintain appropriate flexibility in determining the level of risk the offender poses to the community and the level of action required. Police still have their normal powers of arrest. For example, if they find a parolee committing a crime the police can arrest that parolee.
Bill C -36 also insures that a police officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a warrant has been issued regarding a specific offender can arrest the offender without the warrant and remand the offender in custody. I would refer my friend to clause 137(2), which sets that out specifically.
The warrant would then be available to the police within 48 hours. If this motion is adopted it would have significant work-load implications for police officers who already have heavy work-loads. It would be difficult for every police officer across the country to keep up with the changes to the several thousands of conditional releases that are or are not in effect any one given day. I would urge members to reject this motion.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some sympathy to the member for Don Valley East, particularly when he was using what I would consider extreme examples which were nonetheless realistic examples.
For instance, he dealt with a person on parole having previously been convicted of murder, having been convicted of a sexual offence or of assault. However, there are on parole at any given time hundreds of parolees who do not fit those three categories, who have been convicted of much lesser offences, have done their time and have received an unconditional release and are in the streets.
My fear is that if we pass this amendment we would be opening the door for two things. We would virtually
May 7, 1992

be making police officers parole officers. I do not believe that is correct. Parole officers are professional people and have a certain job to do. They have their regulations, their job description, their duties and they know their work.
There are probably not enough parole officers in this country. That is one of the major problems. We need more parole officers, more people to handle the case-load. I would be quite prepared to move in that direction rather than passing some of the obligations and responsibilities of the parole officers to police officers.
The other point I want to make is that I have a fear, a very real fear, that once we open that door and allow police officers to act like parole officers it would allow harassment. Some parolees who are really honestly attempting to change their ways could be subject to harassment by local police officers who knew the parolee, are aware of his criminal past, and for even frivolous violations of parole effect an arrest.
As the hon. member for Don Valley East knows, many parolees, in fact a majority, have their parole cancelled not because they re-offended and committed another crime while they were on parole but because they broke one or several of the regulations.
For example, a parolee could wander into a bar and have a bottle of beer and come back out, perfectly sober. He could then be nabbed because he violated parole, if that was part of his parole.
He might inadvertently walk down the wrong street one day on which a victim of his crime lives. It might not have been in his mind, but if this amendment were passed and a police officer saw him there then his parole would be out the window and he would be back behind bars.
I am very reluctant to support this motion because it opens up too wide a door for possible harassment or abuse.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, this sort of amendment illustrates the difficulty that we in Parliament have in dealing with very difficult situations.
Some of the reasons for rejecting the amendment given by the member for Lethbridge are spurious, plain and simple. However, there is a problem with the amendment.
Government Orders
The amendment provides that a peace officer may arrest an offender without warrant and remand the offender in custody where the peace officer finds the offender breaching a condition of parole.
The intent here is clear. There is no reasonable probable grounds. The peace officer must see the breaching of the condition of parole. He must be right there and observe that the condition of parole has been breached. That is clear.
That is similar to the right of every citizen of this country to affect a citizen's arrest when they actually see a crime being committed. However, this is not a crime it is a breach of a condition of parole. There are many breaches of conditions of parole which are not crimes in this country.
The hon. member for Don Valley East gave us a couple of examples. Let me give another one.
A convicted sex offender who has been convicted of child abuse is told in his conditions of parole not to be in the company of anyone under the age of 16. If a peace officer sees that parolee in the vicinity of anyone under the age of 16 that is a clear breach of parole.
I am sure that society would want us to protect that young person. However what happens with the rest of this amendment? This is the difficulty with it. If a peace officer makes such an arrest that person would go before the appropriate official, as stated in clause 137, and only two things can happen.
If that designated officer is satisfied that the person had not breached the condition of parole he would be released. That is it. There would be no apology, no one would say: "I am very sorry, I made a mistake". Therein comes the problem that the hon. member for Brant brought up, which is the potential for abuse, harassment and the destruction of the individual liberties of people who are attempting to reintegrate into society.
That is the weakness. There are strengths in the amendment, but the weakness is that there is no ability to provide that any hassling, any harassment of a parolee would in any way be discouraged.
On balance and for those reasons, I cannot support this amendment because of that potential for abuse. The spirit of the amendment is there. If it turns out that there are some difficulties we can revisit the act at some point and make some amendments providing for the protection of individual liberties while at the same time ensuring that parole conditions are met and are respected.

Government Orders
That is the difficulty when we have a very difficult situation. I respectfully remind the hon. member for Don Valley East that hard cases make bad law. From my perspective we cannot support this amendment.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the effort the member for Don Valley East has made to put this amendment before the House.
In principle I would like to support it very much. The hon. member for Lethbridge made a reference to the increasing work-load that might be put on police.
We should perhaps distinguish between police in a small town and police in a big city. Police in a big city would love to have this additional work-load. I think I am correct in saying that they would love to have an opportunity to ensure that conditions of parole are enforced a heck of a lot more than they are now. They say that this would assist them in regulating their streets.
I am sure that most police forces in the big cities would really like to have this provision in existence. Then we must deal with the issue of arbitrariness when police put themselves into the shoes of parole officers.
I want to raise a second point. This one hurts a little bit because it is real. It happened in Edmonton where a person on conditional release was seen in a bar. One of the conditions of parole was that the person stay away from alcohol. This was only within the last year. The offender, who was in the bar drinking to excess, was seen by an employee of Correctional Service Canada who was well aware that the parole was being breached. Nobody took any steps to deal with that offender. The sun went down, the sun came up and within about two weeks of that point in time a young police officer on the Edmonton police force was shot and killed by that offender.
That is another unfortunate case, very unfortunate, even tragic. If a provision like this had been in place at that time, just a year ago, that police officer might still be with us today.
I put this to the Solicitor General. There is clearly in the act an element of enforcement of conditions of parole that is not addressed by the amendments to the bill. The amendment put by the member for Don Valley East attempts to address it. It may procedurally not be a perfect fit today.
I hope the minister will look into this further if the amendment is not adopted here and agree that it is a matter that must be addressed in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Don Valley East but that will mean we will close off the debate.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond very briefly to some of the comments made by hon. members with respect to this matter. First, on the whole question of the availability of designated persons or duty officers under this legislation. Inspector Ian Russell happens to be one of the main persons in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force in charge of this whole process of parole. He knows whether people are available or are not. In fact, he indicates that there is a great difficulty with the availability of these people in cities and there is a great difficulty with the availability of these people in rural areas as well. An example was given to me of rural Saskatchewan where the duty officer may be in Regina, whereas this occurrence is in some remote place in rural Saskatchewan.
Second, the whole matter of the police officer being able to act if there is a crime committed and uses normal powers of arrest, there is no question of that. If this person who is breaching their parole provisions is committing another crime, there is no question the police officer can do it. Usually that is not the case. It is a question of breach of conditions of parole and harassment and therefore the police officer has to say: "Sorry, madam, sorry, sir, I have to go away and leave you to be harassed by this person because there is not anything in the law that allows me to do the job that you are asking me to do".
Third, is the whole point of the work-load. The work-load is greater under the system that is being proposed than is in place now. The police officer is called by a member of the public to come and assist. The police officer comes, sees the breach of parole, and says: "I am sorry, I have to go away and see what else I can do". He has to go away again and come back. If the police officer is able to act immediately, that reduces the work-load.
Fourth, the whole question of more parole officers. There is no question it would be wonderful if we had more parole officers. In a case like this, the public does not call a parole officer to come and help them where somebody is breaching parole. They call a member of the police department and expect the member of police department to act on that.
On this whole question of harassment that was raised. That goes to the root of the speed with which

this matter came before the House and the fact that just this morning I got the reprinted bill and the fact that we were unable to re -tailor our motion in time to address the concerns with respect to the further appeal and the further dealing with the matter in the other normal ways that this would be dealt with.
In closing, I would reiterate my earlier point, that if in fact the House and the government does not adopt this, then the public clearly knows who is not standing behind them in this situation. If, on the other hand, the government would be prepared to have the matter stood down till Monday as indicated and perhaps take another look at this and have it reworded and reworked so it would have all the protections that members of this House would like to see in it, I am sure the public would applaud the government for its efforts on behalf of the criminal justice system and the confidence that the public would have in the criminal justice system.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 3 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will skip the groupings and go to Motion No. 19, with recommendations.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 222by adding immediately
after line 22 at page 112, the following:
"(4) A person referred to in subsection (3) shall be paid such remuneration as is fixed by the Governor in Council for each day that the person is performing duties referred to in that subsection, and is entitled to be paid reasonable travel and living expenses incurred while performing those duties away from the person's ordinary place of residence."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to amend clause 222 of the bill to add a subsection with regard to salaries for community board members.
The House will know that there are three types of board members: full time, temporary and community. Bill C-36 provides for the continuation of the current community board members, but due to a drafting oversight does not provide for the continuation of their pay. Therefore, we have prepared a royal recommendation which was placed on the Order Paper on May 5, 1992. This amendment is required to ensure that the current community board members who will continue under Bill C-36 will receive remuneration for their services.
Motion No. 19 agreed to.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 235 by striking out line 44
at page 116 and substituting the following therefor:

Government Orders
"fixed by order of the Governor in Council but not before legislation dealing with sentencing is reported to the House of Commons by the Committee to which it was referred."
He said: Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of this amendment? It is very clear. Time and time again as we sat in committee we heard witness after witness telling us that to discuss parole and conditional release without discussing sentencing, without talking about all of the issues at one time, was a tragic mistake, was a repudiation of previous studies of the House of Commons, and was in fact not logical.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that this act does not come into effect until such time as this government tables legislation with respect to sentencing, and that such legislation is reported to the House of Commons by the committee to which it was referred. Why? So that both sets of legislation could be dealt with by the House of Commons at the same time.
Many witnesses came before the committee, but I think the gist of the point can be set out by the brief of the Canadian Bar Association. I would like to read for the House a very short excerpt from the brief. I am not going to talk about the actual presentation by the Canadian Bar Association which I found in many cases insulting and offensive, but it's brief specifically states the following:
The introduction of Bill C-36 followed the lengthy process of study described in the introduction. The contents of the bill unaccountably repudiate the serious and time-consuming work which preceded it. The Bill ignores the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission, the Daubney report, the Correctional Law Review and the extensive consultations on the green paper. In doing so, it mocks the extensive time, energy, creativity and resources which have been devoted to this development process. It is a major step back from the government's own green paper, since it ignores the need for integrated reform of sentencing, corrections and conditional release recognized in directions for reform and proceeds with reform of corrections and conditional release before dealing with sentencing. The Canadian Bar Association rejects this fragmented approach.
Given the serious objection to Bill C-36, the primary recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association is to defer study of the bill, at least until consultations on the sentencing package have been completed and legislation is tabled so that the reforms can be considered in a rational manner.
That was its recommendation. It was echoed time and time again by witnesses who appeared before us.
We know that the concerns of the Canadian Bar Association are accurate because we can see that there are demonstrated in the bill itself attempts to effect sentencing by the back door. This bill is supposed to deal with corrections and parole. There are clauses in it which deal specifically with sentencing.
It was not just the Canadian Bar Association but it was groups from all sides of the issue that urged this House not to consider this bill in isolation but rather to consider it when the House and the committee were considering sentencing. It is obvious that if a certain sentence is imposed and a certain length of sentence is imposed that it may or possibly could affect how we think about parole.
It may very well be that the type of offence and the sentence this House decides to impose on a type of offence may impact on parole, on escorted absences, on unescorted absences, on work releases, on the date of first eligibility for full parole and on a host of other issues, including the classification of the offender as maximum, minimum or medium.
There are many areas of overlap. Admittedly, in a bill of over 200 clauses there are clearly going to be areas that do not overlap. However, the point is that there are many areas of overlap between parole and sentencing. All of the interested parties from academicians to the Canadian Bar Association to ordinary citizens felt that it was inappropriate to proceed with this bill until sentencing legislation came down.
I am glad to see that the Attorney General of Canada is in the House today.
We kept getting promises that we were going to get sentencing legislation. It still has not come. We are still waiting for it. Of course there is going to be a somewhat lengthy process, depending on whether they wish to use the same approach as the government did with Bill C-36 to ram it through as quickly as possible. In any event, we do not even know what is coming down with respect to sentencing, yet we are being asked in this House to pass legislation that clearly will have ramifications on parole and on release, which may or may not be changed after we see the sentencing legislation.
Despite all of the witnesses, despite all the recommendations, despite motions in committee the government has consistently rejected this approach. However, we in the Liberal Party feel it is absolutely crucial that the two parts be considered contemporaneously so that the best, proper decision for the protection of inmates and the protection of society can be made at one time. Some would argue that it is impossible. It is too difficult. Well I say that is nonsense. Our job is to sit down and examine these issues and if they are better examined together then that is

what we should do. Virtually all of the professional advice that we received from the witnesses, the police, academicians, and lawyers was that we do that.
The effect of this amendment if it is carried is to ensure that this bill will not come into force and effect until such time as the House has an opportunity to discuss report stage of the sentencing legislation. That is the intent of the motion. I think it adequately reflects the comments of the majority of witnesses before the committee. It certainly adequately reflects the view that these things should be dealt with together in the best interests of society and in the best interests of offenders.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly again to support this motion. What the hon. member has just said is absolutely true. Witness after witness after witness came before the committee and when they were asked, or sometimes when they volunteered their own opinion on the subject, stated that Bill C-36 should have been debated, discussed and examined contemporaneously with the sentencing legislation. You really should not, in an intellectual sense, attempt one without the other.
By that, I am not arguing that we should have done both bills exactly at the same time. What I am saying is that we could have done Bill C-36, corrections and conditional release, particularly that section dealing with parole, or conditional release as it is now called, and then follow on with sentencing or preferably do the sentencing bill first and then Bill C-36.
To proceed with this bill alone and then to bring it into law and into force without ever having seen the sentencing legislation is not a miscarriage of justice, but it is a miscarriage of our duties and responsibilities in this Chamber.
I frankly think that we are derelict in our duty by allowing this bill to become a law, to become a statute and to be in force before we have any idea of what lies in the sentencing bill which we have been promised now for several weeks. At least I am under the impression that the bill was supposed to have come to the
Government Orders
House for first and second reading stages sometime this spring.
Surely the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West is not an unreasonable motion. It is not an unreasonable amendment. We are not altering the bill in any way. We are not changing the bill. We are simply saying: "Okay, fine. We will proceed now and the bill will get passed, but it will not come into force until we have had a good look at sentencing legislation".
Indeed we may find at that point there is a lot more input both from the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General and from members at large in this House to the process of conditional release based on what we will see or may see in the sentencing legislation.
I strongly urge my fellow members in this Chamber to put aside partisanship at this point and support this motion. It is not a question, as I say, of altering or changing the bill, or putting forward a Liberal spin or an NDP spin to the bill at all. It is simply saying: "Hey look, let us just wait a reasonable length of time until we have had a chance to examine the sentencing legislation and then this bill can come into force".


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to rise and add my support to this amendment.
Clearly we have a situation in which we have put the cart before the horse. We are dealing with parole, with conditional releases, and we have no idea as to what sentencing is going to be and what it is even going to look like. We had a number of representations throughout all the hearings we had on this bill as to things that relate to sentencing. In fact, a lot of the thrust of the recommendations to us dealt with sentencing because that is where the big issues are. We have to make sure that the cogs fit. We are not going to be able to if this becomes law. Then we will deal with sentencing and we will probably end up having to try to modify sentencing in order to make it fit parole. It seems to me we should be dealing with the horse first, that is the issue of sentencing, rather than dealing with the cart first.

Government Orders
This is a reasonable amendment. We have had the assurances of the government and we are taking the government at its word that the legislation on sentencing is going to be introduced almost momentarily. What is the rush? If we are going to do the job, let us do it right.
We have made one mistake by proceeding with this bill now. We are going to have to duplicate a whole lot of effort because there will be the same people who made submissions on this bill coming back to make submissions on sentencing. We could have been dealing with both at the same time, thus expediting justice rather than making it worse.
We on this side are asking for the government to realize its error, to stand up in its place and say it was wrong, it made a mistake and it is now going to correct it by agreeing to this amendment. I am sure as government members study the reasonableness of this amendment that is what they are going to do.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, that opposition member put exactly the same argument at committee stage. They argued with great passion and great humour. The fact of the matter is that we looked at it very carefully there. The minister looked at it carefully. We want this bill to go forward.
I can assure them the bills were drafted and are being assembled in terms of putting the principles together in very close harmonization with each other. When the sentencing bill comes down, members will see there are not major areas of conflict.
They know, as well as I do, that the sentencing bill will take a long time. There will have to be many witnesses brought in because a lot of people have strong positions on both sides of that issue. Even this bill started back in November of last year and is just now at report stage. It still has to go through third reading after this phase is finished.
Even as an intellectual experience we have a sentencing regime in place today that dovetails with this act and these changes. If the sentencing were on average 10 per cent more severe or 10 per cent less severe, I would ask: So what? Surely that will not have much impact on violent prisoners staying in prison longer. This bill will ensure that violent offenders will be staying in prison longer.
When I canvassed my constituents they indicated they wanted that to be done right away. Interestingly enough, my constituents also want the non-violent offenders to be out of prison, where they are being kept at a cost of $50,000 a year. They want them out, where they can get a job, work, pay restitution to victims and to rehabilitate themselves through the job process. On that score, my constituents are telling me as well to get this bill through.
Judicial determination is in this bill. It will permit a judge in the proper circumstance to order that a prisoner will not be considered for parole until he has served 50 per cent of the sentence. Right now, it can be one-third for full parole and much less for day parole and escorted or unescorted temporary absences.
My constituents on the farms and in the businesses want the judges to have that power. They do not want this sitting around waiting for another bill to be passed. They want it to be the law today because it is good substantive law.
The same with the changes on escorted temporary absences, unescorted temporary absences, the work release program, better information flows within the system, so that people will not be getting out on parole and causing problems because someone on the Parole Board did not have adequate information.
Canadians want that to be the law today. They do not want that sitting unpassed or sitting on the books until some sentencing legislation comes down that may be five per cent tougher or five per cent lighter. They want it today because whether it is five per cent tougher or lighter in terms of sentencing, that is not relevant to them.
This bill has very good provisions. It provides for a codification of policy directives. It is not that they are vague but they are not in the statute. This bill provides that Parliament is setting by statute what those policy directives will be.
It is open to everybody. Everybody can read the bill. There are many positive changes for aboriginal offenders. There are a large number of changes that are very beneficial for victims. Victims will play a critical part in the system now.

Canadians do not want that to be delayed. They want that to be the law right today. Therefore, I strongly urge members to vote against this motion.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, what the government is recognizing here is that the public wants its whole dollar. What the government is saying is: "Here, take 50 cents now and 50 cents later". I accept that there are amendments and changes in this bill that improve the area of corrections. It does not do it comprehensively. Out of the whole 50 cents that the government is offering, we got a 38-cent or 39-cent offer here.
I might have been ill-advised or maybe I misunderstood but when these reforms were initially proposed, it was clear in my mind and I did believe that the government wished to propose the amendments in corrections and sentencing in tandem.
It has never really been explained why the Solicitor General managed to free himself up. He got the permission of cabinet to run with this, leaving the sentencing behind. He must be very good at his work, because he obviously convinced them.
The justice minister had made reference to this committee many months ago, and I really did hope that the sentencing reforms would come along in tandem. They have not and as a result, there are areas of this bill that do not just touch on sentencing, but actually deal with it.
As an example of this, there is section 139 of the bill that deals with multiple sentences. This is a section that perpetuates what has been called a freebie sentence, the freebie. This is really something that should have been taken up in the same reform process. It was not.
We had an assurance at committee the other day that the government would put the matter to a commission to make recommendations. That basically is an admission that the area is still flawed and not properly rectified.
Just for the record and so the public is aware of the flaw, the section provides that where an individual- and I am going to give an example here very quickly- is sentenced to six years for a robbery, under the current law and the proposed law, that individual could be paroled and likely properly so at the two or three year mark of the six year sentence.
Government Orders
Let us say that individual is paroled at the two and a half year mark and he or she goes out, does not quite make it the way he or she planned and commits another offence. Let us say that the person snatches a purse from an old lady. That kind of offence would merit a sentence of two years.
Let us say that would be the sentence that a judge would ordinarily hand down. In that case, in the context of the original six year sentence and the provisions of section 139, that offender at the two and a half or three year mark is going to be sentenced to two years.
What this section says is that the starting point for the calculation of the two year sentence begins back at the beginning of the six year sentence. In other words, that offender has already served his time for the purse snatching by the time he goes back into jail.
In other words, it is a freebie. The offender has been able to get his parole, or make parole as they say, go out, commit another offence, and there is no impact whatsoever on the time to be served, on the penal impact of that person's sentence.
That is not logical to anyone in this House or in the country. There is no logic in it. There were amendments moved at committee, but that provision persists in this bill. It is there for all those who want to take advantage of the freebies. If any of them are watching today, there it is folks. It will be around for a while longer. I regret that it is there. Had the government been able to address sentencing at this time along with this bill, I believe that silly section would not be there. The freebie would not still be there and we would have a much better bill, a much better criminal justice package in front of this House.
I leave it there. I would support the position taken
by the member for Scarborough West.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.

Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have a further ruling on Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of correctional investigator.
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 13, standing in the name of the hon. member for Brant, and Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West, will be grouped for debate.
The vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13.
Motions Nos. 6,7,8,15 and 17, standing in the name of the hon. member for Brant, and Motions Nos. 11, 14 and 16, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West, will be grouped for debate.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 will apply to Motions Nos. 7, 8, 11, 14 and 16 and will obviate the necessity for a vote on Motions No. 15 and 17.
A negative vote on Motion No. 6 will apply to Motions Nos. 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 17.
I will complete Motion No. 21 and then come back to the new ruling.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Schedule I by adding the following offences thereto and renumbering the Schedule accordingly:
(a)	section 160 (bestiality, compelling, in presence of or by child)
(b)	section 170 (parent or guardian procuring sexual activity by child)
(c)	section 171 (householder permitting sexual activity by or in presence of child)
(d)	section 172 (corrupting children)
(e)	paragraph 212(2) (living off the avails of prostitution by a child)
(/) paragraph 212(4) (obtaining sexual services of a child).
He said: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would like to mention, for those watching and those reading, that schedule I contains a list of offences which in common parlance we would call serious offences. They deal among other things with pointing a firearm, sexual interference, manslaughter, attempt to commit murder; various offences of that nature, very serious personal offences to the person.
The nature of my amendment, Motion No. 21, would be to add six specific offences to schedule I contained in the Criminal Code, all of them dealing specifically with various types of sexual offences against children.
The purpose of this is obvious I think. In this House this week we have heard about the grave difficulties that children are having in Canada. We are astounded and shocked each night to hear about the almost unbelievable types of sexual offences that are being perpetrated on the children of this country. Society is absolutely revulsed by some of the things we are hearing, literally from coast to coast, and by the attacks on the innocence of children in our society.
Those attacks do more than destroy the self-esteem and sometimes the entire lives of those young children because what they do-and we know this from studies-is that the same kind of offence is perpetuated by those children when they attain adulthood. We have seen many times that this is the case with offenders who commit offences against children. Their backgrounds are such that they have had offences committed against them.
To express society's revulsion of the sexual offences against children, some of them are listed in schedule 1. The purpose of my amendment would be to ensure that the others are listed, specifically sexual offences respecting children, involving bestiality; parents or guardians procuring sexual activity of a child; householder permitting sexual activity by or in the presence of a child; corrupting children; living off the avails of prostitution by a child, which of course is a major problem in the centre I come from, metropolitan Toronto; and obtaining the sexual services of a child. All these would be listed in schedule 1 as offences for which offenders would be dealt with in a specific way.

The purpose is to ensure that those offenders are identified, get the treatment they need as sexual offenders, attempt to be rehabilitated, and yet are treated in the same way as the other offenders listed in schedule 1. That is the purpose of my amendment.
I sincerely hope that members of the House will find it acceptable.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the NDP accepts this amendment and we support it. I am quite surprised the sections that have been added with this amendment were not already in schedule 1 or that the government itself had not brought them forward.
If there is one thing that is totally repugnant to law abiding citizens and normal average Canadians today, it is exploitation or any kind of offensive sexual behaviour directed at children. This House has to send a very clear signal to the community, to Canadian citizens, that this kind of activity is completely repugnant, totally unacceptable, and that the criminal justice system must come to bear heavily upon offenders, as sick as some of them may be. Indeed all people convicted of crimes such as bestiality, compelling the presence of a child, the parent or guardian procuring sexual activity by a child and so on, must be ill any way.
Nonetheless the criminal justice system must send a very clear signal to the community at large that these offenders will be severely dealt with. Therefore I am very happy to support this Liberal amendment to include these offences relating to sexual child abuse and violent child abuse in schedule 1.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak on this motion because the minister has reviewed it very carefully and is prepared to accept the amendment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As is my custom.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I must say it is the minister's custom. I know the hon. member for Brant has been here many years in the House. He remembers all those years when the Liberals were in power. We could not get an amendment on any bill at any time. It did not matter how good it was. Even the Liberal backbenchers on the government's side at that time could not get it.
I can remember one night at about ten o'clock getting an amendment through which one Liberal
Government Orders
member supported. The very next morning he was whipped off the committee. Lord knows what happened to him, but he certainly disappeared from the justice committee.
Members on all sides of the House have done some very good business. The minister accepted over 22 amendments by the hon. member for Brant, the hon. member for Scarborough West and the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, as well as government's motions from the members for Mercier, Laval-Centre and Edmonton-Strathcona.
The process worked very well at committee and it continues to work. I want to thank the minister and praise him for accepting this motion because it is good.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 21 agreed to.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 159
(a)	by striking out line 13 at page 90 and substituting the
following therefor:
"159. (1) The Governor in Council shall"; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 15 at page 90 the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding any provision in this or any other Act of Parliament, the Correctional Investigator shall be deemed to be an officer of the House of Commons for the purpose of this Act."
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 168 by adding
immediately after line 33 at page 93 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the Correctional Investigator shall, so far as it is within the jurisdiction of the Correctional Investigator to do so, investigate such matters as may, at any time, be referred to the Correctional Investigator for investigation by the Senate or the House of Commons or by any Committee of the Senate or the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament and the Correctional Investigator shall make such report back as the Correctional Investigator considers appropriate."

Government Orders
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 189
(a)	by striking out line 21 at page 101 and substituting the following:
"tion of the Correctional Investigator is only a";
(b)	by striking out line 28 at page 101 and substituting the following:
"investigator, in the";
(c)	by striking out line 32 at page 101 and substituting the following therefor:
" respect of astatement made under this Part, or in any proceeding before the House of Commons."


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 182
(a)	by striking out line 16 at page 98 and substituting the following therefor:
"182. (1) Subject to this Part, the Correctional"; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 23, at page 98, the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, the House of Commons or the Senate or a duly constituted Committee of either may request the Correctional Investigator and every person acting on behalf of or under the direction of the Correctional Investigator to disclose to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, any information described in subsection (1) and where such a request is made, the Correctional Investigator or person shall disclose the information."
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 183
(a)	by striking out line 34 at page 98 and substituting the following therefor:
"Part;"; and
(b)	by striking out line 39 at page 98 and substituting the following therefor:
"ment made under this Part; or
(c)	to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated by the House of Commons to hear the information."
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 189 by striking out line 19 at page 101 and substituting the following therefor:
"189. Subject to the rights and privileges of Parliament, the Correctional Investigator or any".


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in keeping up with the pace of acceptability on the other side of the House, I know that the minister will accept Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 13. I probably do not even have to present an argument at this point.
In any event, these motions standing in my name relate to the clause of Bill C-36 dealing with the office of the correctional investigator. Before I get into the specific points that I want to make, I want to argue first of all that it is my feeling and has been my feeling for a long time that there has been too much secrecy in government. There have been too many closed doors in the bureaucracy. Parliament, that is this body, the House of Commons which is elected and represents directly the voters in Canada, has been removed from or is kept removed from a lot of activity that goes on in government to which it rightfully has access or should rightfully have access.
We are constantly being prevented from gaining information. We are constantly prohibited from access to documents and reports. Or, when we in fact get those reports of senior public servants or we get statements or recommendations from senior public servants and staff, they come to this Chamber, the House of Commons, either through in this case the Solicitor General's office, the head of the correctional service, or the chairman of the National Parole Board. In other words, a lot of the information we eventually get has been vetted at the executive level of government.
What I am arguing in these three motions and in other motions today is that the process has to be opened up. Parliament wants in. The people's elected representatives want in. We want information. We want to be able to access information that is relevant to committee work and relevant to our jobs as members of Parliament. We also want to effect activity at the executive level.
In other words, the NDP and I feel that we should be able to activate senior bureaucrats. We should be able to call upon them independently of the government for certain reviews or certain investigations to be carried out on our behalf. That is the major thrust of my argument by way of introduction. The present law states that the Governor in Council or the Government of Canada, in other words, may appoint a correctional investigator.

In Motion No. 4, clause 159, subparagraph (a), I would change that from "may" to "shall". In other words, the government would have no discretion. The government would have to appoint a correctional investigator. It could not delay or wait if one resigned or one's term was completed and the existing or present correctional investigator retired from that position, the government could not delay inordinately or unreasonably in appointing his or her successor.
In subparagraph (b), I have included something else.
Notwithstanding any provision in this or any other Act of
Parliament, the Correctional Investigator shall be deemed to be an
officer of the House of Commons for the purpose of this Act.
This would place the correctional investigator in the same kind of relationship to this Chamber as, for example, the Auditor General. The Auditor General is appointed by this Chamber and is responsible to this Chamber. He does not report to the Minister of Finance. He does not report to the Treasury Board. He reports annually to this Chamber.
What I am saying here is that the correctional investigator should be empowered to report directly to this Chamber and be responsible to it. We do not want his reports being vetted by a solicitor general. We do not want them being vetted by the director of the Correctional Service Canada. We do not want his report vetted by the National Parole Board and its chairman. We want that report to come unsullied, unchanged, unexpurgated, directly to this Chamber. That is accountability. That is elevating the responsibility of this Chamber as a legislative body and it is taking away from what I consider to be the excessive power and responsibility vested now in the executive branch.
This is all part of the new politics. Canadians are demanding this. This Chamber must become more responsible. We must have more duties, not fewer. Consequently we must have more power to act directly on behalf of those who elect us and put us here.
This is just another suggested way of elevating the importance of this Chamber and, more particularly, its responsibilities. It opens up the process. I suggest this would be a welcome move on the part of all hon. members. We do not want inordinate or unacceptable
Government Orders
interference in our duty, in our responsibilities and in carrying out our responsibilities from the executive branch, which of course is the Solicitor General, his staff, as well as his political staff and, of course, the senior civil servants.
Motion No. 5 does something else. It adds to the enhanced responsibility of this Chamber. It would grant to both Houses of Parliament the right to call upon the correctional investigator to launch an investigation or an enquiry into some incident, event, or whatever we deem is important in our work to know something about. That is why I have said:
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the Correctional Investigator shall, so far as it is within the jurisdiction of the Correctional Investigator to do so, investigate such matters as may at any time be referred to the Correctional Investigator for investigation by the Senate or the House of Commons or any Committee of the Senate or the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament and the Correctional Investigator shall make such report back as the Correctional Investigator considers appropriate.
In common, ordinary English it means the House of Commons can ask the correctional investigator to launch an enquiry which we have specifically called for and he or she would then report directly back to this Chamber. This again opens up Parliament. It opens up the process. It gives this Chamber more responsibility and it takes more power away from the executive branch. This is one of the problems that we face not only in respect of this bill or to the office of the Solicitor General, but it could be any government ministry.
I am convinced the public feels there is too much inaccessibility, there is too much power on the executive side, that is cabinet and the senior bureaucracy, and there is not enough responsibility on the side of the people's duly elected representatives here assembled in the House of Commons.
We are asking, in this Motion No. 5 for more responsibility for example for the Standing Committee of Justice and the Solicitor General, more responsibility for individual members of this House and less power in the hands of the executive branch.
Finally, while I am on my feet, Motion No. 13, asks:
That clause 189 be amended
(a) by striking out line 21 at page 101 and substituting the following:
"tion of the Correctional Investigator is only a";

Government Orders
The point that I am making is that at the present time the correctional investigator is not a compellable or competent witness, in legal jargon. I want to change that. I want to make that officer, and if these amendments are accepted he would be an officer of the House, to be both a competent and compellable witness not only for this Chamber but for any committee of this Chamber.
In other words, the Solicitor General, and I am not referring to the present Solicitor General, but a Solicitor General, could not interfere or an officer in the Solicitor General's office could not phone the correctional investigator and say: "Listen, the minister, or the government, does not want you to appear before that committee on that specific matter". Therefore there is interference.
I am not charging specific examples of interference, but I am simply saying the perception is there that a government can interfere at the present time. The government can let it be known secretly by telephone call or by conversation that it does not want the correctional investigator to appear before a committee on a certain matter.
What this motion would do is compel the correctional investigator to appear before a committee when summoned.
All in all, these three motions standing in my name, Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 13 are for the purpose of opening up the system, making it more democratic, making the system more accountable to the House of Commons and thereby more accountable to the people of Canada, giving the House of Commons, that is the legislative branch, greater power and greater responsibility and diminishing, to some very limited extent, the overwhelming power now exercised by the executive branch through the cabinet and the senior bureaucracy.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 12 standing in my name, have very similar if not identical intent to the intentions that were expressed by the hon. member for Brant.
May I just say in beginning my remarks that I want to adopt all of the remarks that the hon. member for Brant made with respect to the erosion of the power of the House of Commons, the accurate perception that the people of Canada want the House of Commons to
regain the power that it has lost, want the members of the House of Commons to be able to account to their constituents about what goes on.
We all recognize that the executive branch has to make day-to -day decisions. Of course we cannot vote on every single thing in this country and neither can the citizens, but generally speaking there has been over the course of the last number of years an erosion of Parliament and an increase in the power of the executive branch which we, and I think, Canadians deplore.
The purpose of the motions that we are moving in the Liberal Party are to give Parliament, and that includes the House of Commons and the Senate, the other place, the opportunity to call on the correctional investigator to conduct certain investigations. To ensure that if this House of Commons which is the highest court in the land-and we have heard many members say this over the years-wishes to obtain certain information from the correctional investigator then it is this House of Commons that has the ultimate authority to do so.
Right now that is not the case. The correctional investigator will report to the minister and the minister only. The minister can do a number of things; certain things are confidential, certain reports can be written in certain ways, people can be sure to be busy at certain times. Should the House wish an investigation, there is no mechanism of which I am now aware that would permit such a thing.
I would like to take a look specifically at Motion No. 9 standing in my name. It proposes an amendment to clause 182. Clause 182 deals with confidentiality, and very simply it says that "the correctional investigator and every person acting on behalf of or under the direction of that person shall not"-now that is mandatory-"disclose any information that comes to their knowledge in the exercise of their powers or the performance of their functions and duties under this part".
We think that is a little too broad. We think that ties the hands of the House of Commons and ultimately the people of Canada. We have moved in Motion No. 9 an amendment to that part. I want to read it for the record, although it is in the Notice Paper:

That notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, the House of
Commons or the Senate or a duly constituted Committee of either-
The hon. member for Brant referred to one of the committees that might have an interest.
-may request the Correctional Investigator and every person acting on behalf of or under the direction of the Correctional Investigator to disclose to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, any information described in subsection (1) and where such a request is made, the Correctional Investigator or person shall disclose the information.
If the House of Commons, the Senate, or a duly constituted committee thereof wants the information, the correctional investigator shall give it to them. After all, we are the highest court in the land.
Did we suddenly make this up, we in the Liberal Party? Of course not. We heard witnesses in committee. One of the witnesses was Professor Stuart Parson of Simon Fraser University and this is a suggestion that he made after a study of the justice committee, a study of the correction system and after examining how this Parliament has dealt with certain very, shall I say, touchy issues relating to the release of certain inmates and tragedies that have occurred thereafter.
In his study and when he appeared before the committee, he recommended that this and other clauses be amended to permit the House of Commons to reassert its authority as the highest authority in the land, and to permit the House of Commons to be able to ask the correctional investigator this: "Look, you have certain information; what is it? We want to know, please tell us".
The purpose of Motion Nos. 9, 10 and 12, which my colleagues will expand upon, have in effect the same intent, and that is to return to the House of Commons, to the Parliament of Canada, that which has been gradually taken away; the ultimate authority to decide for the people of Canada. We cannot make decisions if we do not have information. If we spend years requesting information and battling it out in the courts or battling it out in the committees and battling it out in the House of Commons, then we cannot make the decisions that the people of Canada expect us to make.
It is for these reasons and it is with that intention that these motions have been moved. We sincerely hope that the hon. minister and his officials have considered this reasonable request-and it is a reasonable request-to allow the House of Commons to
Government Orders
be able to obtain the information that it otherwise might not be able to obtain.
We do not want to suggest for a moment that anything is going to be hidden, but there is that potential, there is that possibility, not perhaps with this government, but maybe with a future government. Why should we take that risk? Why do we need to take that risk, when we are the ultimate authority, we being the House of Commons representing the people of Canada?
Therefore I very seriously urge the minister not to reject these motions out of hand, not to reject them at all in fact, but rather to embrace the spirit of increasing the powers of the House of Commons and allow these motions to carry and better the bill.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with all those who have spoken thus far on these particular amendments, and say that it is absolutely critical that Parliament reassert itself in this area and carry out that part of its function.
The member for Scarborough-Rouge River and I were involved in a very serious situation as far as disclosure of information was concerned. We realize now how difficult it is to get the necessary information to allow parliamentarians to do their job.
We are talking in part about ensuring that Parliament is able to do its job and ensuring that all those who are working in government are doing their job properly. It is also to ensure that we have all the facts, all the information, available to make the proper decision and that Parliament functions properly.
My colleague referred to the paper submitted by Professor Stuart Farson to our committee. I would like to read a portion of it because it summarizes exactly where we are and what we are trying to do:
In my view, on each and every occasion when Parliament hands over or delegates a responsibility to another body, such an action has the potential both for detracting from Parliament's sovereignty, and for limiting democracy by increasing the power of the executive and the bureaucracy. Care must, therefore, be taken to ensure that there are off-setting factors in play. If Parliament is to fulfil its public-interest role, it must be able to assure itself-as a minimum-that those to whom it has delegated the investigatory or review functions on its behalf actually do ask the questions that Parliament would want to ask; and do obtain full answers to them in a timely fashion. Particular attention, therefore, has to be paid to what investigatory bodies may see, and how they can, and do, communicate with Parliament. This will mean that investigatory or review bodies should be an open book to Parliament, albeit, if necessary, through an all-party committee meeting in camera.

Government Orders
That summarizes what the issues before us are, why these amendments are proper amendments and why it is absolutely essential that Parliament has a role to play. It ensures that the information comes back to Parliament in some way, shape or form.
That is the reason for Motion No. 10, as well as the other amendments to which others will speak.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this body of proposed amendments, and in particular to Motion No. 12.
In terms of theme, it is similar if not identical to that raised by the hon. member for Moncton. Motion No. 12 relates to clause 189 which says that the correctional investigator is not a competent or compellable witness in respect of any matter coming to his knowledge in the course of his work in any proceeding, except for a couple of exceptions.
As a result of experience had on the justice committee it is apparent to me that a large number of public servants are not aware of or do not pay any attention to what we call the rights and privileges of Parliament.
On the face of it this particular section says that when the correctional investigator comes into knowledge in connection with his work that we must give some concession to the privacy and needs of the inmates who reveal a great deal, or would hopefully reveal all that is relevant and material, to the correctional investigator in the course of his or her work.
The problem is that the statement that the correctional investigator is not competent or compellable as a witness in any proceedings gives absolutely no recognition to the rights and privileges of Parliament.
The amendment that has been put simply inserts the words right at the beginning: "Subject to the rights and privileges of Parliament". I would wager if that simple question were put to this House with every member sitting in this House the vote would be to adopt it.
I want to point out a couple of things for the record just in case this comes up later and just in case the
amendment is not adopted. The general rights and privileges of Parliament subsist in any event, and they continue unless they are specifically taken away by Parliament. This particular section does not specifically take away any of the rights and privileges of Parliament as I read it and as I hope others read it, including public servants.
The words: "in any proceeding" may well be interpreted to include only legal proceedings and would exclude the type of procedures used in Parliament, such as committee hearings with witnesses et cetera. I would hope that neither Correctional Service Canada nor the correctional investigator would ever argue that the rights and privileges of Parliament had been constrained or that an investigator would ever refuse to answer a question properly put to him by the House, by a committee of this House, or by any member of Parliament in pursuit of his or her work as a member of Parliament.
This amendment has been put forward in that context to clarify those rights and privileges of Parliament, given that members of Parliament, and that includes members of the Senate, have historically worked to communicate with and attempt to address concerns of inmates of institutions. This emanates from a time when these inmates and offenders had virtually no one else to act on their behalf. Now there is a correctional investigator.
In any event its purpose is to clarify those rights and privileges, just in case anyone was not aware of them, for the benefit of all those who would read the statute and for the description of the work of the correctional investigator.
In that context I hope that Motions Nos. 10 and 12, as well as the others we are debating, can be adopted by the House.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, members opposite, as well as government members, did very well at the committee stage and had 22 amendments accepted, and one major amendment was accepted today at report stage. This is another victory for the way the system should work.

There are some very good reasons why this particular series of motions should be defeated, and I think that members will defeat it when given the opportunity-
The role of correctional investigator comprises Part III of this statute, which is a code within itself. It is a very important role within Correctional Service Canada. My recollection is that a person was appointed in 1971 after the riots in either Kingston or Montreal. I am not sure which city.
In any event it was set up by way of a policy announcement. For 21 years the correctional investigator, and we know who the government was for the vast majority of those years, operated under a peer policy process and Parliament had absolutely no access whatsoever, except at the whim of the minister. It was very doubtful that a member could get access in those early years.
I want to remind my friends opposite who were not in this Parliament during those many years when their party was in power that the government did not give any information to Parliament at all. It is a Progressive Conservative government, even though it might stick in their throats, that has come forth with this statutory code that lets it be known by all members and the public.
I would ask members to read through the index, if they do not have time to read the whole bill. Just by reading the index members can see how important this is and everything is covered in terms of the release of information. I would specifically refer people to clause 168. The correctional investigator is an officer who operates within the corrections system. Prisoners have riots, prisoners have differences, prisoners have fights, they have differences with the administration and so on. The correctional investigator has the power, and it is massive power, to step in, investigate, and make a report.
Then that report comes to the minister. It can be available to members of the House, subject to the rights of the Privacy Act and access to information, through the minister when the minister comes to the House on his estimates or comes before the appropriate committee with his annual report. Quite contrary to what the member for Scarborough West said, Par-
Govemment Orders
liament has more power today. As a result of the Progressive Conservative government changing the Standing Orders, standing committees and legislative committees have massive power compared to what committees had before.
The argument just does not wash. With great respect, my friend is wrong. Parliament is not regaining anything. Parliament never had it. Parliament is now gaining for the first time some real major powers. We can tie it to some statutory heads in specific investigations. It is a massive power and it is a very good thing.
There are many reasons that their amendments cannot be accepted, especially because it is important that the correctional investigator have absolute confidentiality. No one will be prepared in the context of a prison to give information to a correctional investigator that might get out, however inadvertently. It is a question of life and death in some prisons. It is a very violent society inside them.
It is critical as a matter of principle that these motions not be adopted. I urge members to vote against them when they come up for the final vote on Monday.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the grouping of Motions Nos. 4, 5,9,10,12, and 13. A vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 5, 9, 10, 12 and 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 177
(a)	by striking out line 5 at page 96 and substituting the following therefor:
"177. (1) Where, after conducting an investi-"; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 19 at page 96 the following:
"(2) Where the Correctional Investigator informs the Commissioner or the Chairperson of the National Parole Board of a problem under subsection (1), the Correctional Investigator shall submit a report to the House of Commons containing the same information that the Correctional Investigator gave to the Commissioner or the Chairperson of the National Parole Board."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 178
(a) by striking out line 40 at page 96 and substituting the following therefor:
"the problem, and in the report to the House of Commons."; and
(ib) by striking out line 11 at page 97 and substituting the following therefor:
"the problem, and in the report to the House of Commons." Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 179
(a)	by striking out line 18 at page 97 and substituting the following therefor:
"appropriate and the Correctional Investigator shall include any recommendations made in the report to the House of Commons."; and
(b)	by striking out line 40 at page 97 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion made under this section but if the Commissioner or the Chairperson of the National Parole Board does not act on any finding or recommendation, the Commissioner or the Chairperson shall explain their actions in a report to the House of Commons."
Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 192 by striking out lines 22 to 31 at page 102 and substituting the following therefor:
"192. The Correctional Investigator shall within three months after the end of the fiscal year appear at the bar of the House of Commons and cause a report of the activities of the Office of the Correctional Investigator during that year to be laid before that House, or where that House is not sitting during that three month period, on the first day on which that House sits following that period."
Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 193 by striking out lines 32 to 45 at page 102 and lines 1 and 2 at page 103 and substituting the following therefor:
"193. The Correctional Investigator may, at any time, appear before the bar of the House of Commons and cause a special report referring to and commenting on any matter within the scope of the function, powers and duties of the Correctional Investigator to be laid before that House where, in the opinion of the Correctional Investigator, the matter is of such urgency or importance that a report thereupon should not be deferred until the time provided for the next annual report under section 192."


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 185 by striking out line 16 at page 100 and substituting the following therefor:
"the House of Commons under section 192 or 193."
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 192 by striking out lines 22 to 31 at page 102 and substituting the following therefor:
"192. (1) Correctional Investigator shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, report to the House of Commons on the activities of the office of the Correctional Investigator for that year and shall at the same time, provide a copy of that report to the Minister.
(2) Each annual report by the Correctional Investigator to the House of Commons shall be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons on or before December 31 in the year to which the report relates and the Speaker of the House of Commons shall lay each such report before the House of Commons forthwith after receipt thereof by the Speaker or, if that House is not then sitting, on the first day next thereafter that the House of Commons is sitting."
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 193
(a)	by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 102 and substituting the following therefor:
"193. (1) The Correctional Investigator may, at any time, make a special report to the House of Commons referring to and commenting on any"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 42 to 45 at page 102 and lines 1 and 2 at page 103 and substituting the following therefor:
"report to the House of Commons under section 192.
(2) Each special report of the Correctional Investigator to the House of Commons made under subsection (1) shall be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons and shall be laid before the House of Commons by the Speaker of the House of Commons forthwith after receipt thereof by the Speaker, or if the House is not then sitting, on the first day next thereafter that the House of Commons is sitting."


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, these amendments in my name, Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 15 and 17, again relate to the office of the correctional investigator, specifically in respect of his reporting to the House and other matters.
I have been concerned for quite some time. Maybe I have a suspicious nature. Maybe I have been on the opposition benches too long, but I have the impression from time to time that reports that come to us have been vetted, altered, rewritten, or words added and other words taken out. I suppose this is not a profound revelation. I think there are possibly one or two other members in the Chamber from time to time who have the same suspicions.
Motion No. 6, that clause 177 of Bill C-36 be amended, and the amendments are on the Order Paper, would provide for a mechanism by which the Solicitor General or his officials could not vet or alter or change reports coming from the correctional investigator. His reports would come directly unaltered to the House of Commons or straight to Parliament.
Motion No. 7 is a technical one. It simply tidies up or alters the language so that clause 177 could be proceeded with.
Motion No. 8 with respect to clause 179 of Bill C -36 is also, I believe, an important amendment. It gives the correctional investigator the right to make recommendations to the House as well as to officials. Here on his own volition, the correctional investigator, he or she, could make specific recommendations.
In other words, he or she as an investigator simply does not investigate a matter only or an incident or an event and report as he does now to the Solicitor General or to the head of the Correctional Service Canada, but the correctional investigator could also follow-up or conclude that report with specific recommendations. No doubt he or she-the present correctional investigator is a male, therefore, I will say he-does make recommendations but the recommendations go to the Solicitor General or to the head of the Correctional Service Canada, Mr. Ingstrup or, perhaps, even the chair of the National Parole Board.
This amendment would allow the correctional investigator to send his recommendations to those officials but also directly to the House of Commons without any interference, without any change or alteration by senior bureaucrats who are not responsible to this
Government Orders
Chamber. They are responsible only to a minister, in this case the Solicitor General.
What I am saying here is that everything that comes out of the office and under the signature of the correctional investigator comes to this House unaltered, unvetted, directly, so that we are all apprised of all the information and all the facts and, indeed, the recommendations at the same time. This could be in the form of an annual report or a specific report on a specific incident, including recommendations and, indeed, criticisms, what is wrong.
If the correctional investigator finds that somebody senior in the bureaucracy, in Correctional Service Canada, has made a mistake, has goofed, what is wrong with us knowing about it? As members of Parliament should we not have that responsibility and should we not have access to that information? As I said earlier, there is still far too much secrecy surrounding this government. I am not just labelling this government or directing my criticism at this specific government. It has developed over many years, too much executive secrecy, and too much executive secrecy adds to too much executive power. The two go hand in hand. It may not be intentional. It may not be by design, but that is what happens and that is very serious and very dangerous. It is not in the best interests of democracy for that to take place.
Motion No. 15 also stands in my name. I am going to read these as they are not lengthy:
192. The Correctional Investigator shall within three months after the end of the fiscal year appear at the bar of the House of Commons and cause a report of the activities of the Office of the Correctional Investigator during that year to be laid before that House, or where that House is not sitting during that three month period, on the first day on which that House sits following that period.
The reason I put this in is that we have to wait an inordinately long period of time for the correctional investigator's reports that come almost I believe a year late. The last report I think I saw was 1991, or 1990.1 am not talking in terms of years, I am talking in terms of months. In my view they are far too lengthy, or too much time elapses before they get to the House of Commons. Even then, as I said earlier, I suspect they come somewhat vetted or altered. I am not blaming the correctional investigator here. I am simply saying that is part of the process.
Finally, Motion No. 17 relates to clause 193 and I am going to quote again:

Government Orders
193. The Correctional Investigator may, at any time, appear before the bar of the House of Commons and cause a special report referring to and commenting on any matter within the scope of the function, powers and duties of the Correctional Investigator to be laid before that House where, in the opinion of the Correctional Investigator, the matter is of such urgency or importance that a report thereupon should not be deferred until the time provided for the next annual report under section 192.
It is self-explanatory. What it means is that if a serious incident has occurred in the correctional service and the correctional investigator has investigated it and he finds some very disturbing information or evidence which he feels should be brought before Parliament, he may do so immediately that he makes that decision. He does not have to wait for an annual report. He does not have to put it off for three months, six months, or even a year before it is made public by being tabled in the House.
I have put forward these motions. There are many of them here with respect to the office of the correctional investigator. We have forced a vote on the first cluster of motions. I presume we are going to do the same at this stage. I await with anticipation remarks from my friend from Scarborough West with his amendments. I hope the House will seriously consider these amendments as being reasonable and acceptable.
Before I sit down, I want to make a comment as well in reference to a remark made a few moments ago by my friend from Lethbridge-Foothills. It is true that since 1984 the committees of the Canadian Parliament, certainly the House of Commons, have been given a great deal more authority and a great deal more responsibility. We all welcome that. I think members on the government side welcome it as much as members in the opposition.
I just hope that this process will continue. We on this side certainly do not want to usurp executive power in this Chamber. That would not be correct either, but I would sincerely hope that in the spirit of reform that committees be allowed to gain even further power particularly over the purse strings, over taxation.
I know this goes to the very heart of executive government, or the executive level of government.
With respect to this Bill C-36, for example, if we can hold up funding, the estimates, for six months-I am not saying for five years, but for six months-just think of the impact that would have on the amount of input that this Chamber would have into Correctional Service Canada, the National Parole Board, and the office of the correctional investigator.
I had hoped to be able to set up a new office through this bill. It was ruled out of order. I am not quarrelling with the Speaker's decision. He did rule it out of order. I would have added one more office under the criminal justice system, the Office of the Victims of Crimes Advocate. It is time that the victims of crime in this country got a break.
It is about time Parliament and the criminal justice system put some stress on their feelings, their predicaments and their loss, whether it is material or human at the hand of offenders day in and day out in this county. That is for another day. That is another battle. I will be satisfied if these amendments here are accepted by the government.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, these three amendments, Motions Nos. 11,14 and 16, standing in my name, have a similar intent to the motions that are standing in the name of the hon. member for Brant. Again, we are talking about empowerment. We are talking about how things look. We are talking about what sort of power is in whose hands.
Of the three motions that are in my name, Motions Nos. 14 and 16 deal specifically with clauses 192 and 193 of Bill C-36. Motion No. 11 is a very technical consequential amendment which would be required in the event that Motions Nos. 14 and 16 were to pass.
The crucial difference that I want to emphasize between what is presently in clauses 192 and 193 and what the Liberal amendment would do are as follows:
The Correctional Investigator shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the office of the Correctional Investigator during that year, and the Minister shall cause every such report to be laid before each House of Parliament

One wonders why. It is mandatory to submit such a report to the House of Parliament because clause 192 says very clearly:
and the Minister shall cause every such report to be laid before each House of Parliament
The minister according to this clause gets the correctional investigator's report and then he must submit that report to the House of Commons within a period of time. Why? If the House of Commons is going to get the report anyway, if it is going to get exactly the same report that the minister got, then what is wrong with the House of Commons getting it at the same time as the minister?
That is the point of Liberal Motion No. 14 for example which would provide very clearly:
The Correctional Investigator shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, report to the House of Commons on the activities of the office of the Correctional Investigator for thatyear and shall and at the same, provide a copy of that report to the Minister.
The reality is that clause 192 says that the House of Commons is going to get the report. Why do we have to wait for it? What is the compelling reason for waiting? The minister gets it and within a time frame, the House of Commons will get it. Well, let us both get it at the same time because we are both going to be getting exactly the same report.
The same thing pertains to clause 193. In clause 193, we have a permissive section. Clause 192 is mandatory, "the correctional investigator shall do the following". In clause 193 we have a permissive section "where the correctional investigator may" and here we are talking about special reports. These special reports may be made to the minister. If they are made to the minister, then according to clause 193, "the minister shall", which is mandatory, "cause every such special report to be laid before each House of Parliament".
If the correctional investigator chooses to make a report, he makes it to the minister. Then it comes within a period of time to the House of Commons. Why the delay? What is the problem? We are going to get the report in this House. Presumably it is going to be the same report, yet we have some sort of a buffer zone here or some sort of a delay, which will mean that if we are adjourned, if there is some difficulty, or if there is some reason to delay the report because of embarrassment or anything of that nature, there might be this potential for manipulation in some future government.
Government Orders
We do not need that. The section says the House of Commons is going to get the report. It is mandatory in both cases that the minister give the report, at least as I read it. If I read it incorrectly, I wait for the minister or someone on that side to tell me that that is not true, but the House of Commons is going to get the exact report the minister got.
If that is the case, let us at least get it at the same time. How? By giving the report to the House of Commons and the minister at the same time. I do not see any reason for a delay. It is not as if the minister is going to look at the report and say: "Oh, oh. We can't do anything, we had better not release this to the public. There is a problem".
On the contrary, the section is mandatory. The minister must file that report with the House of Commons. What is the purpose of the delay? I cannot see one. If someone over there can give us a reason, well fine, but we have not heard one.
Again, at committee, Professor Farson was one who recommended that these sorts of communications between the correctional investigator and the House of Commons be increased. Here, under the two sections as they now stand, the correctional investigator is reporting to the minister and then the House of Commons gets the report.
Under the Liberal amendments, the correctional investigator would be reporting to the House of Commons and giving a copy to the minister.
It seems like common sense to me. If we are going to get the report anyway, then let us get it at the same time. It is not as if the minister is going to be able to edit the report under these sections because it is mandatory that he give that report to the House in any event.
I do not know what the problem is. Perhaps we will hear from the hon. member for Lethbridge, but it seems a reasonable enough motion to require that the report be given to the House of Commons and the minister at the same time, under both section 192 and section 193.
As I said before, the consequential amendment to section 185 dealing with the correctional investigator not being permitted to delegate his responsibility to report would then flow to the report under sections 192 and 193 to the House of Commons and not the minister.

Government Orders
Anyway, that is the purpose. There is no nefarious reason, nothing unusual. It is very open. The purpose behind the Liberal amendments is for the Ilouse of Commons to see at the earliest possible opportunity what it is going to get to see anyway. That is pretty clear, pretty simple. With respect, it has a touch of common sense to it. I ask that the government and all hon. members support this group of amendments.
With respect to the amendments by the hon. member for Brant, this is an interesting situation because they are all grouped in one grouping. A vote on one will either carry or defeat all of them. This is a perplexing difficulty.
I notice that the motions in the name of the hon. member for Brant again all have that underlying intent, to have the correctional investigator be given the opportunity to directly report to the House of Commons. That was something in his reasons that he explained was compelling.
He has been here a long time and has seen the development of the House of Commons. Certainly he has much more length of service in the House of Commons than I do and yet I gather he sees things the same way that I do. We want to make sure that Parliament has power, that we are not just a rubber-stamp in here, to stand up like a bunch of trained seals when we are told to do so and vote the way we are told to vote, without in any way having the ability to make any difference in any of the acts that we supervise or that we look over. Here is a perfect example of that ability.
We heard the hon. member for Lethbridge say that oh, no, we could not possibly have this because, my goodness, no one would talk to the correctional investigator if his or her name is going to be bandied about the House of Commons. Again with the greatest of respect, this is a spurious argument. Clearly there are provisions in the act which protect the privacy of individuals, which protect the privacy of informants, which protect the privacy of people who obviously, if their names got out, would be in serious danger. There is no one in this House of Commons who would want to do that and there are already protections in the bill.
If we are going to argue them, let us argue amendments on the merits, not on some straw man put up to make it seem as if somebody is trying to endanger the lives of people. Of course, we are not and would not in any way be party to such a thing. At least that is how I understood the argument of the hon. member for Lethbridge. If I understood it incorrectly, then I was not paying as much attention as I should have been, but I think that was the point he was trying to make.
All we are saying is let the correctional investigator report to the House of Commons. What is wrong with that?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I will not take very long because we would very much like to have the motion by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands dealt with by the House.
The same general arguments apply in terms of just an administrative structure that I gave on the earlier grouping of motions. In terms of section 192 and 193, the report that the Cl gives to the minister will have information that will not ultimately come to the House of Commons because the minister has to respect the Privacy Act. Just as in other cases, that report will be expurgated in certain sections in terms of names in the Privacy Act. I am quite sure of that. That is the answer to that point.
The other one is that to the extent that I understood the motion says that all reports should be tabled in the House, I am informed that last year there were some 4,000 complaints to the correctional investigator.
If every one of those reports had to come to the House presumably they would be referred to the justice committee. Imagine the chaos we would have in the justice committee trying to cope with those. It is just not intended to do that. It is an in -house way. He is an ombudsman type of person to resolve those conflicts within the correctional service.
There is a reporting chain ultimately through the minister, which is where it should lie, to this House. We then question the minister and his or her officials, including the correctional investigator, in all of the ways that they can come before the standing committees.

In terms of the comments made by my friend from Brant vis-a-vis the budget and having the power to hold up estimates, it is a process. I agree that it is getting tougher and tougher.
Since 1984 we have gained some real power, but I would remind him that the opposition party, at least Her Majesty's Official Opposition, has the power to select one department that can have an extended examination. That is new within the last two or three years and so if anything was being done improperly within Correctional Service Canada, that department could be selected and it could be subjected to a fine-tooth review by the standing committee.
I urge members again to reject this grouping of motions.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the attention of members that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 will apply to Motions Nos. 7, 8, 11, 14 and 16 and will obviate the necessity for a vote on Nos. 15 and 17. A negative vote on Motion No. 6 will apply to Motions Nos. 7, 8, 11,14,15,16 and 17.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Government Orders
That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting clause 72 and
substituting the following therefor:
72. Members of the Senate or House of Commons shall, at all times, have free access to any penitentiary for the purpose of visiting any person therein.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We agreed earlier that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would be able to put his amendment and it would be debated.
I sense, knowing how deeply he feels about this and the difficulty he sometimes has in putting his arguments together, that he may go beyond one o'clock.
I wanted to suggest that the House might not see the clock in order for debate to finish on this particular motion. Then we would wrap up report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, of course we agreed to that not because of any difficulty I have in putting my arguments, but to accommodate the minister and show our goodwill in dealing with the government's wretched legislation.
I want to speak about this particular amendment because it is an extremely important one. I hope the minister will pay close attention to my comments.
Members of Parliament in 1834 were granted the right to visit inmates confined in Kingston Penitentiary. I would like to read from section 33 of the act of the Parliament of the colony of Upper Canada concerning the Kingston Penitentiary adopted in 1834 which said: "And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that the following persons shall be authorized to visit the prison at pleasure"-note the words "at pleasure"-"namely" and then there is a list.
Included in the list are members of the legislature. This provision allowing the members of legislatures to visit prisons was part of the law of this country until 1961. It was unchanged. It allowed visits by members of the legislature. It was restricted in 1935 to business hours, but it was clearly at pleasure during business hours. You could go in any time during business hours and the right was unfettered and unrestricted.

Government Orders
In 1961, the government headed by Mr. Diefenbak-er brought in an amendment to the Penitentiaries Act. It dropped the absolute right of members of Parliament to visit a penitentiary. In the course of the debate in this House, there was a clear indication and a commitment given that the right would be maintained in regulation.
A regulation was made. It was commissioner's directive No. 113 dated January 19, 1967 and is appropriate. It says: "Members of Parliament, judges, magistrates and Crown attorneys are to be encouraged to visit federal penitentiaries. There are no limitations on the scope, number or extent of the visits of these personages. Wardens will continue the policy of admitting members of Parliament into institutions unless circumstances are such that the wardens believe that the visit at that time is not appropriate. In such cases, the warden will refer the matter to the commissioner's office for a decision".
In other words, the commissioner of penitentiaries obtained by these regulations some minor discretion which had never existed before. The regulation was dropped apparently in 1987. I have relied on the information provided by the hon. Senator Hastings who has done considerable research and has introduced a bill similar to that which I had introduced and now forms the subject matter of this amendment today.
This right of members of Parliament, in my submission, was an extremely important right. It put the managers of the penitentiaries on notice that somebody could drop in at any time and check on the administration of the penitentiary and make sure things were being properly run there.
It also ensured considerable protection for the inmates confined in a penitentiary because it meant that if something went wrong, someone was likely to come in on a rumour, on a whim, just to check and to visit the inmate in question.
What we have in the legislation that is before this House in Bill C-36 are a series of restrictions on the right of members to visit the prisons in this country.
Let me read the section just so it is perfectly clear: "Every member of the House of Commons, every senator and every judge of a court in Canada has the right to enter any penitentiary, visit any part of a
penitentiary and visit any inmate with the consent of the inmate subject to such reasonable limits as are prescribed for protecting the security of the penitentiary or the safety of persons".
Who does the prescribing? Cabinet does the prescribing. We are told now that we are to agree to a limit in the statute that allows the cabinet to make further limits on the rights of members to visit penitentiaries. Is that reasonable?
Why should that right be restricted when, for well over 100 years it was unrestricted? Why are we restricting it now? I asked this question. The answer I have been given is: "What head of a penitentiary in his right mind would deny you entry?"
We are not always talking about the one in his right mind. We are not always talking about the head of the penitentiary who is enthusiastic about having members of Parliament visit. We are not always talking about the head of a penitentiary where there have been beatings or problems that he does not want exposed.
We are not talking about the head of a penitentiary who is concerned to ensure that the reputation of the institution is not damaged by the leakage of certain information about what has gone on in the institution which members of Parliament can find out in an impromptu visit. In my bill members of Parliament and senators are the only people who are permitted to make these kinds of visits. All others must be arranged.
This goes to the very core of the rights of members of this House. It was a right granted in 1834 and taken away by a Conservative government in 1961. It is a right that should exist for members of the House and members of the Senate.
We are told that a warden could not live with such a rule. They lived with such a rule for over 100 years, and in a way the wardens had more authority then than they do today. Why can they not live with such a rule now?
What is the reason for this change in the law? There has been no rationale given to explain why this right of members of Parliament and senators which existed for so long is today being denied.

I ask the minister in his response to my pleas to tell us why this right needs to be taken away from members of Parliament and senators. Why is it not being given back? Why will he not agree to this very sensible amendment? Why will he not say that in the interest of parliamentarians this right should be granted, that in the interest of good administration of the penitentiaries this right should be granted and that in the interest of the protection of guards and inmates, the prisoners in the penitentiaries, this right should be granted?
In my view visits by members of Parliament can do more to assist in the administration of a prison-perhaps not always from the point of view of the warden but from the point of view of the general public and the good administration of our institutions-than they can do harm.
Not every member visits prisons. I am sure there are members of this House who have never been in one of Canada's federal institutions. However, I live in a community that has five in my constituency and four within a few miles of the boundaries of my constituency. As a result, I have had plenty of opportunity to visit institutions.
I think that the wardens at each of those institutions, and I have had virtually no difficulty in getting access to this point, all agree that the visits are worth while from the point of view of the institution. I do not think that I have disrupted their routine. I may have inconvenienced them slightly on occasion but generally the visits have been appreciated. I believe they lead to at least some limit on the degree of unrest in the institutions. It is like letting a steam valve on a kettle. I believe it is worth while.
I believe it gives a certain sense of security to inmates to know that they can write to me and ask me to visit. Other members are free to respond to invitations from inmates, guards, or the warden to visit an institution for various purposes.
I know the Solicitor General occasionally visits and that he is very warmly received when he visits penitentiaries, at least by the inmates.
This amendment is very important. It is something that has been in our law before. It should be in our law again. To deny it is to engage in what could be a cover-up because there are two discretions under this rule. The first is on the part of the cabinet to change the rule to restrict access and the second on
Government Orders
the part of the warden to restrict access under the rules promulgated by the cabinet.
In my view members of this House, as elected representatives of the people of Canada, and senators should have access to these federally funded and operated institutions at will. If that is denied to us under the terms of this bill and if the denial can be extended by regulation, as this bill permits, then we are in effect giving up rights that are important and vital to the fair administration of those institutions and to the rights of the members of this House.
I ask the Solicitor General, I plead with the Solicitor General, to look at this amendment and tell us why it is not acceptable, if it is not. If it is acceptable let us vote it through and get on with the bill.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the amendment put by the member for Kingston and the Islands.
I had originally seen clause 72 in this bill, as I think most members on the committee did, and regarded it as a proposal in good faith to reinstate the right of members of Parliament with reference to penitentiaries, which had existed for over 100 years. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands put that history very well.
I am advised that the reason the Diefenbaker government of 1961 took away that right was not that included in the provision were the words "at pleasure" and "during working hours". I am advised that had nothing to do with it. Given that it was taken away, there is an absence of this right which had served the penitentiaries and inmates reasonably well over those many years.
The proposed clause 72, as the bill now reads, gives with one hand and takes away with another by regulation. The taking away by regulation actually reads very prominently in the clause. I had thought it was reasonable. I have had good experience to date with the penitentiaries and Correctional Service Canada, but who knows what would evolve in the future. I think that it would be better to return to the original concept as articulated in the amendment put forward by the member for Kingston and the Islands.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a comment here. I support the motion of the member for Kingston and the Islands. I truly believe that MPs and senators should have unfettered access without any regulatory restraint or the threat of regulatory restraint.

Government Orders
I do not know why we are not trusted. I do not know why this bill implies that there should be restraint or we should be restricted or there may be restraint placed upon our access to penitentiaries.
From time to time, in fact almost daily in my office, I receive letters from inmates. Some of them have what I think are legitimate complaints, some of them do not. I see no reason why I cannot go to investigate on my own and visit a prisoner if he or she is prepared to meet with me.
There is nothing wrong with prison officials, with a warden or any employee of a correctional institutional knowing that at any time, day or night, a member of Parliament or senator might arrive at the gate and have access. I see nothing wrong with that at all. That is part of our duty. It is part of our responsibility as members of Parliament to respond to a complaint if we believe it to be legitimate.
As the member who spoke a few moments ago said, this is the way it was in the 19th century and well into the 20th century. The big question mark in my mind is why it was changed. I would like the member for Lethbridge to explain why he feels, or why the government feels, there should be some regulatory control that could be used to prevent or delay a member's access to a federal correctional institution. That is the nub of the argument.
If there is regulatory control there that may be exercised I want to know as a member of Parliament why that regulatory control is there and can be exercised against me. I will be satisfied with a legitimate argument. I cannot think of a legitimate argument at this point, but if there is one I want to hear it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can carry the member's judgment on this because I think there are a couple of points that can be made to justify the limitation.
Let us start with the bill. The bill clearly sets forth that the general rule, the operating principle, is that:
72. Every member of the House of Commons, every Senator and
every judge of a court in Canada has the right to
(a)	enter any penitentiary,
(b)	visit any part of a penitentiary, and
(c)	visit any inmate, with the consent of that inmate-
It then goes on to say:
subject to such reasonable limits as are prescribed for
protecting the security of the penitentiary or the safety of persons.
The general rule operates. I do not think that there have been any complaints. People are satisfied with it.
Then you decide how you want to limit it. I will give two examples. One, there is a riot going on. People are being killed and the place is burning down and a member of Parliament comes and stamps his foot and says he wants to go in. I think that would probably be a reasonable circumstance to say no. Two, what if there is a hostage taking? We know how hostage takers work. A very complex psychological process is undertaken.
If I show up as a member of Parliament and I demand to see the person, and it is in the statute that they cannot block me, then that whole process can be disrupted.
I submit that those are a couple of instances. How do we resolve them? The way it is done under our system is to set out regulations.
The Prime Minister has changed the Standing Orders in many ways to enhance our power. We also have a better regulatory process. They must be published, there is a period for coming back, and a joint committee can examine these regulations.
I submit that within the regulation process we should surely be able to set out those guidelines that we, as members of Parliament, would want to impose upon ourselves. If my friends opposite want that undertaking, I can certainly give one on behalf of the minister that those reasonable limits can be set by all three parties and the independent members to protect those historic rights and privileges of members of Parliament, for ourselves and our successors.
However, at this moment we would urge the defeat of this motion. I was just examining the actual wording of the amendment by the member for Kingston and the Islands and it says:



Members of the Senate or House of Commons shall, at all times,
have free access to any penitentiary for the purpose of visiting any
person therein.
That is cast very widely. If we would have had a chance to examine it we may have been able, within the statute, to come up with some wording that would have made this motion unnecessary. However, given the time factors and the pressures on all of us, it was not done.
However let us make sure that in the regulations we set out the proper limits that all of us would agree to. During a hostage taking I do not think that a member should be able to go in there at any time and see any prisoner, because it is a very delicate psychological process. Some members are just insensitive enough that they would probably try.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Monteith):: The next question is on the motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Monteith):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of correctional investigator.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is the government's intention to defer this vote until
tomorrow, which I think because of our rules would defer it till Monday at six o'clock p.m. automatically.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Monteith):: It being 1.15 p.m. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1.15 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding have come together in an attempt to make a contribution to Canadian unity.
Truro, Nova Scotia's Barry Stagg, a playwright, songwriter and composer has written a song entitled One Flame. His idea of recording this song gained immediate support in the community.
Two weeks ago in Truro he brought together a multicultural choir from the area to record the song at Doiron's Recording studio. One thousand CDs are now being pressed and sent to media and radio stations all across the country.
It is our hope that radio stations across the country will play it often.
I am very proud of these residents who played a part in this. It involved over 100 people who themselves are proud to be a part of the Canadian mosaic and wanted to show it.
Chatelaine magazine recently chose Truro as one of the 10 best communities in Canada in which to live and this contribution to national unity certain supports its decision.


LAKE GIBSON SMALL GENERATING STATION
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines- Thorold):: Mr. Speaker, my area of the Niagara Peninsula is deeply affected by huge layoffs at General Motors, by cross-border shopping and by shutdowns of various plants in the area.

Through all the means at our disposal we are trying to bring back prosperity and jobs to the riding. One project that is being considered surrounds a proposal about the Lake Gibson small generating station. It means quite a few jobs for my constituents.
Although the junior Minister of Transport has already advised that her government would not extend any help for this project, I appeal to the Minister of Transport to do all he can to reopen the talks between the city of Thorold, the Seaway Authority and Ontario Hydro.
I am told that there will be a meeting held on June 2. It is my intention, along with Mr. Bill Longo, the mayor of Thorold, to attempt to be there as onlookers.
We need help. We need jobs. I urge the Minister of Transport to help give the jobs, jobs, jobs, that were promised earlier.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec -Est):: Mr. Speaker, "God helps those who help themselves" is a saying that I use frequently in the performance of my duties.
Indeed I often have an opportunity to meet people who are looking for work and I notice that the more they do, the more they succeed. I will give you the example of a young man who came to see me recently for employment. My office staff and I supported him in his efforts and finally he found what he was looking for.
I will read a few sentences that he wrote me following this experience: "I would like to thank you for all the moral support you gave me when I was looking for work. Your good advice and encouragement helped me through a period that was hard for me and my family and difficult financially. Thanks for everything".
In my experience a person who is motivated and has support always finds employment before too long. That is the message that I wanted to give to those who find themselves in such a situation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration in his
wisdom has extended the eligibility of UI recipients to three consecutive years of education at community colleges but excluded universities. The minister, in response to a question from me on March 16 said he was open to suggestions, and here they are:
In my own community the president of Algoma University, Douglas Lawson, suggests: "University programs should not be excluded from your government's laudable initiatives in advancing education of those Canadians on UI".
The president of the University of Waterloo says: "Surely this is illogical and inconsistent. There is no reason to accept one kind of institution and not another".
The president of Wilfred Laurier University said: "I would encourage any initiatives to broaden the parameters of the UI program".
The president of Athabasca University says: "Athabasca University fully supports that UI recipients be allowed to attend university".
I encourage the minister to heed this counsel and extend to unemployed steel workers and non-steel workers the option for a university education through CSTEC and regular government programs.


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the close of National Forest Week. I encourage all Canadians to confer special recognition to our nation's abundant forest resources as this year's theme suggests to take a closer look at the benefit we all derive from the forests.
Aside from contributing in economic and social terms our forests ensure clean air and water, they protect our soils, moderate our weather patterns and in fact touch each and every one of us on a daily basis.
Tree Plant Canada, the national community tree planting program announced last week by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Forestry, is yet another example of the government's commitment to sustaining our forest resource and the greening of our environment.

Canada is a forest nation. National Forest Week provides us with a time when we can all pay special tribute to this valuable resource.


WALPOLE ISLAND FIRST NATION
Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, the government's recent refusal to fund a health effects study for Walpole Island First Nation is insensitive and totally irresponsible.
Their rejection by Indian Affairs comes on the heels of the chemical spill last month, just the latest of over 300, forcing the shutdown of both Walpole and Walla-ceburg's water treatment plants.
The International Joint Commission's newest report points out the many unknown dangers. We are concerned about the long-term damage of toxins in fish, wildlife and drinking water. The green plan is full of drought when the natives in my riding are told that there is no money for a health study.
It seems last year the time was found to announce millions of dollars for an Indian health and water program. What money is the government spending on public relations that should go toward the actual study of the problem right at the source of Walpole Island?
We owe every Canadian the right to know if their water is safe or not. Quit making political promises on native health, and fund a health study.


SOCIAL UNREST
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I along with thousands of other Canadians watched the riots and the unrest in the past week in Los Angeles with the smug self-assurance that such a terrible thing could not happen in Canada.
I was wrong. People in this country have the right to peacefully demonstrate, to show their disagreement and dissent but no one has the right to vandalize and destroy.
It is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament and leaders of this country to seek out the root causes of the recent riots and events in Toronto. It is not
enough to stand here and condemn those who took part. What we must do as parliamentarians is to seek out the causes and try to correct them to prevent future occurrences.
While we can never condone the actions of that mob, we must listen to their message. The cry of so many youngsters across this country is: "We have nothing to do". Let us try to find something for them, something meaningful, something useful and something rewarding.
The society which we smugly assume is making our young people happy is, in many cases, not doing that. The United Nations report released in April of this year showing that Canada has the highest rate of drug related crime in the industrialized world is frightening.
I implore the government and all members of this House to stop and to devote their time and their energy to building a fairer, more equitable society which may preclude events like the horror we saw earlier this week.


SENATE REFORM
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few hours, I have come to think that the constitutional debate again seems to be headed for an impasse. Premier Don Getty of Alberta maintains his demand for a Triple-E Senate, one that is elected, equal and effective, and is careful to add that he is reflecting the opinion of Albertans. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the equality criterion is incompatible with effectiveness.
What will we gain if the Senate is so equal that real effectiveness is sacrificed? What is most important in renewed federalism? That the Upper House is effective with equitable representation or that it has equal representation but no real powers? In that case, it would be better to abolish it.
We still have at the very most a few weeks to reach an agreement. If ever there was a time in our history for compromise, it is now.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro has been so successful in its efforts at demand side management of electrical generation requirements that it has determined it does not have to build any new nuclear generating facilities.
This has made Atomic Energy of Canada Limited unhappy, even desperate. At Ontario Hydro's current review hearings, such AECL hirelings as Mr. Heintz-man of McCarthy, Tetrault have been making ever more fanciful arguments.
Consider this argument advanced by Mr. Heintz-man on March 31: because, historically, increased energy consumption and lengthening life expectancy have been coincident, Ontario Hydro's decision not to proceed with new nuclear generating capacity will mean Ontarians will have a shorter life expectancy than they would if new nukes were built.
I am not making this up. Canadians have every right to wonder whether or not taxpayers should continue to turn hundreds of millions of dollars over every year to a company which uses that money to hire mouthpieces to make such ludicrous presentations.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Garth Ttirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most divisive issues in Canadian life is official bilingualism.
This week, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his annual report. According to Victor Gold-bloom, bilingualism is the glue which keeps the Canadian federation together.
Those who are calling for the end of bilingualism threaten the very existence of Canada. Clearly, this is important for all of us to come to grips with. Perhaps it is time for less rhetoric and fewer speeches by those worried about Reform Party intolerance and for more education about what bilingualism is.
Perhaps it is also time many of the irritants of bilingualism were removed, like bonuses paid to bilingual federal workers, like translating costly technical documents which are seldom used, like the excessive designation of bilingual jobs by the federal government, and perhaps in a spirit of compromise it is time
that Quebecers embraced the common sense of allowing once again English language signs.
My constituents would welcome that as a generous and meaningful gesture.


EDUCATION
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, whether you are in Ottawa, Yellowknife, or Prince Edward Island, youths recognize that our education system is not providing them with the level of skill they are going to need in an increasingly competitive international job market.
Last week's stinging report on our educational system for the Economic Council of Canada has confirmed that reforms are needed. It is time for the federal government to stop hiding behind the excuse that education is strictly provincial jurisdiction and start taking a leadership role in rebuilding our education system.
Unless the federal government can facilitate fundamental changes to our education system soon, it is estimated that Canada will produce another million functionally illiterate young people in the next 10 years. The future of our ability as a nation to compete in the global economy depends on the quality and skills of our national work force.
I urge the federal government to pay a leadership role in an effort to improve our education system.


TREE PLANT CANADA
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Trois-Rivieres):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Forest Week, and I welcome this opportunity to remind the House of the important announcement made last week by Prime Minister and the Minister of Forestry concerning the new community tree planting program: Tree Plant Canada. Thanks to this initiative Canadians will be able to get involved in activities aimed at greening our communities.
I would ask all members to talk about this program with their constituents and urge them to participate. Thanks to this program, we will have an opportunity to work together to beautify our cities, towns and rural areas.


VIOLENCE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Cape Breton were shocked to learn of a brutal shooting and robbery early this morning at the McDonald's restaurant in Sydney River.
Our hearts go out to the families of the two employees who were killed and we offer our prayers for the two who were critically wounded in this ruthless attack.
There has been growing concern in Cape Breton over the increase in break and enters and armed robberies in recent months. We are all stunned by the senseless and unprovoked violence. We cannot help but feel a bit inadequate in being able only to offer our prayers for and condolences to the victims of this ruthless act.
I call upon the community and all of its citizens to assist the RCMP and the local police officers to apprehend this vicious criminal.


SPOUSAL ABUSE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address what I believe is a very sad commentary on our society and that is the discussions of spousal abuse seemingly gained serious public attention only after a tragedy.
I am sure that all members join with me in expressing sorrow to the survivors of the abused spouse from Sydney, Nova Scotia, who despite her expressed concern for her safety to the police lost her life at the hands of her estranged spouse.
Members will recall that I have spoken on this subject before. Parliament approved a motion of mine calling for increased attention to matters of family violence. Let me say again: Something must be done. It is not good enough just to reflect on this growing problem. We must find a better way to protect victims of abuse. We are charged with protecting the innocent members of our society. We must do more than just hope that tragedies like last week's will never happen again.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the Mohawk people have a saying that each generation is responsible for the next seven generations. In this way they instil a respect for the environment.
Yesterday the B.C. New Democrat government took the first steps to ensure future generations are able to benefit from the preservation of our province's natural beauty. Through flexibility and consultation the new protected areas strategy will be phased in to address B.C.'s environmental and resource use concerns.
Significantly the B.C. environment minister has announced that 23 new wilderness parks will be designated this year. In addition, 140 other areas will be considered with the objective of doubling B.C.'s parkland by the year 2000.
Our green goals will not be easily achieved nor will they be without cost, but I believe that this House should commend the decision of the B.C. government. It has listened to the concerns of Canadians and taken the first steps to ensure that generations to come will be able to enjoy what we enjoy today.


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, May 8 will mark the nation-wide launch of the hire a student/business drive for jobs campaign at an event site in each region of the country with a kick-off ceremony taking place in Montreal.
Employers and home owners almost anywhere in the country can call one of the 400 student employment centres and ask for help in filling just about any kind of student employment opening.
This student placement service of Employment and Immigration Canada is in its 24th year and is now open for business. The service provided by these centres is also in place to serve the student employment needs of the business partnership that backs the business drive for jobs campaign.

Oral Questions
Through the business drive for jobs campaign, four major business organizations have pledged to encourage their members to hire students. These business organizations are the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Council of Canada and, for the first time, le Conseil du patronat du Quebec.
As a result many businesses will strike up a partnership with one of our student employment centres this summer.
Our next generation of workers is knocking on the door. I urge every employer to assist them.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he would meet the mayors if requested. I received a copy of a letter from the mayor of London, Ontario who is the chair of the caucus of big city mayors. In this letter he states: "Prime Minister, the challenges we face from infrastructure, social issues and urban crime have a significant impact on all Canadians in big cities across the nation. We are confident this meeting can be constructive and positive".
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and say yes to this request right now?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have had meetings with the mayors of Toronto and Montreal. The Minister of Justice met with the mayors of Toronto and Montreal, then held another meeting with the newly elected mayor of Toronto and then another meeting with Mayor Dore in Montreal. Then there was a meeting in April in Toronto with four big city mayors of Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary. On April 25, 1992 the Minister of Justice and Attorney General held a meeting in Vancouver with 19 big city mayors to review precisely these problems.
I would like the Leader of the Opposition to know that we have been making ongoing progress in very substantial ways with big city mayors over the last year in dealing with some of the fundamental root causes to which he refers.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister clearly said he would be delighted to meet the mayors. Today, there is an official request from the chairman of the caucus of big city mayors of Canada to discuss the problems of urban crime and violence and other aspects as well, such as infrastructures, housing and unemployment. They are asking for a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada. Will the Prime Minister say yes to this request?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition changed his mind in mid-sentence.
He asked me yesterday whether I would agree to meet the big city mayors to discuss urban crime, racial discrimination, and so forth. Today I explained what we would do, and he refers to a request he received from the mayor of London, Ontario, not to discuss those problems but to discuss infrastructures, sewers and similar issues.
Now the hon. member for Toronto says that sewers are the biggest social problem in Canada. Let us be reasonable. I already told the Leader of the Opposition that if it would be helpful and worth while. We would be delighted to meet the mayors.
I think it is rather odd that the Leader of the Opposition received a request for a meeting from the mayor of London, Ontario, while I did not.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was complaining that perhaps something is not working. This letter is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. It was sent to him and he claims he has not receive it. He should speak with the people around him.

I have a copy of this letter asking to meet with the Minister of Justice. What confidence can the mayor and municipalities have to meet when the Minister of Justice dismissed such a possibility yesterday when she said: "I do not want to reinvent wheels that are already rolling happily along".


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Was the Minister of Justice expressing the view of the Prime Minister when she said more or less that what is going on in Montreal and Toronto these days is already rolling happily along?
Does the government not realize that we have major problems in Canadian cities today and should not be flippant like the Minister of Justice was yesterday?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go a long way to be as flippant as that question.
I did not suggest the cities of Montreal and Toronto and their problems are rolling happily along. What I talked about was the importance of developing a strategy with the big cities on how we can come together and really make progress in this area, not simply to have a meeting for the sake of having a meeting, but genuinely to exchange information.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition may not understand that, but I can tell him the mayors of Canada's big cities understand it very well indeed.


PROCEEDS OF CRIME
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The United Nations has found Canada guilty of having the highest rate of drug crimes per capita in the developed world. Canada's police forces could do more to combat our nation's drug epidemic if they were not financially handcuffed while millions of dollars raised from the seizure of assets disappears into federal revenues every year.
I ask the minister why she has yet to amend the proceeds of crime legislation so that local police forces can use the forfeited funds to finance new equipment, training and community education programs that are vital to their drug enforcement efforts.
Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Solicitor General, mentioned in the House this week we are certainly reviewing the process by which proceeds of crime can be distributed among various levels of government.
It is important to point out that while we have taken the leadership in bringing forward this legislation, there is not a great pot of money out there for proceeds of crime that have been brought in. In fact the law enforcement challenges in this area are very great.
What we have done is we have announced three specialist task forces in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, the major drug trafficking centres of this country, to focus on using the proceeds of crime legislation.
Before we can redistribute the proceeds of crime we have to get our hands on them. That is our first priority.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the minister knows her priorities. She must also know that every year there are around 60,000 drug offences in Canada.
The Addiction Research Foundation claims this drug abuse costs the Canadian economy $11.5 billion annually. In the face of this world scale problem the government allocates less than $60 million annually for its anti-drug strategy. Only a fraction of this is aimed at law enforcement.
I ask the minister to reinforce this government's feeble anti-drug strategy so that local police forces can have the funds they need to purge this blight on Canada's international reputation.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am quite enchanted by the interest of that hon. member and her party in this question.
I seem to recall before I became a member of this House when the Prime Minister made a speech in Vancouver in 1987 about Canada's growing drug problem, members of her party, members on her side of the House, accused the Prime Minister of exaggerating the problems. I am delighted those hon. members have come to their senses.

Oral Questions
This government remains dedicated to tackling the problems of drug trafficking. We are doing so with sophisticated efforts at consultation and co-ordination with other law enforcement bodies. We believe that our efforts will have success.


JUSTICE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice.
We have a disturbing report from Montreal today from Special Coroner Harvey Yarosky on police practices in regard to minority communities. We have more optimistic news from Ontario with the appointment of Stephen Lewis and Zanana Akande to advise on race relations.
The minister and the Prime Minister will know that the federal government has had reports on the shelf for some time, including the Marshall inquiry about racism in Nova Scotia and the justice system, the Manitoba justice support system and aboriginal people, Law Reform Commission reports, and so on. We need national leadership on the question of racism and crime prevention in the justice system.
I want to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice: What is it that they propose? Do they have a strategy and could they tell the House succinctly what it is?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, yes we do have a strategy. It is hard to tell the House succinctly what it is because there is so much of it. I will try to be as brief as possible.
With respect to aboriginal justice, I co-hosted with the minister of Justice of the Yukon last September a national conference on aboriginal justice in Whitehorse. That was the first time that such a conference had been held. Fifty per cent of the participants were aboriginal people.
The Government of Canada has committed almost $25 million to the funding of pilot projects and prototypes of the delivery of justice services to aboriginal people to meet our commitment to ensure that the Canadian justice system is able to do justice for aboriginal people.
With respect to other areas, my colleague, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship, has indicated in this House that one of the major thrusts of his department has been in the area of multicultural policing in the area of law enforcement and our visible minority communities in Canada. This is a strong commitment by this government, a commitment that we have met not just with words but with money, programs and very great effort.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we would like to have some results too. We have had cutbacks, especially with social programs in the inner city. The government and the country can see the results.
I want to ask the minister to get specific. Give Canadians specific programs. She mentioned yesterday in the House that she was prepared to change what is called the fleeing felon rule. Generally that is a rule in which police officers may fire a gun at anyone avoiding arrest even if no lives are in danger.
I want to ask the minister to get specific. Could she tell the House what her proposals are in this area, what they will be and will they be similar to the 1987 Law Reform Commission report, the commission she is axing? Will the minister please be specific and tell us her specific proposals on the fleeing felon rule?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make policy on the floor of the House and I am not going to indicate the details of the legislation until it has gone through cabinet, but I am prepared to take it there.
As I have indicated to the House, in fact, in response to a request by the Government of Ontario in 1989 and other of my provincial colleagues, we have been working on this issue and are now ready to go forward to cabinet.
We will clarify the law to make very clear the liabilities and obligations of law enforcement officers with the use of deadly force in a way that I hope will strike a balance to enable law enforcement officers to do their job safely and to protect people around them and at the same time to assure Canadians that excessive use of force will not be part of enforcing the law in this country.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to my role as critic for youth in posing a question to the Prime Minister.
When the United Nations proclaimed International Youth Year it talked of the potential for an explosion among alienated, unemployed and powerless youth.
During International Youth Year a number of reports were produced by the Senate and by our party. Young people presented a number of recommendations. I know the government believes that in a number of ways it has responded.
I ask the Prime Minister: Would his government be willing, perhaps in-co-operation with other levels of government, to revisit the recommendations of that time urgently? We all believe that present circumstances justify doing so, to react to a situation that for many young people in this country is still becoming worse. It requires some kind of a response on a coherent basis throughout the country.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there have been some studies in the past and there are still studies going on.
The government has acted with respect to the youth strategy. Obviously we have dedicated a lot of time and money to the major problem of youth in Canada, which is the dropout problem. My predecessor put forward a strategy to make sure our youth complete their education and have the necessary tools to face all the challenges they are going to be facing as the years go by, with all the technological changes and all the demands they will have on their future.
By keeping our youth in school, giving them an education and making sure that the economic fundamentals of this country are in place, I believe they will have a future that they can look forward to and that we have the responsibility to give them.
Oral Questions TRADE


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for International Trade said that Canada will seek separate bilateral deals with Mexico in the areas of agriculture and textiles, separate from the proposed North American free trade agreement.
Could the government explain why it has singled out textiles and agriculture from the proposed agreement, excluding them from the agreement for special treatment?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I think what has happened is that if we cannot get trilateral agreement on these issues then we will try for separate arrangements between Canada and Mexico.
It may be that you will have difficulty with respect to agriculture. Ultimately you may find the textile situation resolved in the trilateral talks.
What the minister was trying to indicate was that we are prepared to make separate agreements to get an agreement and to protect Canadian manufacturers.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting departure in policy on the part of the government. I am glad to have confirmation of this tendency which I have been attempting to obtain for some time.
I take this from the minister's answer and let me pose it as a question. If indeed the government chooses to seek bilateral deals in agriculture and textiles, is it also the government's intention to seek bilateral deals with Mexico in other areas of contention such as automobiles and to exclude those from a trilateral agreement?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that it is our intention and has always been our objective to have an all inclusive trilateral agreement. That is still the objective.
We will only consider bilateral agreements when all else fails.

Oral Questions


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, in the three years and three months since free trade Canada's auto workers have lost 22 per cent of their jobs and this figure keeps rising.
I would like to ask the minister responsible just what specific measures the government proposes dealing with content and other measures to promote Canadian auto jobs and undo the damage this government has already done.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, let me take the preamble of that question first.
It is very clear that there has been a major restructuring right across the globe in terms of automobiles. The hon. member picks on the Canadian sector which in many ways has fared no worse than many other countries.
With respect to his particular question, we made considerable progress in terms of the free trade agreement. Our objective is clear. We want to enhance and protect the Canadian auto workers and the Canadian automobile industry in the NAFTA even more than we did in the FTA.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that Canada's auto workers have suffered no worse a fate than our counterparts. We have lost 22 per cent of our auto jobs since free trade. The Americans have lost only 10 per cent.
When is this government going to get serious about its negotiating? Let me ask: the Mexicans are proposing a lengthy embargo against Canadian used cars going into Mexico. What precisely is this government doing to stand up to this embargo and ensure that it is not just one measure that costs us even more auto jobs in Canada?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we are making some progress on the auto negotiations.
I do not understand why in all of this members on the other side of the House have not mentioned the $2 billion investment by Ford for the auto industry and other things to come.
It always has to be the negative, never the positive.


CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This week he announced an action plan allocating $500 million to children at risk. This plan, as we all know, has been severely criticized by organizations working on behalf of children and Canada's poor.
Yesterday in Winnipeg the minister stated, and I quote: "Poverty is not a children's reality".

In French: Ce n'est pas la realite des enfants. [English\
Could the minister please explain what he means by this to the over one million Canadian children living in poverty?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer questions about the strategy for the first time.
First, the member is wrong. The action plan is not $500 million. There are four different approaches to the question of the convention signed by the Prime Minister, and the $500 million is one part of the $2 billion we have set aside.
I said yesterday in Winnipeg, as I said in Toronto and in Montreal, that poverty in this country is not the responsibility of children. It is the responsibility of all of society, as are the needs of children. We are trying to fix the problem. We are looking after the problems of one million children in Canada who need to be helped not only in terms of resources but in terms of the way we look after them. That is why I called for action by all Canadians, not just by the government, in a way to help those people.
I call on my friend not only to say that we need more money. I call on all members and all other Canadians to look after the children of this country in a way that will enable them to face the reality they will have to face in the future. I hope deeply that we will go beyond the question raised by the hon. member. If all Canadians want to put kids on the map then the kids will be looked after in this country.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. I think Canadians are looking for the government to accept its responsibility for the plight of Canada's one million poor children, for the failure of economic policies in this country which has generated that problem.
This week we have heard a number of ministers talking about the importance of government economic policy, how useful it has been, and how much money is going to children. If all these policies are so good and working so well, why after eight years of Conservative government has the number of food banks in this country risen from 75 to over 300?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well we have not invented that. We are in a recession, in a period of economic difficulty. In those circumstances Canadians must consider any way they can help.
On Sunday afternoon I was at the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto and had a very good meeting with the people responsible. Everybody has to look at ways in which we can help people get out of poverty, particularly kids.
It is not enough to say only that we do not have enough resources. We must get involved ourselves in the way to help children out of poverty and to deal with the future.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Over 10,000 aboriginal youth in Winnipeg are looking for training programs so that they can find jobs. Yet under the UI rules brought in by this government they cannot access this training.
Instead of announcing a so-called Better Futures program, why does this government not change its policies and provide a better future for these youth in Winnipeg?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the plight of unemployed youth in Canada. I am also very sensitive to it. That is why we have in
Oral Questions
place programs that attempt to help those people to find work through better skills and better training.
The hon. member refers to the lack of programs in Winnipeg. I beg to differ in opinion on this with him. I do not have the exact numbers here, but it is literally tens of millions of dollars that we spend in Manitoba to help unemployed people.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister knows that one must be a UI recipient to access easily the moneys for these programs. Yet these youth are not able to get jobs in Winnipeg and therefore cannot access these programs. The minister knows that is the real problem but refuses to deal with it.
The minister's own department in describing the unemployment scene in Manitoba said: "There is no escape" from this employment market. There is no escape for the 11.2 per cent who are unemployed. There is no escape for 41,000 Winnipegers looking for work.
Why does the minister not change some of these policies and provide work for these 41,000 people?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know-and it was
clear yesterday at the call of his leader-that the hon. member and his party are still calling for yesterday's solution to today's problem: throw money at the problem.
Canadians want more than their tax money being thrown at the problem. Rather, they want us to activate the passive funds out there for income security and try to help people to train, to get better skills and eventually get into the job market.
There is a host of programs in place to do just that.


CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health.
This morning the minister tabled the government's response to the health and welfare subcommittee's report on poverty. Among the many recommendations that were rejected was one asking the minister to table yearly in Parliament a full report on progress made to eliminate child poverty.

Oral Questions
Why does the minister refuse to make public his government's record on child poverty?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we consider the announcement we made this week in Brighter Futures a long-term framework to deal with one of the issues, with child poverty, and particularly what we do with the $2 billion for low income workers. Of course the strategy is a start and it will progress.
I will be pleased to report on the way we can help children, not necessarily overcome the problem of poverty, because as I said yesterday in his home city of Winnipeg poverty is not the exclusive reality of children. It is a problem of society. The answer to poverty in Canada is in good economic policies and good management. This is done by the Minister of Finance. It will help children and other citizens to get out of that.


Mr. Speaker:: We have to move on.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the request was for the minister to table yearly in Parliament a full report.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister also refused to develop an action plan to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. Why did the minister refuse to develop this action plan? How does the minister expect to eradicate child poverty in Canada without a clear plan of action?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again it is a mistake to say that we will develop a plan for child poverty and not relate to the problem of poverty as a society.
We do not have the resources that the Liberal Party has. We do not have what it asks for. We have said that we did what should be done. We have asked Canadians to help children in Canada. We believe that with the help of people it will be possible to do something within the capacity we have.


HUMANITARIAN AID
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns children who are dying.
Last week James Grant, the executive director of UNICEF reported that there are severe food shortages, widespread malnutrition and a spectacular return of many infectious diseases in Iraq.
In light of this, I would like to ask the Prime Minister when his government will respond positively to the proposal of Dr. Eric Hoskins to release some $2 million in frozen Iraqi assets in Canada directly to the highly respected Canadian charitable organization, Global Med-Ed Supplies to allow for the purchase of infant formula and medicine for children in order to meet the solemn commitment made by the Prime Minister at the World Summit for Children in 1990 to work carefully to protect children from the scourge of war.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has this issue under consideration. We are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq.
She has indicated that the government is prepared to examine the proposals by Dr. Hoskins, but an eventual decision will have to support Canadian policy toward Iraq and also be consistent with both Canadian and UN legal requirements.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that the United Nations has specifically permitted this and as each day goes by more children are dying.
The Harvard study team on the gulf which was chaired by Dr. Hoskins has estimated that more than 50,000 children have died since the end of the war in the gulf and 300 children are dying each and every day.
In light of these staggering figures, will the government consider to this charitable organization releasing the funds which have been seized? Will the government consider providing matching CIDA funds to supplement these funds to ensure that the commitments that have been made by the Prime Minister at the world summit for children are met and that no more innocent victims of this war, particularly children, are created.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleague that the Canadian government has been very supportive, through a whole variety of programs, cash and donations to other humanitarian activities. We have in fact provided over $23 million of support for food and humanitarian assistance to Iraq.
We will continue to work very carefully on this. My colleagues, the minister responsible for CIDA and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will address various options and work in support of the children of Iraq and children everywhere around the world.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Pornography is a multi-million dollar industry in Canada and a multi-billion dollar industry in North America.
The Supreme Court recently, in the Butler case, linked obscenity to violence against women and children. Surely now the Minister of Justice no longer has any excuse for not bringing forward tough new laws to deal with pornography, particularly child pornography. When will she do this?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the provisions of the Criminal Code were held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. This has reduced a lot of the uncertainty among law enforcement authorities around the country and I firmly expect that these provisions of the code will be more strictly enforced.
With respect to child pornography, we are now looking at the implications of the Butler decision. The Butler decision did make some interesting references on the relationship of the definition of obscenity to pornography involving children, which I think provides some current basis for charges to be laid.
Oral Questions
I have made a commitment and I will bring forward, although it may not be until early in the fall, legislation we are now aiming to fill in any gaps in the law that would exist, even in light of the Butler decision. I share the hon. member's concern and we are acting as quickly as we can and I hope by the fall to have new legislation.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer. We will be looking forward to that new law, because as was stated by the Badgley commission in 1984, violence and child pornography almost always relates to child abuse. Canadians are sick and tired of people making money out of this trash.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Canadians are also concerned about the amount of pornography coming into the country. They are concerned that customs is losing the battle against keeping this obscene literature out of the country. We know that the customs officers are understaffed. What is the Minister of National Revenue doing to assure Canadians that this trash is not going to be coming into Canada and certainly not in increasing numbers as it is now?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the hon. member's suggestion that there is an increase of this trash, as he put it, coming into Canada.
Our customs officers have and continue to be vigilant. There are some 3,500 excellently trained customs officers to protect Canadian society exactly from such trash coming into this country.
We have brought greater efficiency to the borders. We have brought in new technology. We have brought in new systems.
Another correction I would want to make to the hon. member's question is that we have not reduced customs officers at the borders, in fact we have increased our vigilance. We are continuing to increase the personnel at the borders in order to protect Canadian society from the illegal importation of pornography, illegal firearms and drugs as well.

Oral Questions UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Ronald J. Duhnmel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
As a result of government cutbacks in Winnipeg, just one example of what is happening in Canada, tuition fees at one university are increasing by 16 per cent this year and student debt is growing at unmanageable rates. There are often two-year waiting lists for training programs. Thousands of students are without jobs today as we speak. Three hundred staff in one university in the city of Winnipeg will be without jobs very shortly.
These conditions destroy our cities. They demoralize our youth and other Canadians. Why has this government permitted this situation to develop?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows better than trying to shift or pass the blame to the government for a situation that is not peculiar to the city of Winnipeg but is present in the whole of North America and indeed in the world.
When we look at the youth programs, if we are going to measure the caring of the government by the number of dollars we take out of taxpayers to throw back at them, I think that is the wrong recipe. I know that is the recipe of the Liberal Party.
We would rather have a program. The reasons he has mentioned and the thrust of the prosperity initiative, if you care to look at it, is exactly to attack the fundamentals which the hon. member has referred to.
Instead of trying to blame one another, why do we not join Canadians and try to improve the situation within our fiscal framework?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, possibly the people of Canada will accept that next time around.

My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Youth unemployment has now reached 17 per cent and continues to rise. In one employment centre in Winnipeg there were 10 students every 15 minutes looking for jobs, something that is becoming increasingly hard to find.
How can the government expect these students to be able to pay a 16 per cent increase in tuition fees and manage their debts which are increasing at an alarming rate, when there are hardly any jobs and when this government keeps reducing financial support for their education?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member refers to students' debts, he seems to be suggesting that Canadians pass the debt on to someone else, to our children and grandchildren. We must live within our means and try to use taxpayers' money as intelligently as we can, by implementing measures that will guarantee a prosperous future for our country, for our young people, the not-so-young and everyone in this country. That is exactly what the government is trying to do with its prosperity initiative, which, instead of asking people to blame someone else, invites Canadians to work together to try and find long-term solutions, not with last year's or the last century's methods but with the methods of the future.
*
*


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Minister of Finance or the minister responsible for small business.
I think members on all sides of this House have been hearing from constituents involved in business that Canada's big banks are throttling back dramatically on the amount of lending they are providing those businesses.
In the face of credit reductions, called loans and diminished loan levels which are extending the recession and flying in the face of the federal budget, what action is the government prepared to take?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will agree that if a government has the lowest interest rates in the industrialized world, has the most responsible policy in the industrialized world, we still are going to have a slower recovery if there is restriction of credit in the economy.



We have been very concerned about this during the last two or three months and we are monitoring it closely. This was one reason why the Minister of Finance, in his budget, brought in the expansion of the Small Businesses Loans Act. The Small Businesses Loans Act guarantees 85 per cent of the losses and is guaranteed by the federal government. Very little capital has to be put aside for participation in it by the banks.
I encourage the banks to use it. It is going to open up credit and help small and medium sized businesses. I plead with financial institutions, and I might add the trust companies and the insurance companies as well, to participate in expanding and commercial lending after June 1. All of this is what the small business community needs.


THE ENVIRONMENT
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.
There has been a tremendous effort by the community of Truro, Nova Scotia, to develop an environmental exposition. Even though there is basic agreement by the business, the government organizations and the organizers, unfortunately consensus has eluded them.
Will the Minister of the Environment participate and assist by appointing someone to co-ordinate the effort and try to bring all the parties together to develop a proper proposal?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of visiting Truro with my friend from Cumberland-Colchester, I think it was in the month of June last year. At that time I also had the benefit of a presentation made by officials and those people very interested in this innovative project. We undertook to examine the proposals that would come forward.
I would be more than happy to be of any assistance to try to find some consensus, as the member indicates, in bringing this project forward. I can assure him that my department and the government will look very closely at this proposal that is very important to the member for Cumberland-Colchester.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed that he was ready to betray the Quebecers who voted for him in 1988 and gave him 63 seats. We all know that they got into bed all they could with the nationalists and sovereignists. Today the Prime Minister is prepared to turn around 180 degrees and deny all those who gave him power.
I ask the Prime Minister how, from his seat as Prime Minister of Canada, which he obtained with Quebec's support, he can now turn around and try to break
Quebec.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I see a constant improvement in the hon. member's situation.
Today he talks about betraying Quebecers, which I suppose means betraying a democratic mandate. I think that a careful examination of the situation would show that the only one in this debate who betrayed a democratic mandate is the member for Shefford, who was elected as a federalist Liberal in the most recent election and once elected, betrayed the people of Shefford by changing his position without consulting them.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister, I am ready to test my mandate at any time. If the Prime Minister has the same courage, let him follow me and call an election!
I challenge the Prime Minister to test his own mandate with Quebecers. He is trying to do a strongarm job on them.
I ask the Prime Minister whether he will have the nerve to go back on all the commitments he made in 1984 and 1988 and try to catch Quebec unawares as he announced yesterday, without shame or embarrassment.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a fine offer from the hon. member. He is prepared. Having crossed the floor of the House, renounced the heritage of the federalist Liberal Party which made it possible for him to be elected in Shefford and having agreed to be a minister in a federal Liberal Cabinet, he now says that others in the House have betrayed their mandate. No, it is the other way around. Now he says that he is prepared to test his mandate. It is not a big mandate, is it? It is not a big mandate, Jean, but we will test it for you. Resign and I will call a by-election as soon as possible.

Oral Questions


ASSINIBOINE RIVER
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TYanscona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It has to do with the growing concern in Manitoba about the Assiniboine River water diversion.
I wonder if the minister, having had time to make himself aware of the resolution passed by the city of Winnipeg council, which is concerned about the reduction in the quality of water flowing through Winnipeg and possible other negative environmental effects, can tell the House today if he is considering a federal environmental assessment review process for this diversion project, as has been requested by the city of Winnipeg and by numerous other groups in rural Manitoba as well.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I to thank the hon. member who had the courtesy of informing me that he would ask this question at the beginning of Question Period. I am going to look into this matter.
Maybe it would be useful for me to remind members of the House that following the Supreme Court decision in the Oldman Dam case in January, the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal government is able to do an environmental assessment review when there is an affirmative regulatory power involved.
I will look at this matter at the request of the hon. member to determine whether or not this is the case.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton- East Richmond, the Thursday afternoon question.


URBAN CENTRES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said in the House: "Mr. Speaker, I- "


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I intended that Question Period come to an end. I was recognizing the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on the Thursday question.


David Charles Dingwall: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would get unanimous consent from the Prime Minister to have at least one more question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday he said in the House: "I will be happy to meet with anyone at any time if it might be helpful in dealing with the given problem". Today the mayor of London wrote to the Prime Minister and I quote: "In response to your comments in the House of Commons on May 6,1992, we are pleased to learn of your willingness to meet with the big city mayors".
I ask the Prime Minister: Will he now meet with the big city mayors?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that I had not received the request for the meeting from the mayor of London, Ontario. I have already indicated that there have been many meetings with big city mayors across the country but that at any point in time, if any group of Canadian citizens, including big city mayors, wanted to meet with me to discuss the problems that have been raised on the floor of the House this week, I would be happy to meet with them.
That has always been my position and I would be happy to maintain it.


Mr. Speaker:: And now the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on the Thursday afternoon question.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I have several questions to put to the government House leader. Perhaps he could explain to the House the nature of the business that will take place for the remaining part of today, tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday. Thereafter, I have a number of questions pertaining to the enabling legislation as it relates to a referendum.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, this afternoon we will be commencing a special debate to take note of Canada's position at the UNCED conference in Brazil. By consent of the House that debate will carry on into the evening.
Tomorrow, Friday, May 8, and Monday, May 11, I intend to call an allotted day and I would like to officially designate tomorrow an allotted day.
On Tuesday the government will call Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release for conclusion of report stage and third reading.
In terms of business for the remainder of the week, I will engage in the usual discussions with the opposition parties to confirm that business.


David Charles Dingwall: The government House leader will know certain undertakings were given by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and by the Prime Minister with regard to meaningful consultations in terms of the enabling legislation on the referendum.
The only opportunity opposition members have had is to receive information from the government House leader, but there have been no meaningful consultations. I am wondering if the government House leader could indicate to the House and to members in this party as to whether he has an answer or if he can respond to my suggestion of yesterday as to whether a committee of members of Parliament of this House ought to be convened for the purposes of looking at the draft legislation prior to its tabling to ascertain whether there are errors and omissions or different points which may be included in this particular piece of legislation.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member seems to be suggesting is we have committee stage
Business of the House
before we have the bill introduced. I am not quite sure what advantage that provides to ensuring better legislation.
As I indicated in conversations with the hon. member, in the House leaders meeting and in the House yesterday, the intent is pretty simple. It is to basically use the Elections Act if a referendum or a plebiscite is required; to use the Elections Act in terms of enumeration, holding of polling, allocation of polling stations, et cetera.
The other questions as to rules on who may campaign and limits, et cetera, are being examined now in light of restraints under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and legal opinions have been sought on that. The government is looking at those. I will certainly discuss with the hon. member, his colleague or anybody else the leader of the New Democratic Party would designate these kinds of questions.
We are talking here about technicalities, really minutia in a sense. There are no great issues of policy here. We are talking about if a plebiscite is held, the rules of the Election Act would prevail. It will be by secret ballot and every illegible Canadian will have an opportunity to vote. There will be no question of fairness. The fairness will be there as there is in our election system and always has been.
We need to have rules that can stand up to charter challenge and that is why we cannot take off the shelf previous referenda legislation that was proposed prior to the charter. Those details are being looked at. I would be willing to discuss this with the hon. member or anybody else. That is going to happen when the bill is presented for first and second reading, committee study and so on.
I appreciate the hon. member's willingness to help. I hope there is not any suggestion that somehow there is something mysterious and nefarious going on here. All that is being done is that officials in the Privy Council Office are trying to ensure we have a legislation which, in its details, stands up to examination in view of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is all.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the undertakings which were given to the Official Opposition were that meaningful consultations would take place before the tabling of the bill. There is a marked distinction between meaningful consultations and directives which come from the government House leader.

Business of the House
I am happy to hear on the floor of the House of Commons that the government House leader has now said there are no substantive policy issues that one has to be concerned with with regard to this particular bill. It is merely a discussion of technicalities.
If that is the case, it is all the more reason for members of Parliament to be given the opportunity in a meaningful way to sit down with the government House leader and to look at the draft proposals from PCO, the Department of Justice, in order to ascertain if there are particular technicalities in the bill, which we may see as being very obvious, which can be corrected prior to the tabling of the bill.
I cannot understand why the minister now tends to purport on one hand that it is merely technical information contained in the bill. In his letter to me, he says: "These questions include provisions for spending, advertizing limits, the use of public funds, the length of a potential referendum campaign, and the manner in which to enumerate". All of these things are technical.
Some of those issues will be looked at by the Chief Electoral Officer. I cannot understand why the hon. government House leader is going back on the undertaking of his colleagues, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the Prime Minister, to have meaningful consultations prior to the tabling of the bill.
Why can the hon. minister not see to a very reasonable request?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I have no problem receiving the request, if the member is going to be here on the weekend, to work with me on the details.
The problem the hon. member is dismissing is that when the bill is brought before this House and everybody sees it, we have a second reading debate on it. In the mother of Parliaments, that usually takes about two hours. In this Parliament, for some reason, it takes a couple of days.
Nevertheless, you then go to committee and all of the things that the hon. member talked about happen.
All of the things that the hon. member just described are what happens in a committee that works properly.
You look at each and every clause, you find out whether it is appropriate, whether there are some glitches. Virtually, without exception, every bill that comes from here ends up being corrected and improved as a result of inputs at committee. That is the way we study legislation.
Why the hon. member is suggesting that somehow there is something devious going on in this instance, I do not know. I am really beside myself.
Remember that the important question here is not the details as to how we would hold a referendum. It will be by secret ballot with every Canadian eligible to vote and under a set of rules that is charterable. It will be fair.
The question of what is to be posed if there is a referendum, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the Prime Minister made it very clear that this particular issue would be discussed with the leaders of the federal parties in the House.
To make sure that the hon. member's paranoia does not get carried away too far, as I indicated Tuesday at our House leader's meeting and as I repeated yesterday in the House and as I repeat now, in terms of the technicality of the bill, the bill is not ready today because we are ensuring that those details are taken care of.
If the hon. member wants to come into my office on Sunday and take a look at some of those details, I would be pleased to sit down with him and look at each and every clause. It will merely be to do what we will have to do anyway when the bill is brought to the House and is treated in its usual fashion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The usual Thursday afternoon question is turning into a debate.
All the questions have been answered for the time being. I see that the hon. member representing the New Democratic Party is rising and I am quite prepared to hear him. I hope we are not going to repeat what has been done so far if we want to get into the special debate.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
I do not know if you were in the chair when I had risen to ask my question, but I did indicate quite clearly that I had a number of specific questions with regard to the enabling legislation as it pertains to the referendum.
I have one other question that I would like to pose to the government House leader.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am quite prepared to hear the hon. opposition House leader. He must understand that the Chair has a point in saying that the Thursday question should not turn into debating a bill which has not been tabled in the House.
I will listen to the hon. member and I will then go to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, for the clarification of the Chair, it is precisely why I asked these questions; in order that the business of the House can be done expeditiously.
What I am attempting to do now since there was a clear undertaking of meaningful consultations given, and it is my understanding that all three national parties have agreed that they will try to pursue or facilitate this bill in an expeditious manner, is to try and ascertain from the government House leader the rationale for refusing to have members of this Parliament to meet with him early next week in order to go over some of the preliminary points which he believes to be important for the bill and in order that there be no errors of omissions. That is all I am asking the government House leader.
If the Chair has difficulties with that, I would respectfully suggest to the Chair that what we are attempting to do here is to expedite legislation which will be coming forward to this House.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, this question was answered to the hon. member in a House leader's meeting. It was answered in the House. It was answered again today. I have given all the assurances necessary. What he is attempting here is to discredit this process, to show that somehow something is going on. There is absolutely no basis for that; none whatsoever, absolutely none. I am not sure why this game is being played but I remind him that what is at stake here is the future of the country.
Let us not get off into these partisan games for the sake of short term political gains when what is at stake is the future of the country.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I suppose that is a moot point; whether there
Business of the House
are any partisan games going on. I do not think we should carry this debate any further. We ought to get on to debating UNCED and what is going to happen to the entire planet, not just Canada.
I do urge the government House leader to consider a larger problem. If the government is serious about wanting the co-operation of opposition federal parties in saving the country, in facilitating a resolution to our constitutional crisis, it has to consider how frustrating it can be for us who want to co-operate when at the same time the government wants to keep its cards close to its chest and play them on its own timetable in a way that it chooses.
There is a legitimate point underlying what the government House leader sees as paranoia and that is if we are going to co-operate in saving the country, that co-operation has to be as comprehensive and as extensive as possible. That might even include consulting people about legislation before it is tabled. I understand there is a committee process. That will happen. I do not think that you should rule out of hand the suggestion that there could have been this kind of consultation before hand. That is all I have to say.


Harvie Andre: Last Tuesday, the hon. member was there. I took the opportunity at the House leaders meeting to talk about the specifics of this bill and what was happening. I told hon. members exactly the circumstances that legal opinions were being sought in terms of various options and until those legal opinions are in, there is nothing to discuss and no decisions can be made.
I undertook at that point to get back to hon. members. The very next day, the hon. member's leader stands up in the House and asks specifically the question that I had relayed to him and to the House leader of the New Democratic Party. For what purpose? The information was given to the NDP House leader and the hon. member at that meeting.
The very next day, the leader of the New Democratic Party stood up and asked a question on that. For what purpose? Was it for information? Hardly. It was for the purposes of being on the tube and making some points. It was the same thing for the hon. House leader of the Liberal Party. What is the purpose of these questions? Was it to get information that was not provided to him in person in that meeting or by way of a letter? That is not the purpose. It is for the purposes of being on television, to make the point.

Business of the House


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: I did not heckle when the hon. members on the other side were speaking. I would appreciate if the member for Hamilton West would allow me to speak and the courtesy of finishing my remarks.
As I have said to the hon. member and the House leader of the Liberal Party, privately in a meeting, by way of letter and again in the House, once we have this information together, once we are able to make some decisions as to what is possible, I will again be discussing with him, his House leader or whomever they want to designate. If every time in House leaders' meetings I bring up talk about government plans and legislation it is the very next day to be the subject matter of partisan attacks in Question Period, that is not going to be much of an incentive for me to want to involve opposition House leaders in these discussions.
It is a two-sided coin. I am willing to involve them if we can assume that we will operate in a responsible fashion and will not use the information that we talk about in those things for the purposes of partisan advantage, which is what has been happening here, I am afraid.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I will get back to House business in a normal way and not comment on the referendum discussion, which is becoming a referendum debate. I am certainly not party to any House leaders. This is a legitimate House question. I had already telegraphed in advance that I was going to ask it this Thursday.
Has the House leader, with all the other meetings he has had, had a chance to discuss with the Minister of Veterans Affairs when the bill is going to come in to remedy the wrong to merchant marines in terms of legislation that we all generally agree with and is the basis of a committee report? It would be a great 125th birthday present to people who helped saved this country in a very difficult time.


Harvie Andre: As a matter of fact I have had that conversation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I had the second part of that conversation a couple of hours ago.
The legislation is in the Department of Justice being drafted. He told me that just this morning he asked that it be accelerated and brought forward. I indicated to him that as soon as the justice department has finished its drafting I would welcome it and intend to bring it forward to House leaders to have it passed as quickly as possible.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That could be next May.


Harvie Andre: I think we are talking about days, not weeks.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the government House leader leaves I want to indicate that we reject outright the assertion by the government House leader that we were attempting to play partisan advantage here. We are asking simple questions with regard to procedure which may expedite the passage of legislation which the government and which we, and I believe my colleagues to the left, support in principle and wish to see passed in this House.
I reject outright the assertions of the government House leader. If he were an honourable colleague, he would do the appropriate thing and apologize to the House.


Harvie Andre: I will hope and expect and operate on the basis that the hon. member does not seek or want partisan advantage and that from now on we can carry on these discussions as we usually do through private conversations in my office and he will not use the excuse of the Thursday question to take partisan shots at me.
I am willing to discuss legislation coming, its details and any aspect that I can within the constraints of a Privy Council oath, but I am not willing to stand up and be abused in the House of Commons by charges which are simply false.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We have debated enough on the subject and we should proceed to Orders of the Day.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to indicate to the House that I do accept the apology of the government House leader.



SPECIAL DEBATE


Jean J. Charest: That this House take note of the Canadian position at the United
Nations Conference on the Environment and Development.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the honour to begin this important debate on Canada's participation in the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development. This special debate was made possible with the co-operation of members of this House and concerns a subject and an event that will no doubt be a landmark in the history of Canada and the world.

I am very pleased to rise today in support of this motion. I want to take this opportunity to talk of Canada's participation, not only of the conference itself but obviously of the work leading into this very important conference, especially given the fact that Canada has been fully committed to the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development.
It is important to point out for the memory of this House and for all Canadians that we backed this initiative from the very beginning. It is this country that was one of the original co-sponsors of the resolution calling for what is better known as the earth summit. We have been one of its most vigorous supporters ever since, financially and in other ways also. We have also done so because we understand that environmental problems demand a co-operative approach, not only within the country itself, but within nations and between nations.
It has become quite evident over the last few years that countries cannot settle for protecting only those ecosystems that lie within their their borders. Air, water, fish and wildlife are not contained by national boundaries or internal lines of jurisdiction.
Pollution generated in one country or in one hemisphere impacts on another, as we and our neighbours
The Environment
have learned in one very important instance with the acid rain file. There are a great many lessons we have brought forward from that experience. One of the most important lessons in the case of acid rain is that Canada alone could not solve the problem. If we are going to find some answers to the very difficult questions and issues we were faced with, it became critical for us, as a country, to enlist the help and co-operation of our neighbours from the south at the time.
This is true also for other issues. Canadians recently have been very concerned with scientific information about the depletion of the ozone layer. NASA came out with some reports and Environment Canada also voiced some concerns about a potential situation that could have happened this spring. There was more depletion this spring than in the past, given particular circumstances.
We also realized through this debate that in the case of ozone depletion, Canada contributes to about 2 per cent of the problem. Recent scientific data seem to indicate that we are paying more than 2 per cent of the price for the problems we are dealing with and that if we are going to effectively deal with this issue of ozone depletion, we must absolutely enlist the help of all countries around the world.
This is true also in other areas. Fish stocks, for example, is an area in which we have recently had experiences that also lead us inevitably to this conclusion. We have learned recently that the 200-mile limit, the line drawn on the map, does not mean much at the end of the day when dealing with an ecosystem. In the case of fish stocks, for a long time we looked at the issue of fishing in our seas as a matter of a ledger; we count the number of tonnes caught on one side for one species and count the tonnes caught by other countries and talked of traditional fishing rights.
At the end of the day, as we realized today, what is important is the ecosystem itself. The ecosystem may have very little to do at the end of the day with this 200-mile limit. For this reason we are faced with a very difficult problem in the North Seas; an issue, by the way, that Canada will be pursuing vigorously at the conference in Rio de Janeiro.

The Environment
There is also growing pressure on the environment that has mobilized a steady widening circle of co-operation. It evoked national action. We have been witness to a lot of that. One of the interesting things, to put these issues in perspective, which I do not think we appreciate enough, is that there are few areas of public administration in this country or in the history of this country that have attracted more attention by municipal provincial and federal governments than the environment.
I have tried to find a parallel. I have presented this argument to some people before. Try to find one area, whether it is education or whatever, in which there are comparisons and in which governments paid so much attention. The environment is certainly unprecedented.
At the same time, and I do not want to dwell on this, we also recognize that this being the case Canadians are also asking us to do more because they feel and they know there is a great deal that must be done in this area.
It is with this recognition of global threats that the circle I was talking about a few seconds ago has widened. The life support systems that make this planet habitable or under increasingly dangerous pressure. The cause of that stress is development conducted with a blind eye to the environment. This kind of development is unsustainable because it cannot be kept up; eventually it cuts the ground from under us.
At the same time, we understand that economic and industrial growth cannot be put on hold. That is the other side of the coin. Four out of five people on this planet live in what are called developing countries. Their daily reality is about poverty, it may very much be about hunger and, in some cases, their plight is a plight for survival.
This is a challenging issue for us. We have to also recognize for their sake and for the sake of the world that we do need economic growth, but we must switch to a mode of development that is sustainable.
To use an economic metaphor, we have to start living on our environmental interest and stop eroding its capital.
The purpose of the earth summit is to attempt to change course in the direction of sustainable development. We must take that beginning now. The pressures are building very fast. This conference is about those pressures which we have to deal with.

Let me illustrate an aspect of the challenge facing us. According to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, in June 1992, during the month of the earth summit, our planet will have around 5.48 billion inhabitants. That will be the approximate population of planet earth. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities estimates that our planet will have about 10 billion inhabitants in the year 2150, according to present projections and trends. Demographics is not an absolute science, but the projection is a reasonable figure.
Most of this growth, and the industrial and economic activity that goes with it, will be in the developing countries. Make no mistake: the less fortunate countries of our world will refuse to bear the burden of the environmental security that everyone needs now. We must be realistic about it. Those countries will not give up the development objectives that the industrialized nations themselves pursued and attained and which, by the way, made it possible for us to have the standard of living that we enjoy today. Quite frankly we will have to consider this aspect as well in today's debate.
These countries are aware of the importance of sustainable development. However, they also say they cannot afford to make the necessary changes unless they receive financial and technical assistance from those who can provide it. Unless the rich and not so rich countries find a way to work together to achieve sustainable development, our environment will suffer the consequences.
The primary objective of the earth summit and the preparatory talks is to kick off a global co-operation initiative on implementing the concept of sustainable development. At the present time, the nations of the world are drifting into hazardous waters. The UN conference, and I would like to make this clear, is about both environment and development. There is a common tendency to stress the environmentalal aspect, and in any case, people are talking a lot about the environment nowadays, but when we talk about environment and development we realize that basically we are often talking about the same thing.


[DOT] v?
w.


Canada has been very supportive of this conference, and in fact Canada's role is entirely in the Canadian tradition. Canada has been one of the great promoters of co-operation in international affairs.
I am thinking, for instance, of the United Nations and a tradition each one of us can be proud of. There is also the leadership role we play within the Commonwealth and the leadership role we have the privilege of playing-because it is a privilege-in the Franco-phonie. There is also the Organization of American States, where Canada recently became a member.
It is all part of a tradition in this country of which we may be extremely proud. It is a tradition of involvement. We do not intend to stay on the sidelines. We have international responsibilities, but our national interests also dictate taking an active part in this conference.
In fact our objectives in Rio cannot be separated from our national objectives. This applies not only to Canada but to all countries taking part in this great conference.

The government is committed to sustainable development and we are acting on that commitment. Canada is one of only three countries in the world to have adopted a comprehensive long-term approach to sustainable development, our green plan.
Over a period of six years the Canadian government, along with the Canadian people and all members of this House, will dedicate its energies to this effort of sustainable development. Canada's green plan is very much at the centre of implementing and articulating this concept of sustainable development in Canada.
The green plan itself is based on that principle and adopts that vision, and also commands and obliges the government to change its ways of making decisions. As well, through a commitment of $3 billion it enables us plan over this six-year period to put forward a very important number of initiatives.
We know that we cannot do this job alone. Some of the most critical challenges we face can only be dealt with in co-operation with others; that includes every Canadian.
The Environment
There are many links between the green plan and the global plan that will be considered in Rio. For example, agenda 21 is a detailed proposal for global action developed in pre-summit negotiations. In chapter after chapter one finds proposals for action that extend and complement action under the green plan.
For example, one chapter of agenda 21 deals with toxic chemicals. It calls for measures to expand our knowledge of the risks associated with the use of these substances and it proposes measures to strengthen information exchange networks on a global scale.
These proposals mirror closely what is happening here in Canada. Last February we announced a $14 million allocation under the green plan for the creation of a national toxicology network. It will link four universities in co-operative research on toxic chemical risks.
The government also making an $85 million investment under the green plan in scientific studies to reduce uncertainties about climate change. That will complement research in agenda 21 with exactly that end in mind, because there is still a lot of uncertainty.
The nations of the world hope to agree on a convention on biodiversity. That is a separate convention which is, from the reports I have received, progressing well. Biodiversity is about saving plant and animal species, which ties in with our green plan goal of completing a national parks system in this country by the year 2000 to protect examples of all of Canada's natural regions.
It also ties in with the excellent and fantastic work done by the Canadian Wildlife Service. We now have a bill that is being examined in legislative committee, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection Act, which is very ably chaired by a member of the New Democratic caucus. We also have a $35 million wildlife strategy resulting from the green plan. In that respect I am happy to report to this House that work is progressing well and Canada is making a contribution.
The earth summit will also consider measures to promote sustainable agriculture. Under the green plan we have budgeted $170 million to pursue that goal in Canada. There are other examples.

The Environment
They all make the same point, that the goals we pursue in Canada are linked to the goals we are pursuing in Rio. The headway we make in this country will contribute to the environmental well-being of other countries. Their efforts will contribute to our own. The green plan is also very much part of the global plan.
What do we hope to accomplish in Rio? We are now little more than a month away from the summit. This is a good time to look at how far we have come in the process and what happens next. Negotiations have been underway for over two years now. There have been four meetings, what we call prep-corns. Separate meetings were also held to attempt to negotiate conventions on climate change and biodiversity, which I just talked about a few minutes ago.
There are very tough issues relating to climate change between developed and developing countries. Negotiations are happening right now in New York City. I think it is the fourth round of negotiations. With a bit of luck an agreement might result from these negotiations.
There is also separate negotiation on a statement of principles on forests. It is of great importance to this country, especially because we have on our territory 10 per cent of the world's forests and thus have a responsibility to citizens of the world for the management of this forest.
We know from experience all that is being done is not going to be easy. This whole process has been very challenging for us.
The fourth and final prep-com faces the challenge of coming up with an agreed draft for agenda 21. This was an incredibly large and complex task, particularly since consensus agreement was required. There was not a lot of optimism in the prep-com in dealing with agenda 21 when they started. In fact, they did not agree on 100 per cent of the agenda. However, negotiators did reach a meeting of the minds on about 90 per cent of the issues that they were dealing with, which represents a substantial gain.
This leaves a considerable challenge at Rio. Obviously the 10 per cent of the issues on which there was no agreement are not the easy areas. It is that 10 per cent that in most cases represents the most important challenge.
What will we achieve at Rio? It is still too early to tell because negotiations are not finished and all the countries of the world are involved. It is safe to say that we are optimistic at this time. It is also safe to assume that the negotiations may continue up until the last moment.
However, we do know that we will be on a new course. It is true that the world will not change overnight and that there are no quick fixes, but a new course will be embarked upon as we leave Rio.

We hope the earth summit will stake out new territory. In fact it cannot do otherwise. We also hope to leave Rio with certain essential elements we do not have at this moment: a plan for co-operation and some of the institutional mechanisms required to implement that plan. In fact, there is a whole debate within the confines of this conference on the kind of institutions that will come out of this debate to follow up on the decisions that will be made in Rio. These discussions may not garner the same public interest, but they will nevertheless have a tremendous impact on the implementation of the commitments that are made in Rio.
We will try to conclude a comprehensive agreement, one that with a little luck will chart a new course for the people of this planet.
Canada has a duty to do everything it can possibly can. I can give members the assurance that the government will not shirk that duty. As in the past, Canada will act as a responsible member of the international community. We will put our shoulders to the wheel in the best Canadian tradition.

In closing I would like to thank the significant number of Canadians who participated in this process. One thing about Rio, the prep - corns and the preparation going into them is that Canada did exceptionally well in including as many people from our country in this process as possible.
There were environment groups, people from industry, academics, the provinces, the cities of Toronto and Montreal. They were part of the contribution of Canada. For example, Canada is the leader in the contributions of the young people of the world to this summit.

I would like to say today, not as a member of the government but first and foremost as a Canadian citizen, how proud we all should be of the great contribution made by these people. It happened because we had a process that included them. It is Canada's insistence that we include all of these players, whether they are aboriginal people or environment groups, that has made their participation possible on a global scale.
Some of our members of Parliament, the Minister of State for the Environment for example, have taken a special interest in this conference.
I would like to single out the hon. member for Waterloo on our side of the House who has taken a special interest in all of these issues. I would especially like to single out the hon. member for Rosedale who has participated directly in some of these conferences. He has led some of our Canadian delegations and has done just a fantastic job for each and every one of us. His contribution will be felt for a long time to come.
I also would like to single out the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, who has also contributed. As we approach this conference we do it in a very non-partisan spirit, in a spirit of generosity.
I have not mentioned members from other sides of the House, but I was just getting to them. Everybody, whether it is the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard or my friends on the other side, the members for Skeena or Saanich-Gulf Islands, has participated in a spirit of generosity. We look forward to putting together a good Canadian team to go.
Finally, the Prime Minister of Canada will also be present. He has made a commitment to be in Rio, and that is probably the most significant contribution that he can personally make to this process. As we all know, it is the heads of governments who at the end of the day can make the biggest difference in this regard.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in debate today on the subject of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
It is not my interest to launch into a debate with the minister about his green plan, I will leave that to my colleague from LaSalle-Emard.
I think it is very important to have this opportunity to inform the Canadian public at large as to exactly
The Environment
what will be taking place in June in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Although, as the minister states, there may have been several Canadians involved in developing policy and posturing leading up to this very important and crucial meeting, for the most part the Canadian public is ignorant of the reality of this conference.
In order for it to be the success that we all hope it will be it is very important that the people of this country, the people of the globe, take hold of this agenda and lend their support in whatever way possible. We do want it to be a success.
UNCED, or the earth summit as it is more popularly called, is probably the most important international conference to take place this century. The topic is sustainable development in a world in which we see life threatening, environmental degradation increase every day.
There will be over 100 heads of state expected to be present at this conference. We are very pleased that a few weeks ago our own Prime Minister mentioned his intention to attend. Today we are even further encouraged by the announcement that President Bush of the United States who it was felt would boycott this important conference, will probably attend. There will be 6,000 delegates in attendance at this conference.
The event will include both an official forum of heads of state and delegates accompanying heads of state. As well a parallel non-government organization forum will have an important impact on the output from the UNCED conference.
As Canadians we should all be very proud that the leader of this conference, the secretary-general of this conference, is our very distinguished and respected Canadian Maurice Strong. Maurice Strong was also the head of the crucial Stockholm conference on the human environment which took place 20 years ago in 1972.
At that particular conference there were 113 countries represented but not by heads of state. The Stockholm conference marked the first time ever that nations met to discuss environmental degradation and at that particular conference secured the recognition of the environment as an internationally urgent issue and produced the first ever action plan on the environment.

The Environment
It produced the United Nations environmental program which looks after the agenda that came out the Stockholm conference. It produced the first ever international environmental laws. It produced public awareness of the issues and the coming into existence of many non-government organizations, development and citizens groups, and voluntary groups.
These groups have been very important in applying political pressure for the achievement of environmental goals. Since then, NGOs and businesses have put the environment on their agenda.
Just to underline the importance of the involvement of people and their understanding of the issues I refer to an article that appeared in The New York Times yesterday which was referring to the fact that it is probable that President Bush with attend this conference. I would like to quote from this article. It says:
Bush has repeatedly voiced great skepticism about the conference. For most of this year, while his aides haggled over the fine points of treaties and declarations, he has publicly fretted that the conference would become a soapbox for poor nations to demand billions in environmental technology and cash handouts that the White House neither has nor intends to pledge.
But Bush is apparently going anyway, because an alliance of political advisers and policy experts has persuaded him that he cannot afford to stay home.
That group is said to believe that Bush's absence would be an abdication of global leadership, because most major leaders will be at the conference and strongly support its goals.
The meeting also bears potentially huge political implications for Bush. Aides believe that his failure to attend would blot his environmental record at a time when the issue has become a major factor in the votes of young people and in some large states, such as California and Florida.
I would like to emphasize again the importance of the Canadian public being aware of what exactly is taking place in Rio de Janeiro in June of this year. By understanding what the issues are they themselves can be involved and participate in the process of the success of the Rio conference.
At the Stockholm conference in 1972, even then developing countries, the countries of the Third World, insisted that the primary source of environmental problems in the world were poverty and underdevelopment. Since that environmental conference, it is sad to say that little progress has been made.
In fact a UNDP report which was published just a few weeks ago indicates that the gap between the world's rich and poor has doubled in the last 30 years.
The north is statistically the world's greatest polluter, but the late Prime Minister of India, Indira Ghan-di, stated years ago that poverty is the greatest polluter. We do not need a debate to settle this ignominious honour, but we do need to recognize that present industrialization and economic policies in the north and poverty issues in the south must be addressed concurrently.
The visibility of the current crisis is evident in many ways. Environmental degradation is most readily seen in the pollution of lakes and rivers, deforestation, global warming, nuclear contamination, desertification, soil salination. The list goes on and on.
However, it is also obvious we have a crisis when one considers that we are now involved globally in natural resource conflicts of which we all remember so well, the first and most dramatic being the gulf war and more recently, the problems we have experienced on the east coast of our country through the depletion of cod stocks. Will water be the next resource conflict? Where will that conflict occur? Right here in North America?
The southern U.S. has an eye cast on our fresh water resources in this country and certainly, in the Middle East, water as a natural resource is a source of conflict.
However, as pitiful and as serious as these crises are, we can contrast them with environmental actions that have been undertaken which have had a positive impact.
First of all, we can begin to look at the strategies of Germany, Japan and Switzerland. Those countries are very powerful economically throughout the world, as we all know, but it is those same countries that have taken on the economy as it relates to environment as an important agenda item. The fact that they have imposed upon themselves strict environmental standards has not hampered but, in fact, improved their economic performance.
We are very concerned in Canada about signing a North American free trade agreement with Mexico because of the environmental degradation which exists there and whether or not coming into an economic alliance with Mexico will pull our environmental standards down to the lowest common denominator.

We have to consider, however, that there is another possibility and that Mexico, starting from the base may be able, much more easily than Canada, to impose environmental standards on its economic development. There are indications already that this is the case.
On the Ivory Coast, a Third World country in western Africa, attempts have been made to deal with environmental problems. China is committed to a growth of 12 per cent in its gross national product in the next years, but in order to do so they require development and that requires energy. Their basic source of energy is coal. If we are to prevent a tremendous increase in environmental degradation from this nation which represents one-quarter of the world's population, we must do more to help China technically to prevent this environmental degradation.
The Stockholm conference spawned what has become known as the World Commission on Environment and Development or the Brundtland commission after its first chairman. This commission produced a report called, Our Common Future in 1987. Although many reports become dated within a few years of their publication, I would say this is a report that still can be recommended as most important reading for all Canadians. It is as relevant today, if not more so, than when it was first published.
It presents a strong message on environment and development and the fact that environment and development must be fully integrated into every aspect of economic and social policy. There must be equal emphasis on the responsibilities of developing countries and industrial countries.
As a result of the publishing of this report, the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 mandated the earth summit or the UNCED conference which will take place in June in Brazil.
In the meetings that have been held which were referred to by the minister leading up to Brazil in June, Maurice Strong, is quoted as saying:
The Earth Summit must establish a whole new basis for relations between rich and poor, north and south, including a concerted attack on poverty as a central priority for the 21st century.
The Environment
This is now as imperative in terms of our environmental security as it is on moral and humanitarian grounds. We owe at least this much to future generations, from whom we have borrowed a fragile planet called Earth.
What is the earth summit about? It is about sustainable development. A definition of sustainable development from our common future is as follows: sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The goals of the summit in Brazil are various. They will bring together, as I said before, heads of states and grass roots representation in the process. We hope that it will come with a new political commitment to a global war on poverty and development, that the north and south both, through economic change in their management of resources and their lifestyle, can bring about a world where we only know sustainable development.
We do need, as others have said, a new equal industrial revolution. Regulatory measures and laws alone will not solve the problems of sustainable development and environmental degradation. Regulatory measures must be balanced by incentives. The incentives of the marketplace can be important. In fact even in Canada we are beginning to see the incentives of the marketplace taking place in our pulp and paper industry in Canada.
Canada in the past has had a good reputation but that reputation is in jeopardy. Certainly our pulp and paper industry and their methods have been great contributors to pollution in this country. However, because now different countries of the world such as Germany are refusing to purchase pulp and paper produced in polluting Canadian industries, our pulp and paper industry is being forced to turn around and improve its methods and come up to higher environmental standards.
The south has needs. It needs to have an improved professional capacity in order to be able to assess its choices of development. It also needs the scientific and technical capacity to make this transition to sustainable development.

The Environment
The responsibility of the north is enormous. We have a large responsibility in making trade fairer. We talk now of the greening of the GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. We must be open and find new ways of providing technical transfers in agriculture, energy, natural resource base sustainability, pollution control, et cetera. We must put an emphasis on the development of local solutions to environmental problems in the Third World through technology co-operation.
We need a new and improved UN system of global governance. This is essential. Institutions of the United Nations must be assessed and modified to improve their ability to cope with global governance needs.
To quote Mr. Strong again: "Global environmental and economic security require global co-operation". We have important United Nations' structures in place right now which, with modification, can meet the challenges of the future.
There are three specific outcomes of the Brazil conference.
First, it is hoped that we will have an earth charter which is legally binding. At the present we have a declaration of principles which was agreed to at the fourth prep -com meeting in New York. It was felt, because of the division between north and south in terms of the agenda for Brazil, that we would not even come as far as the declaration which we have today. It is hoped that this declaration will become, as I said, a legally binding charter at Brazil.
We have an agenda 21 which we hope to have approved by all nations coming out of Brazil. The conference in Brazil must also deal with the means of implementing that agenda, including the commitment of financial resources. It is estimated that it will require $125 billion per year in order to achieve the agenda 21 goals by the year 2000. Fifty billion dollars is now provided of that $125 billion through aid from developed countries to developing countries. We still require an additional commitment of $75 billion. It is certainly my wish that Canada will make a commitment of additional funding to achieve agenda 21 goals before the Brazil conference.
The money that has been provided to date through the green plan is insufficient. It is an insufficient response by Canada and must be improved upon. Certainly this government's commitment to poverty alleviation has not been expressed when it comes to budget time. In fact, this government has dramatically
cut our overseas development assistance in the last three years' budgets. We all urge this government to reinstate its commitment to achieving a .7 per cent ratio of official development assistance to Gross National Product as a target.
The convention in Brazil also expects to achieve legally binding conventions on global warming, the protection of the atmosphere, biological diversity, and perhaps forest, ocean and other natural resource
protections.
In prep-com meetings leading up to the earth summit, the first three concerned the environmental agenda of the north at the expense of the development of the agenda of the south. The fourth prep-com meeting did produce a proposed declaration which includes many of the principles reflecting the priorities of the countries of the south. I would like to mention just a few of those in passing.
Principle No. 3, for example, states that the countries meeting in Rio de Janeiro recognize the right to development must be fulfilled as to equitably meet development and environmental needs of present and future generations. All states and all people shall co-operate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development in order to decrease the disparities and standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.
The indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices.
The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.
Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.
Many new initiatives have been taken preparatory to UNCED or the earth summit in Canada. Women and native peoples have met internationally. Nongovernment organizations representing north and south, environmental and development groups have met. Today we had a declaration from the Canadian non-government organizations involved in preparing for UNCED. This afternoon as I speak, the International Development Research Council is discussing the south agenda for Brazil. Parliamentarians through

Parliamentarians for Global Action, an international organization representing parliamentarians around the world, have met to try and improve and direct the agenda of Rio.
Other colleagues of mine will speak to these various agendas and efforts to make sure that Brazil is a success. I would particularly like to mention that our own Liberal caucus held a round table in February on UNCED in which we heard from experts on a variety of sustainable development fields. The discussion at that time resulted in the development of our own recommendations which will be pursued later in this debate.
In conclusion, I think it is important today to build public awareness and the public base of support which is required in order that the political will of Canadians and all international leaders will be such that UNCED can be an opportunity to proclaim and be proclaimed a success.
I would just like to finish by quoting Maurice Strong once more. He said: "Rio in 1992 will build on the foundations established in Stockholm in 1972. The people of our planet, especially our youth and the generations which follow them, will hold us accountable for what we do or fail to do at the earth summit in Rio. Earth is the only home we have; its fate is literally in our hands".


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to begin this debate for the New Democratic Party this afternoon on the earth summit, the UN Conference on Environment and Development.
Following on from the comments of the Minister of the Environment and Canada's leadership role, we should be proud as Canadians that Maurice Strong is the secretary-general of the earth summit. He along with Arthur Campeau, who is Canada's ambassador to the earth summit, have something in common. Both of these men came from strong business careers. Both of these men at a point later in their lives said: "Is this all there is?" and decided to turn their energies to something really worth while aside from making money. That is, trying to save the planet. They provide an example which this government should follow; stop worrying about the bottom line, start worrying about the planet.
The Environment
This calls for a fundamental rethinking. This is a call that has come from all-party committees on numerous occasions in this House. We have to stop thinking about the financial criteria as being uppermost in any thinking and start realizing that basic human objectives are at stake here.
I must say in these days that are left before the convening of the earth summit that events have not made me optimistic. I know that Maurice Strong has been travelling the globe trying to patch together real change coming up to the earth summit. This afternoon and this evening, we are debating the Canadian position. Let us make it clear how this Canadian position has been obtained. This is a government position. There has been no consultation with the members of the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party on any of the positions determined here.
This is a neo-Conservative corporate agenda that is framing the so-called Canadian position. No opposition members of Parliament were included in any of the preparatory conferences. Oh, no. What we had to do was depend on the non-governmental organizations and the aboriginal peoples, and they did a very good job in keeping us informed. Including those groups actually may have changed the minds of the government delegation.
I would like to turn to the Prime Minister's quotes in his comments before the non-governmental organizations this past week. I quote: " Canada's international reputation depends on what we do at home". I agree but I do not know whether that is a laudatory comment or a negative comment. His second quote is: "Canada is exemplary".
I went to the dictionary and looked up in the Concise Oxford dictionary what the word exemplary meant. There were four definitions. One, it is fit to be imitated; two, typical; three, illustrative; four-and this is my choice-serving as a warning.
Canada's role here is serving as a warning for what the rest of world should not do. There has been a pattern established about how this government performs. It is nice talk, little action. I will give examples. I can see the government members getting a little uncomfortable about this because we are supposed to be non-partisan. I am tired of being non-partisan when there is nice talk and little action.

The Environment
As an example, I served on an all-party committee, the subcommittee on international debt, a subcommittee of the external affairs committee. This committee would focus this debate on the UN Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED, and put the 'D' back in UNCED because that is what needs to be done.
I want to talk about population issues. Somehow it is almost too polite to talk about it at the earth summit. We do not want to talk about population issues. It will sort of get the imagination flowing as to how population increases. We would not want that. I also want to talk about militarism and, finally, climate change.
On the international debt issue, as I said the allparty committee came out with recommendations. What did this government do? Put the report on the shelf. It is collecting dust. It has not initiated one fundamental recommendation from an all-party committee. Nice talk, little action.
The statistics are numbing on international debt. The World Bank estimates that Third World debt now exceeds $1.3 trillion-that is trillion with a t. The human cost of servicing this massive debt is having a debilitating effect on developing countries. In fact protracted international debt prices, a grave unsustainable financial burden, have become the principal obstacle to development for much of the world's poor majority.
The committee believed then, two years ago, and believes now that Canada's interests in a healthy and secure global order are profoundly at stake in finding solutions to what is part of a larger north-south crisis.
The committee in its response to the government's non-response pointed out, and said it very concisely, and I quote from the report: "Let us be forthright in stating that the response from the government tabled last November to this report is far from meeting our expectations". The response tries to convey the impression of rhetorical agreement with the committee's report when in fact in substantive terms the committee's recommendations are mostly rejected without alternative initiatives.
This is the crime of it. This government thinks that nice talk, nice words, are good enough. They are not.
We are talking about the crisis of our planet. This is what the earth summit is supposed to be addressing. What this government is doing is nothing, or very little. The Prime Minister said "Canada's international reputation depends on what we do at home". This is a condemnation of what we do at home.
Further on in that report on international debt there is a quote from Paul Krugman from an issue of Foreign Policy. There is something we can do. We are not paralysed in this instance. We can do something. He argues persuasively in the article: "Debt relief is cheap". He points out that the market value of the $400 billion owed by the highly indebted countries is only about one-third that amount. Even that overstates the true cost of forgiving the portion of the debt.
Krugman calculates that cancelling half the total debt might impose a one time cost of $25 billion on creditors. It sounds like a lot of money. However, put it next to the $500 billion that has been put to the savings and loan bailout in the United States, or put it up next to the $50 billion United States cost of engaging in the gulf war. The total costs of the war and the reconstruction will run to hundreds of billions of dollars.
This is I think a useful comparison. He concludes: "The United States and other industrial countries must take advantage of the opportunity to do so much good for so little money". So there is something that this government could be doing.
I urge this government to start shaking up those that are really running the show, eliminate the complacency and grab them by the neck and pull their heads out of the sand. Our planet is at stake. I do not understand why people are being so complacent. Perhaps we are a little too comfortable here. I am not comfortable.
There is a large unacknowledged gulf between the approach emphasizing financial criteria and those that see human basic objectives as the overriding concern. The Canadians that I began the speech in complimenting, Maurice Strong and Arthur Cam-peau, have learned that. Why has the Prime Minister not learned that? There is something he can do.

I would like now to turn to the population issue. As I said, this is almost too polite to talk about. This is the fundamental issue. If we do not solve the population issue, we are all going to be history.
What is required is that we have to remove the barriers to women. We have to overthrow the patriarchal institutions. In our desire not to offend sensibilities, we have become paralysed. Women have to have control of their reproductive capacity; not churches, not governments, not men. Women. We are not vacuous creatures. We do control our own cycles. We know how to do it, if we are given the power to do it.
We are not doing it by imposing birth control measures, but by removing the barriers to power for women. Through education and literacy programs women are much more in tune with the cycle of this world just because of their own biology. That is why the patriarchal institutions have been afraid of allowing that power to be demonstrated.
However, there are those women right around the globe who are saying: "Enough already. You guys have run the show so far. Put it over to us and we'll run it from now on and we'll do a far better job".
I would like now to turn to militarism, the other item I wanted to talk about. These are all wonderfully connected. I point to an article in The Globe and Mail today talking about $7 billion for a fleet of submarines, naval patrol vessels. I go back to the different perspective that women might have. Why are these bigger, better toys needed? It is not the women of the world who are demanding them.
Militarism and the environment are not even on the agenda because who is controlling the agenda? It is not the women who met in Miami last November.
I point to an article in the Montreal Gazette of March 18: "World's armed forces are worst polluters-global military spending reaches trillion dollars, but little is used to fight environmental problems". It reads:
The world's armed forces are the single biggest polluter on the
planet-global military spending has reached a trillion dollars yet
there is little money available to fight global warming or other
serious environmental threats.
The Environment
In the United States, the Pentagon generates more than five times the toxic waste produced by the five major chemical companies.
With these statistics one wonders if the world has gone mad. What are the priorities of this planet? Is it to buy more submarines and naval patrol vessels?
That is why I ask for women to be in power because those priorities would change. There would be fundamental change, fundamental rethinking. That is what we in this party are trying to do.
I would like now to turn to climate change. In the United States a report has recently been published. It is entitled "America's Energy Choices". It is a real solid condemnation of the American priorities on atmospheric change. Four agencies put together a computerized modelling system. They tested four models: a reference case, which is the status quo, this is how things have been done; they put a market case as to how consumers would be affected; they put an environmental case; and finally they put a climate stabilization case. They considered that the most aggressive case.
I quote from page 2 of their executive summary on that climate stabilization case:
National energy requirements in 2030 would be cut nearly in half from the reference case with renewable energy sources providing more than half of our energy supply.
Our nation's petroleum consumption would steadily decrease to just one-third of current levels by 2030.
Carbon dioxide emissions would be cut by more than 25 per cent from 1988 levels by 2005, and by more than 70 per cent by 2030.
Consumers would save $5 trillion in fuel and electricity costs over the next 40 years; subtracting the $2.7 trillion additional investment needed to achieve this, we estimate a net saving of some $2.3 trillion.
Why are they not doing this? It is because the policies of the current Government of the United States and the marketplace are structured in such a way to encourage the wasteful use of fossil fuels. There is no fundamental rethinking here on climate change at all.
That is why we see in preliminary reports out of New York this morning that it appears the climate change convention to be signed tomorrow will have no binding commitments to targets or schedules. There will be no funding for developing countries. There is no mechanism for technology transfer.

The Environment
In short, the convention has been gutted for shortterm economic interests. This is why it is very difficult to be optimistic. The short-term economic interest, those financial considerations I referred to earlier, are the ones that seem to be primary in the governments. That is not just in the United States government but in our own government.
We have these wonderful words about climate stabilization, goals, targets and timetables within the green plan, but we do not seem to have an implementation plan on how to achieve it. I do give the government credit. It is saying the right things. It is just that it is not doing the right things. Picky though I am, I think one should follow the other.
In conclusion, this is a condemnation of the work that has gone on by this government. It is not good enough. The whole neo-Conservative attitude of "let the market look after it; do not interfere with the big multinationals" is imperilling our planet.
It is only through the forceful speaking of the non-governmental organizations, from the aboriginal people who, by the way, seemed to manage quite well before we ever came here in demonstrating sustainable development. This is the challenge.
We have to change the way we live. We have to reduce our consumption patterns. We have to start valuing what is important, rather than how much money we have in our pockets or in our bank accounts. If we do not do that, it is not just we who will suffer, it is our children and our grandchildren.
Having given that rather dreary picture, I want to conclude by a call to those people who believe that there is still something they can do and I believe that. The energy that has come forth from Canadians generally, not from the government but the non-governmental organization sector, from aboriginal people, from churches, they can do more. They will do more. They will not despair.
I would like to conclude with a quote that I see regularly in the office of my colleague, the member for Skeena. It is a quote from Walt Taylor: "Optimism is essential for life, even when it may not seem justified by the evidence available". The evidence available does not encourage optimism. However, we cannot give into despair.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I would like to return to a non-partisan tone in the debate.
The member who just spoke said that she had determined that there had to be some partisanship and she demonstrated it.
I would just like to point out in passing that the most radical status governments in the world have also produced the most pollution and have become economic and environmental wastelands. Whenever you turn things over to state planning, people become less important.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs recently said that the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is not an end in itself, it is the beginning. For the first time we, the citizens of planet earth, have a chance to work together for sustainable development, a goal in which we all have a stake. This is a true global partnership. It comes at a pivotal time when the world is less interested in dividing into camps and more interested in solving fundamental problems.
When the UN charter was crafted nearly a half century ago it envisioned a world in which nations would work together for peace. Making peace and keeping it meant not only avoiding conflicts but also getting to the very roots of these conflicts, the economic and social conditions of mankind.
Over the years, the United Nations has steadily worked to address these root issues despite tremendous political divisions and differing visions of a just world. Tangible efforts have been made to improve human rights and promote economic development. Twenty years ago, the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment made the world aware of the environmental costs of economic growth, whether it was from population pressures, industry or agriculture.
Institutions were put in place to gather data and develop procedures for monitoring environmental degradation. The United Nations environment program was established. Countries began to co-operate and minimize environmental damage to the air, land and waters which sustain life on this planet.

The next decades brought international agreements to deal with such issues as waste management, the depletion of the ozone layer and protection of endangered species. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea included rules for dealing with marine pollution and the conservation and management of living resources. Environmental issues were regularly considered by the UN General Assembly and became a part of UN policies and programs.
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development lead by Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway took a new look at economic development and its impact on the environment. Where Stockholm had raised the question, Brundtland pointed to an answer. Development must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In other words, it must be sustainable.
The United Nations decision in 1989 to convene in Rio de Janeiro the UN Conference on Environment and Development demonstrated a global commitment to tackling this new challenge on the international agenda. The subsequent decisions to negotiate conventions on climate change and biodiversity affirmed international political will to resolve special global issues in a framework which recognizes their environmental and developmental aspects.
The convention negotiations and the preparations for Rio have been daunting. Countries from all different types of political and economic persuasions have worked to forge a basic understanding of what we have to achieve. Environment and development are still seen by many as competing, not complementary objectives. It has been difficult for countries to adopt the new thinking called for in the Brundtland report.
We must persevere, as the Prime Minister said two days ago. We should see environment and development as two sides of the same coin. Despite all the differences, countries have accomplished a great deal in preparation for Rio.
Some outstanding issues remain. They must and they will be addressed. What has truly emerged from the discussion and debate is that the United Nations has been the dynamic forum it was designed to be. UNCED is the beginning of a process to secure our common future.
The Environment
As a founding member of the United Nations, Canada is firmly committed to the organization. We are great defenders of multilateral diplomacy. Working in the UN system and other international organizations has allowed us opportunities to build bridges to solutions whether through international agreements, co-operative arrangements or common action plans.
When the Stockholm conference was launched in the UN as an idea whose time had come, Canada was among its first champions. We supported the establishment of the UN environment program. Indeed, its first head was an illustrious Canadian, Maurice Strong, who has served as secretary-general for both the Stockholm and the Rio conferences.
Canada was the first to recognize the significance of sustainable development. The government promoted and funded the creation of the Brundtland commission and hosted one of its fact finding missions. We endorsed the commission's report.
Canada was among the first to propose the convening of UNCED and help draft the complex UN resolutions which launched it. Similarly, we played a lead role in setting up the negotiation processes for the climate change in bio-diversity conventions, recognizing that a true global partnership included not only nations but groups and individuals. We fought for and got governments to agree to the participation of non-governmental organizations. The input of such groups as business, environment, development, aboriginal people, women and youth has been crucial to achieving positive results in preparation for Rio.
Canadians have a profound connection to their environment. Our vast land of forests, mountains and lakes, the great Arctic expanses, their surrounding seas are all an intrinsic part of our national consciousness. Canadians depend on natural resources. We understand the political and economic imperative of managing those resources and protecting the environment which nurtures them.
Thus, our commitment to strengthening international efforts to protect environment and promote sustainable development stems from a deepening understanding of the need to protect our habitat and our heritage.

The Environment
We have assumed a high profile in international fora like the UN and have often held the pen in drafting agreements.
At the Stockholm conference, for example, Canada drafted and negotiated a seminal principle on the sovereign right of states to exploit their own resources while at the same time recognizing their responsibility not to cause environmental damage to other states or areas beyond their jurisdiction. This has now been evolved into a principle of international law. In recent years Canada has drafted key elements in such agreements as the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer.
Through our development in assistance programs, we have assisted development countries in strengthening their capacity to manage scarce resources and minimize the environmental damage. For example, Canadian expertise has helped build up data bases, enhance environmental and resource monitoring and develop environmental impact assessment procedures and techniques.
We have assisted in making energy efficient technologies available to developing countries to help them meet growing demands for fuel and electricity. We have worked with governments and other organizations to develop appropriate institutions for dealing with both environmental protection and economic development.
It has not been easy to agree on an action plan based on a long-term strategy described in the Brundtland commission report, but the last preparatory committee meeting of UNCED held in March did make considerable progress.
First, there was a consensus on about 90 per cent of agenda 21, an action plan for promoting sustainable development through to the 21st century of national, regional and international levels.
This covers several sectors such as forests, oceans, atmospheric questions, freshwater and land degradation. It also covered cross sectoral development issues such as poverty, health, and economic development. Some sectoral issues such as climate change await the outcome of the current negotiations for a convention taking place in New York.
Countries also generally agreed on ways in which the UN system and other international organizations should follow up the results of the earth summit. Important options on new or revitalized UN bodies
will be considered in Rio. There are to be concerted efforts to improve the UN's systems co-ordination planning and development of its programs.
As my other colleagues will elaborate, Canada had a particular interest in promoting sustainable conservation and management of living marine resources of the high seas. We also continued our efforts to ensure countries would co-operate to eliminate marine pollution from land-based sources.
We worked hard to develop the guiding principles for forest management. In all cases we and our partners from non-governmental organizations made some headway in convincing countries of the benefit to be derived from keeping renewable resources renewable.
In the case of high seas fisheries, we and some 40 like-minded countries hope to see incorporated in agenda 21 recognition of coastal state's rights and obligations with respect to straddling stocks on the high seas.
We see a diplomatic conference after Rio as a crucial first step toward implementing the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Similarly, the UN environment program has been invited to convene another conference on land based sources of marine pollution. This is part of an ongoing commitment first proposed by Canada at the 1990 Houston economic summit to develop international guidelines to deal with these serious environmental problems.
Canada is also striving to refine current principles with a view to eventual negotiation of its international convention on forests, one of which will deal with the development and management of these vital resources.
At the heart of UNCED is the need to resolve differences between the north and the south, to merge the two agendas of environment and development into one goal of sustainable development.
During the preparatory meeting, developing countries pointed out that they had to meet basic needs before dealing with their environmental consequences. They also concurred however that population pressures on fragile ecosystems and unregulated economic growth could deplete the very resources they required for their people's sustenance. Their potential to degrade the environment could be as damaging as any hazardous pollutant emitted in the industrialized countries.

Therefore, the challenge for Canada and our partners was to begin a process for dealing with environment and development from both sides of the coin. We had to come up with innovative ways to enable countries, but particularly the Third World, to reduce global risk. We had to consider ways to assist developing countries in meeting the incremental costs of adjusting their development to make it sustainable.
We had to think about traditional development assistance and how it could be improved to implement sustainable development objectives. We had to examine new ideas to mobilize new and additional financial resources, including through investment and debt arrangements.
We also had to consider the pivotal role of technology in meeting the challenge of sustainable development. Data management, energy efficiency, and waste minimization, especially in industry and agriculture, all require state of the art technology. Developing countries want preferential and concessional access to these technologies. The question of financing and technology transfer remain to be resolved in Rio, a reflection of their fundamental importance. Canada played a crucial role facilitating the complex discussions on financial resources. For our part, we are committed to providing funding for sustainable development in developing countries. This is already demonstrated, for example, by our contribution to the UN World Bank global environmental facility, to a multilateral fund to protect the ozone layer, and to international development assistance projects.
We are seeking ways to promote the transfer of environmentally sound technologies, taking into account legitimate trade and commercial rules and practices.
These are complex issues and UNCED cannot be a panacea for the problems and conflicts which have arisen on the road to Rio. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated, UNCED is not the earth's last chance. It is, however, a chance for us all to work together, governments and non-governmental organizations. Indeed, NGOs have shown us that in addition to being creative thinkers and skilful lobbyists,
The Environment
they too are shrewd negotiators on the international stage. Their visible participation in UNCED and its related processes is a pointed reminder that Rio cannot be the end of the road.
UNCED poses an extraordinary challenge to all of us. It is important that we not have raised expectations about resolving the environmental development dilemma by June 14. That is not what the conference is all about. Nations and individuals are being asked the world over to take first steps toward an ambitious long-term goal. The ecosystem is a complex web of entwined linkages. It cannot be neatly compartmentalized into different segments. The same thing holds true for us, the stakeholders of the earth. We each have a responsibility to do our part in ensuring the outcomes of UNCED are not lost on future generations. Whether as nations or ordinary folk, we can think and act locally and globally. Let us work together to take those first steps toward sustainable development.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I think you will find consent to ignore the clock so that the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, who I believe is slated to be the next speaker, could complete his comments and then private members' hour could commence at approximately 5.10 p.m.


Mr. Whittaker:: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions with our party and certainly we are in agreement on this important issue to go along with the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Mifflin:: Madam Speaker, we have had discussion with the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and we agree.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard has 20 minutes.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his courtesy, and my colleagues on this side of the House. I promise that I will not abuse the privilege which you have given me.

The Environment

It is with pleasure and great interest that I rise today to express my expectations for the coming United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, better known as the earth summit.

Rising today gives me a special pleasure. We are here to talk about the Rio conference, a conference headed by Canadian Maurice Strong, a person I have known for a long time, a Canadian indeed but one whose vision encompasses the whole world.

Let us hope that this conference will make irreversible the deep changes in attitudes and values now going on with respect to the environment and saving our planet. Basically, Canadians, like people in other countries, have started to see progress in a new light. An improved quality of life is now a more reliable indicator of progress than mere economic growth.
If people increasingly choose quality over quantity, the need to protect the world's environment will no longer be only essential, but the basic principle underlying the whole future of the human community.
The environment must be the basis of everything we do. A healthy environment is now an essential precondition for a sustainable dynamic economy. A healthy environment is a precondition for moral equity between the generations, between northern and southern countries, and even between species, it must be said.
For these reasons, we cannot be content with partial success at the Rio conference. It would be too easy to hide behind partial success and minimize the amount of work that will remain to be done.

I am now going to switch to English because I think my mother is watching and she will understand.
The challenge at Rio is very great. The world needs an action plan. It needs clear targets, as was articulated by my colleague from Northumberland in her opening speech from this side of the House. These are targets that must be implemented from the smallest
village to the UN Security Council, from the poorest hut in the south to the grandest mansion in the north.
What does this mean? It means that we must recognize that the true threat to the life support system of our ecosystem is over consumption in the north and unmet basic needs in the south. That is why the breakdown between the north and the south at the recent prep-com conference was so tragic.
Why is there environmental degradation? Why is there environmental degradation in 75 per cent of the world's population? It is because 75 per cent of the world's population is poor. Clearly this is the make or break issue for all progress at UNCED.
It appears that there will now be a global environmental facility established to fund the new costs that are associated with the measures that we hope, as my colleague from Northumberland outlined, will be brought out at the Rio convention.
The national round table in our country on environment and the economy has called on Canada to commit a minimum of $100 million a year in new and additional funding with a financial package for the developing countries to implement the earth summit's conclusions.
It is inconceivable that the Canadian government remains silent. Other countries, Japan for example, have said that their chequebooks were open.
Why do the poor cut forests that we need to breathe. They do so because when you need wood to burn in order to get heat, or when you need to build shelter, you take whatever is at your disposal. We have to begin to understand that you cannot divorce the issue of environmental degradation from the very deep issue of poverty.
UNCED is taking place at a time of great change and increasing interdependence. It is unfortunate for this reason that UNCED is taking place in isolation from the GATT. The environment is going to be the number one focus at the next trade round following the GATT. We must be prepared to introduce countervailing sanctions, not simply because countries seek to manage trade but because countries, industries, and municipalities seek to mismanage the sound administration of the ecological system of this world.
May 7, 1992

Within that context, it is unfortunate that the NAFTA does not include, within the body of its negotiation, the sound and increasingly improving environment principles and standards.
It is inconceivable that in this day and age a government would seek to negotiate a trade agreement on the continent in which we share air, water and soil and not understand that the environment must be protected within the body of that agreement and must not simply be an addendum to be dealt with later.
There is the need for new institutions, new institutional arrangements. The UN Security Council must be reconstituted, not simply on the basis of military power and the basis of economic strength, but on the basis of those nations capable of protecting the ecosystem of the world.
My colleague on this side of the House from Saanich-Gulf Islands gave a very important speech on the role of women within the context of the environment. I believe that the environment is going to be, on a world-wide basis, one of the principal means of bringing forth the role of women. They are the ones who draw the water in the Third World. They are the ones who see the food which is contaminated by pesticides. I believe that as a result of the environmental awakening in the world the role of women is going to be more clearly understood.
At Rio, the absence of women's issues is going to be felt. The same mistake will not be made again. It is the same thing in terms of indigenous people. It is very clear that there are new players entering the world scene. Those of us who would protect the environment must understand that they are crucial to that debate.
The minister spoke of the crucial need to sign major conventions such as forestry and bio-diversity. The one that I would focus on is the framework convention on climate. We have now been told, as my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands and my colleague from Northumberland said, that agreement has been reached in the New York negotiations on the framework convention on climate change. We have also been told that the agreement buckles under to American pressure. We have been told the agreement will be non-binding.
I spent my whole life in business. I do not understand a non-binding agreement. We are told it includes no targets and no timetables. We are told that it contains no mechanisms for technology transfer, no
The Environment
financial commitments for developing countries. If this is true, it is no more than a shell.
The national round table on environment and the economy recommended that Canada not sign such a convention unless it included binding targets and schedules. What is the government's position? I fear for the answer. Canada's position entering the negotiations has been to stabilize greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Will this commitment be reconfirmed despite the apparent weakness of the international convention? I hope so, but there has been no reconfirmation by the government.
Finally, the measures set forth in the green plan will only bring us 60 per cent of the way toward stabilization. Will there be a strategy for achieving the remaining 40 per cent? Will the government take a world leadership role in a world problem?
The minister spoke of the green plan. Let us be very clear. I say this with a great deal of sadness. This is a plan of broken promises and of budget cutbacks. It is a plan that has failed to assess policy. It is a plan that has failed to provide a vision.
I hope that what comes out of Rio shows a greater world conscience than has been shown by this government in terms of the very basic human problem of how we preserve this very fragile planet.
Other members will speak to you on the fishery. I would raise one point. The vital importance of protecting the marine environment has been widely recognized in the preparations for UNCED. It has the need to assist developing countries in their ability to manage and develop their coastal and ocean resources.
Just when there is a need and a recognition for environmental capacity building in developing countries, that is to say, the development of locally based expertise and management skills, what does the government do? It dissolves the International Centre for Ocean Development.
This centre enabled the kind of north-south cooperation that is now being called for by UNCED. It helped small coastal states, primarily small island states, to develop expertise to sustainably manage their fishery resources. It worked on a budget of $23 million and it gave small but significant grants to coastal states for their work.

Private Members' Business
Ironically it is many of these same coastal states which have supported Canada in making the issue of conservation of fisheries prominent on the UNCED horizon. The government's approach is counterproductive. It is virtually suicidal for hundreds of Atlantic Canadian communities that are dependent upon the fishery.
Canada needs all the support it can get. This is not the time to cut the funding to those countries that will support us in what is the single most vivid example of a lack of sustainable development; the decimation of the cod stocks off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.
We are asked in this particular debate to take note of the government's position. That is a little difficult because I do not know what the government's position is. I do know, however, that at all the prep-com conferences, a wide range of Canadian public servants have worked very hard. I know that what could have been a leadership position by the government was undercut by the failure of the Canadian Prime Minister to commit to going to Brazil until the last possible moment.
As a result this country, which could have been the bridge between the north and the south and which has established such a strong position, lost the opportunity on what has become the single most important issue facing civilization.
The time has come to conclude. I would do so by simply giving one piece of advice to the government. The Rio conference, my colleague from Northumberland so articulately said in opening the debate, has to succeed. It cannot fail. The hopes and aspirations of countless generations not yet born depend upon what the world does this June.
There is one thing worse than failure at Rio. That is failure covered over by bland communiques of success. The world must not come out of Rio bound in some form of a chloroform handkerchief saying that it has succeeded. If we fail, then let the world know that we failed because at least we may have a catalyst to wake this world up to the tremendous danger that it is under.
It may well have been that if the world, as the Second World War approached in the 1930s, understood the dangers that lay before it, it might have taken the steps to counter Armageddon. What I would say in conclusion is let us hope that Rio succeeds. If it is going to fail, then let it fail openly so that the world understands that failure cannot be allowed to stand. Otherwise, this planet will not survive.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East) moved: that Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to proceed with this debate on Bill C-227. This is a bill prohibiting desecration of the Canadian flag.
I am pleased to proceed because it has been nearly two years since I first submitted the bill. It was drawn and approved for debate and voted on in this House, but the proroguing of the House pre-empted all of that and it was lost. I was fortunate enough to have it drawn again and selected as a votable item. Finally today we are proceeding with the first hour of debate.
First, let me say that in Thomas More's fictional Utopia laws are not needed. Every citizen is guided by reason, devoid of greed and self-interest. However, we do not live in Utopia. We live in a democracy which must enact laws to curb individual activity and inactivity for the sake of society at large.
At times the tension between individual rights and the social good erupts in ways that make one want to take a definite stand. Desecration of the flag, in my opinion, is one of these occasions.

It has been said that Canadians are reluctant to proclaim their patriotism, that they cherish reticence as a national virtue. This has certainly not been the case when it comes to our national symbol.
Since first introducing this bill in the fall of 1990 I have found that the protection of our flag has proven to be a very emotional and difficult issue. Whatever our heritage, politics or religious beliefs, it has been determined to be an issue close to the hearts of millions of Canadians.
I believe that this is because no other object remotely resembles the flag as the symbol of our identity as a nation. For most of us it holds a very unique place in our national life. I will admit that both sides of the issue hold some very sound and reasonable views. Some will argue that to prohibit desecration of our flag is a restriction of their freedom. I understand and empathize with their concerns.
Others, like myself, believe that this great nation of ours should protect and respect our most powerful symbol, that its desecration tears at the very fabric of our nationhood. It is for this reason that I have introduced this legislation. I sincerely believe that this bill recognizes the deeply held feelings of a vast majority of citizens for the physical integrity of our flag.
I am sure no one will dispute that. For most countries the flag is the single most important symbol of one's nationalism, representing everything that a country stands for. It identifies, it communicates, and it inspires. It is flown by nations, provinces, states, towns, churches, private sector institutions and schools. It is used by armed services and civilian organizations. It expresses our joy when raised on holidays and it expresses our sorrow when it must be flown at half-mast. When draped over a coffin it honours those who have given their lives in service to our country. Whether it flies over an embassy, from the masthead of a ship or at an international sports meet, it is always an assertion of our sovereignty.
To me the Canadian flag represents everything my country stands for. As chairman of the Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association I have had the opportunity to visit many countries and have seen the absolute reverence shown by those people for their flag. I understand and recognize that pride, for wher-
Private Members' Business
ever I may be in the world, the sight of the maple leaf reminds me of how honoured I am to be a Canadian.
It was almost 98 years after Confederation before Canada finally had a truly distinctive flag. It had been the subject of great debate intermittently since 1867, with a number of great debates in the House of Commons, most prominently in 1925 and again in 1945 and 1946.
Finally on December 15, 1964 the red and white maple leaf was approved as Canada's official flag and was first raised on February 15, 1965.
Since that time it has flown proudly representing not any single set of ideas and beliefs, but rather the unity that has emerged from our diversity as a nation. As Canadian society becomes increasing more pluralistic, it becomes more and more important to have this one symbol which has the ability to transcend literary and language barriers, besides unifying our nation as a whole.
It is my belief the one symbol that expresses our existence as a community, the one symbol that stands above all others as an expression of our nationhood, is the Canadian flag. Our flag should be preserved inviolate as the one symbol that stands above political and partisan ideological dispute.
I am privileged to represent the riding of Scarborough East, a riding where these very diverse cultures, nationalities and religious backgrounds have come together under this one flag. It fills me with pride to see the children of those families proudly waving this symbol of our national unity.
As an educator for over 30 years, I had the opportunity on many occasions to observe young people. I would like to take this occasion to read from a letter sent to me from a young boy scout, Mr. Nathan Bean, expressing his views about our flag. This is what he says:
I am strongly opposed to the deliberate destruction of the Canadian flag. Why do people destroy the flag? It is a sacred piece of material. Not many people would deface the coin of the realm so why destroy the Canadian flag? When people destroy the flag by burning it, tearing it, or walking on it, they are destroying a part of Canada. Piece by piece, flag by flag we'll fall apart. The two red bands on the side stand for truth and valour and when you destroy the bands you are not being true to your country and you are diminishing the courage of this great country Canada.

Private Members' Business
That is the end of that young boy scout's letter which I think says a lot to all of us. This is the voice of our youth and our future, the voice of a young boy who is obviously honoured to be a Canadian and proud of what that stands for. He understands, as I do, that what we are talking about here is the integrity and dignity of one of our most enduring and precious symbols, the Canadian flag.
Furthermore, in a questionnaire sent out to my constituents about this very issue approximately a year ago, 82 per cent of the respondents were strongly supportive of this particular bill.
This legislation would protect this symbol, making it an offence to wilfully burn, deface, defile, mutilate, trample upon or otherwise desecrate this flag, except of course when the flag has become worn, soiled or damaged.
The term desecration is defined as "to deprive of sacred character". It is my opinion that those who desecrate or deprive our flag of its sacred character deserve nothing but utter contempt. Desecrators of the Canadian flag threaten our freedom, challenge our strength and trample upon the sensitivities of patriotic Canadians. If we allow the flag to be desecrated, then we also allow a desecration of the sacrifices that our people have made on behalf of our country as symbolized by our flag. Should we collectively as a society permit our national honour to be trampled on as well?
Seventy-five years ago on April 19, 1917, 35,000 Canadians launched a full scale assault on the entrenched German position along Vimy Ridge. A sacrifice was made by thousands of young Canadians who came from all across our country to defend freedom. Our allies gallantly fought their way up and captured a ridge that many said was unassailable.
The Canadian army did not fight its way up Vimy Ridge at the expense of 3,500 of our countrymen who would never see their homeland again to raise the flag of Ontario, a copy of the British North America Act, or the Royal Seal of His Majesty the King. The heroes of 1917 did so in the name of the maple leaf which they proudly wore as a dominant symbol on their military uniform. The supreme sacrifice made by thousands of young Canadians at Vimy to maintain our collective resolve to defend justice and freedom will rest forever under the shade of that maple leaf.
Last year over 1,000 service personnel returned from active duty in the Persian Gulf. These brave men and women were prepared to give their lives to protect the right to democracy that we as Canadians often take so much for granted. For seven months our flag flew proudly from those military bases, a constant reminder of what our great country stands for.
Some of the strongest endorsements for this bill to become law are coming from the Royal Canadian Naval Association and the National Council of Veterans' Associations which represents 19 varied veterans associations. These organizations are not the only groups interested in this bill. I have had widespread support from Canadians right across the country for this particular initiative.
These flags will be kept and protected forever of a remembrance of such an important moment in history. Is it now just another symbol? I think these men and women would strongly disagree. I think that they would consider it a grave dishonour to treat our flag with anything less than the utmost in respect and reverence. I can only imagine how tough it would be for them to see this cherished symbol defiled.
However, you do not have to be a member of the armed forces or a veteran to understand what the Canadian flag means, nor do you have to be a super patriot to understand that the symbol of our freedom deserves to be protected.
Some of course will argue that to prohibit the desecration of the flag challenges the very rights that our flag stands for. This is a case of where do we draw the line. We all understand that freedom of speech and political expression are some of our most cherished rights as Canadians. I certainly do not support any infringement on an individual's free speech. I realize that we cannot prohibit someone from saying whatever comes to mind about this country or about the flag; that is clear. Anyone with an opinion can and should express his or her views. This is what the principle of democracy is all about in Canada.
Taking away the right to desecrate the flag does not limit an individual's ability to say he hates his country, his fellow countrymen, its institutions or its leaders. You can say or write anything you want about the flag, but it is when we step over that line, that line from speech to conduct, which is not necessary to the expression of one's views, that there should be a definite distinction.

It is no longer freedom of speech that we are talking about, but a freedom to do anything we want without consequence. Put another way, this form of free speech implies that an individual can express himself with any type of public behaviour at any time and the community is powerless to set limits on these particular acts.
It is not free speech to burn the flag even though they may quite genuinely have some very profound and legitimate grievance to be addressed. Their purpose is not served by desecrating our flag. It is an act that simply dishonours this symbol of freedom.
Some find these limits unacceptable. Unlimited freedom would make all law which by definition restricts freedom impossible. All laws ultimately limit freedom in our society as we know it. It is just a case of, and I repeat, where do we draw the line.
It may well be necessary for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on whether such a law inhibits unnecessarily the freedom of expression.
In closing, as I have said at the beginning, this issue is an extremely emotional one, one in which I have learned very few do not have an opinion. In the United States Congress it was the subject of many hours and months of a very impassioned, emotional debate before the historic Supreme Court ruling of June 1989. The United States Supreme Court overturned a similar law passed by the U.S. Senate by a vote of five to four. As I said, it may be necessary for this particular law, when passed in this House, to proceed to the Supreme Court. It would be very interesting to listen to its deliberations and decision.
In response to the United States Supreme Court decision, Robert Bork, a former Federal Court Appeals Judge put it this way:
Ultimately, the question is whether the nation is entitled to one
symbol that must remain undefiled. I think so. To say that the
freedom of speech requires that no symbol remain sacrosanct is to
say something demeaning about the first amendment itself.
With that I could not agree more.
Our flag is not just another symbol, but is our nation's most powerful symbol and it must be treated with the respect and the reverence it is due. No other
Private Members' Business
object remotely comes close to resembling the flag as the symbol of our identity as a nation.
In conclusion I will quote briefly from the national flag ceremony. His Excellency, the Right Hon. Georges P. Vanier, Governor General of Canada, said:
I hope and pray-that our flag will symbolize to each of us and
to the world the unity of purpose and high resolve to which destiny
beckons us.
I look forward with great anticipation to the comments of my colleagues.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this private members' bill presented by the member for Scarborough East. I congratulate him on this bill, as well as the fact that he is obviously very concerned about this question and about where our country is going with respect to its unity and to our feelings as Canadians about our country.
It is quite evident that this hon. member has a very strong feeling for his country and for his flag, and those of us who know him know this to be very true. He is a man who has brought very special dignity to the House of Commons, and his motion here today just emphasizes that once again.
Any time we talk about our country and about our flag it is an important question. It is not something to be taken lightly, by any stretch of the imagination. Whether, as the hon. member for Scarborough East has said, it is an emotional issue I cannot really say. However, I can say that it is a very important issue because it goes to the fabric of what we are as a nation.
When we discuss Canada and the representations and the symbols of our country they are very important discussions indeed. They are all part of what our country is and what we as Canadians feel toward our country.
Canada is unquestionably a very special country. To those who live outside of our borders it is the greatest country in the world. Sometimes we take our country for granted. However we should listen to the reports of others outside our borders. People in other countries speak about Canada in such glowing terms and look upon it as the epitome of what a nation should be.

Private Members' Business
We have reached this distinction not by being the greatest military power in the world, not by being the greatest scientific power in the world, or even the most populous country in the world. We have reached this position by being distinctively Canadian. That is what it has come to be.
What does that mean? It means that we are a country of rational people who have brought this country together through peaceful means, through negotiation, through the wish of two cultures to live together as one, together with the aboriginal peoples who were the first residents of this country and recognizing the rights that they have. These three peoples have founded this country in which we take so much pride.
We take pride because our history has not been the gun blazing west or an example of might or of imposing imperialism on other countries. We take pride in the example that we have set to one another as Canadians, and in the example we have provided to those in other countries.
When war came Canadians were always there to help the oppressed peoples of the world. When aid was sought by other countries throughout the last 200 years Canada was always there ready to lend a helping hand. When people from other countries were persecuted within their own boundaries and left their country and came to Canada we took them in.
This is what Canada symbolizes. It symbolizes an understanding, it symbolizes a pride.
It symbolizes a feeling of pride and understanding that we carry in our hearts. It is not a manifestation of something we can show, although we have our passports, medical cards, and social security numbers. Certainly those are manifestations. However, the true manifestation of a Canadian is what he or she carries in his or her heart, which is the pride of having created and worked toward a country which is the envy of all people throughout the world.
That is not to say the manifestations themselves are not important. Manifestations are important because when we talk about our country we must have certain manifestations. Our flag is the first and foremost of these manifestations.
I understand the bill and the wish of the member for Scarborough East. I feel very strongly that we cannot
desecrate the flag. It is a travesty to desecrate the Canadian flag.
In keeping with our history and our understanding as Canadians I want Canadians to not desecrate the flag. I want Canadians to appreciate the flag without having the law say that they cannot desecrate it. I want Canadians to feel in their hearts more than anything else pride for what we have and what we have developed as a country. When they see the flag I want them to understand that this is the manifestation of the pride that they carry in their hearts and therefore they will not want to desecrate the flag.
The United States has a law, as the hon. member has said, which makes it a crime to desecrate the flag. It went much farther in its law because it not only talks about the flag itself but about any picture or representation of the flag.
It has caused some problems in knowing where to draw the line. Perhaps we remember a controversy last year when the wife of the President of the United States wore a scarf which had a picture of the flag of the United States. She was severely criticized by many as desecrating the flag.
A young person was arrested for wearing a patch of the United States' flag on their jeans. That is carrying it too far and I do not want to see that. I want our young people to wear patch of Canada on their sleeve when they are visiting other nations as a symbol of pride in their country. I do not want young people who have T-shirts with the Canadian flag on them to feel anything but pride in what they are wearing. I do not want them to have the moment darkened by the fact that someone may accuse them of desecrating the flag.
Canadians have pride in their country and pride in their flag and they will always have that. If we do not have that, if the day comes when Canadians do not have pride in their flag then all else will be lost in Canada. We will cease to be the nation we are and we will most certainly have deteriorated into at the very best a hollow shell of our former selves.
I would say to the hon. member, to other members and to all Canadians that if you cannot carry around in your heart the pride of Canada, of what this country stands for, it is not nationalism. We do not go out and constantly beat our breasts and say how great we are. We leave that for others to do. They are quite ready to tell one another how great Canada is.

As we are seeing today, nationalism can be a disease. We do not want that. We want the understanding and the realization that Canadians have. That is what we want and that is what we want to keep. I am very much afraid that if we amend the Criminal Code to make it unlawful to desecrate the flag then we are in some way desecrating the Criminal Code by having to do that.
It is not what we want in our law. We do not want to make it illegal for Canadians to wear the Canadian flag but we do want Canadians to appreciate the Canadian flag, and I am hoping that they do and will. Maybe I will be proven to be wrong, but if we cannot truly appreciate our country then we cannot appreciate our flag.
If we cannot appreciate our flag we cannot appreciate our country, and if we cannot appreciate our country then we as a nation are in very serious difficulty-
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy

Royal): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the House of Commons on such a very important subject as has been introduced into the House in the form of Bill C-227 by my friend and colleague from Scarborough East.
My colleague's motion would make it a criminal offence for any Canadian citizen-and I trust that my hon. friend from Cape Breton would appreciate that it is the intention of my hon. friend from Scarborough East to indicate that it would be a criminal offence- to wilfully burn, deface, defile, mutilate, trample, or otherwise desecrate the Canadian flag. I know very well that it is not the intention of my hon. friend in the bill he has presented before the House to suggest that a young Canadian proudly wearing the symbol of Canada, the Canadian flag, on his or her arm as an arm patch or on his or her jacket as they travel throughout the world is defiling or mutilating the symbol of Canada.
I am sure that is something that my hon. friend would abhor and would just as strongly defend the right of that individual to display the Canadian flag in that context as he would abhor the mutilation and
Private Members' Business
defacing of the Canadian flag by other various obvious means.
The Canadian flag is presently protected against criminal usage and false representation of citizenship under section 9 of the Trade Marks Act of Canada. The bill we have before us today would increase that level of protection.
On February 15, 1965 at 12 noon the symbol which came to represent Canada after much debate in the House and throughout the land was raised on flagpoles from sea to sea to sea to unite Canadians and bring them under a common and unified banner. Since that day the Canadian flag has become the most visible symbol of Canada and has come to represent Canadian values at home and throughout the world.
The flag is identified with flight, with peacekeeping forces, with our international development aid programs, and with the emergency humanitarian aid Canada has so often sent abroad to others in countries that were in need.
The Canadian flag is a tool for which barriers can be taken down. As we have already discussed, the flag is a symbol for all Canadians-youth, seniors, new Canadians, francophones and anglophones alike. We must not let our differences come between us. The glue that holds us together is the fact that we are Canadians, that we are proud to live as Canadians and to live free as we please. The Canadian flag is the symbol that represents this notion.
How can we as parliamentarians and as Canadians let anyone desecrate such an important component of our Canadian way of life? The Canadian flag is a guarantee that as long as it represents Canada and Canadians we will enjoy certain freedoms, such as the freedom to express beliefs and opinions without fear of social censure, the freedom to participate in the political process and thereby to take part in the building and strengthening of Canadian society.
These freedoms are guaranteed by the laws of Canada. They are symbolized by our national flag. These rights and freedoms are not to be taken for granted or abused. They are ours to do so as we please and does not necessarily give us the right to abuse or manipulate them.

Private Members' Business
While many other nations search for a sense of identity, we in Canada are extremely fortunate to have one that is representative of the values of freedom and equality. Our symbol, the Canadian flag, stands for something. It more than any other device acts as our manifestation of our collective ideals.
Dr. George Stanley, a fellow New Brunswicker, the former Lieutenant-Government of my province, whose red and white maple leaf design had considerable influence on the development of the Canadian flag, once said: "A flag is more than a means of identification. It is the embodiment of what a country stands for. It is the symbol of the ethos and the spirit of a people".
Although the flag was not officially adopted until 1965, in 1914 Canadians soldiers, as my colleague pointed out, displayed the maple leaf on their military badges. It was the designation of choice used by almost all Canadian regiments serving in the war. During World War II Canadian soldiers incorporated the maple leaf design on regimental badges and naval equipment.
The bill that we are debating today is not an attempt to stifle the rights of Canadians to express themselves but rather an attempt to protect this valued history and to ensure that the Canadian flag remains the symbol that we as Canadians can be proud to call our own, one that allows us to boast to the world that we are indeed Canadians and we are strong and we are free.
One further point concerning the importance of the adoption of this private member's bill is that if this bill is adopted then it will provide a precedent for us as parliamentarians to introduced further acts so that we can protect our national symbols such as the coat of arms and the provincial flags, as they too represent our differences while still representing the fact that we are Canadians.
I just want to close simply by saying that as a Canadian I am extremely proud we do have something that stands for us as Canadians, that stands for our Canadianism.
Just this past Tuesday I had the great fortune to be delivered by my daughter Susan of a baby boy in the province of Quebec. He is born a Quebecer and he is a Canadian. I just hope that in coming days and years he has the opportunity to grow up under the great symbol of Canada I have come to accept as being everything I cherish and feel so close to my heart, that is the flag of Canada. I hope he will continue, as I am continuing to
be, a proud Canadian and will live on to cherish that as I have.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Congratulations to the grandfather.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Fundy-Royal on his very capable speech on this important bill moved by his colleague. I am pleased to rise to support the bill in its present form.
This bill had been drawn for debate as I recall before. The debate did not get held because the session came to an end and the bill died on the Order Paper. Although I have never won a draw for one of my dozen or so private members' bills, which is a shame, I congratulate the hon. member on winning the draw a second time and bringing forward this bill for discussion.
I think it is a worth-while bill, particularly so after the events that caused so much difficulty in our country with the trampling of a flag in Brockville. There was also the burning of a flag in my community of Kingston which attracted considerable press attention and was widely regarded as a most unpopular gesture by the citizens of my community who reacted quite strongly to this particular incident.
The bill that has been put forward seeks to make it an offence to desecrate the flag of Canada. I support the concept because the flag of our country does not represent a government. It represents the people of our country who have lived, worked and died to make this country a better place and in fact to make the world a better place.
Our flag is not the embodiment of the Government of Canada, although the government does use it for its own purposes to some extent and quite properly so. It is a symbol of everything about our country like the coat of arms of Canada and certain other national symbols. It embodies the people of this country as well as the government. It embodies the Parliament of Canada, the people of Canada and the Government of Canada. It is a symbol of everything about our country in all its aspects and in all its parts.
Because it is not a symbol of government, its desecration becomes more than a desecration, a criticism, an objection or a rejection of the government. It becomes damaging to the fabric of everybody because we all regard it as a symbol of everything our country stands for.

No single person or government owns the flag of Canada. Once the resolution approving the flag design was approved in this House in 1965 and the proclamation was issued declaring the flag to be the flag of Canada, it became everyone's flag. It became a symbol of our entire country.
The importance of it as a national symbol is very great. It is one to which we have perhaps attached too little importance in the past as witnessed by the absence of a law such as that proposed by the hon. member in the House today.
By stopping the desecration of the flag, we are not in any way prohibiting people from showing dissent from government policy or objection to the proposals, policies or initiatives of the Government of Canada. People are still free to speak out against their government or their political leaders of any political stripe.
They may show their opposition to government policy in various other ways. They can write letters, make speeches and have peaceful demonstrations. All these are quite lawful expressions of dissent, but the desecration of the flag goes beyond that kind of dissent and in my submission is damaging to the symbol of our country which we all regard as very important.
I think back and recall the times when the flag debate raged in this House and the difficulties we had in discussing that issue. As perhaps Your Honour can recall, the debate went on for months. It was extremely bitter and very protracted, but it ended up with a flag that I think all Canadians today hold in reverence and with great pride.
The people who struggled in this House through those years can remember that debate. The hon. member for Saint-Denis, the hon. member for Windsor West and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra were in the House in those days. They would remember that debate, how bitter it was and how difficult it was.
Frankly it is reassuring today to find that there is such unanimity in the House on the question of our flag. Perhaps there will not be on this particular bill, but certainly there is in terms of the value of the flag as a national symbol, one that we all have great pride in and hold very dear.
Private Members' Business
There are two quotations on which I would like to close. One is from the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, who as Prime Minister on the first flag ceremony on February 15,1965 said these words outside this building:
Under this Flag may our youth find new inspiration for loyalty to Canada; for a patriotism based not on any mean or narrow nationalism, but on deep and equal pride that all Canadians will feel for every part of this good land.
Finally I have a quotation from the Hon. Maurice Bourget, Speaker of the Senate:
The Flag stands for the unity of the nation and unequivocally speaks for all the citizens of Canada, regardless of their race, language, creed or opinion.
In seeking to protect this national symbol, I know all hon. members will look to the bill we have before us and carefully consider its wording before casting votes for or against this excellent proposition put forward by the hon. member.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased today to rise and say a few words in support of Bill C-227.
As our country's symbol, the value of the Canadian flag cannot be measured. Our flag is based on the traditions and values upon which this country was founded. It represents more than nationhood and patriotism. It also represents the very character of Canada which makes this country the most unique and greatest country in the world.
It has been said that a flag speaks for the people of a nation. The flag is used in celebration when it is raised at holidays and at other festivities. It also expresses our sorrow when flown at half-mast. The flag also expresses our reverence for those who have given their lives in its name in wartime or while in keeping the peace.
The purpose of this bill is to instil the necessity of respecting the importance of the flag's past role and its continuing symbol of what Canada is today by providing that anyone who wilfully burns, defaces, defiles, mutilates, tramples upon or otherwise desecrates the Canadian flag will be guilty of a criminal offence. This bill will ensure the protection of and respect for the ideals upon which this great country has been founded.

Private Members' Business
The idea of the Canadian flag was born back in March 1964, during a chance meeting between a former eastern Ontario member of Parliament and United Empire Loyalist, Mr. John Matheson and George Stanley, a one-time Dean of Arts at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario.
At the time the government was considering the possibility of providing Canada with a distinctive Canadian flag. When informed of this intention by Mr. Matheson, Mr. Stanley drew a design of a maple leaf on a red and white background. He later submitted a memorandum to the government listing the traditional symbols of Canada. The beaver and the maple leaf were on the top of that list.
In early 1964 the Prime Minister of the day had informed the House that the government had a desire to adopt a truly distinctive national flag. The ensuing debate about the design of the flag has been described many times as no less fierce. It demonstrates the intense devotion Canadians from across the country feel about Canada.
The official ceremony inaugurating the new Canadian flag which was held on February 15, 1965 was a very emotional time. On that day the Speaker of the Senate at the time said that the flag was a symbol of the nation's unity for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion. These words add further symbolic meaning to our flag and illustrate that our flag is more than just mere identification. It is representative of the very character, substance and spirit of this great nation.
In realizing the importance of the Canadian flag, what it really represents or stands for and the emotion it evokes among Canadians, it should be our duty to make sure that it is properly protected.
There are those who have said, especially our neighbours to the south where similar legislation has twice been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, that laws such as the one proposed in this particular bill infringe upon society's right to freedom of speech. I certainly disagree with these arguments. Protection of the flag, a unique symbol of nationality, will in no way limit the opportunity or the breadth of protest available in the exercise of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech must not extend to
those who would damage another national symbol, the Parliament Buildings for example.
I seek only to protect the national symbol which is just as, and maybe more significant, our Canadian flag. Protecting our flag will not inhibit other forms of protest such as speech, the use of placards or literature or any other number of peaceful, non-violent actions. It simply will ensure the protection of the unique symbol which Canadians, time and time again, have shown to be the one thing which most represents Canada and what it is about: the best place in the world to live.
This year, 1992, as we know marks Canada's 125th anniversary. Our history stretches back to the First Nations of this land. It embraces such beliefs as those of the United Empire Loyalists many of whom settled in eastern Ontario, who over two centuries ago sought a better life. And it spreads out to include people from all nations of the world who arrived here looking for freedom and prosperity.
Our flag has come to embody this heritage, our pride in our country today and our hopes for the future. I think it is more than fitting that we preserve and ensure respect for our national symbol.
For that reason, I certainly want to add my congratulations to the member for Scarborough East for his introduction of this bill. I am very pleased to offer support on behalf of the proud Canadians I represent in Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, a historic part Canada, settled by United Empire Loyalists over 200 years ago and the home of Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, an architect of Confederation.
Our flag is the greatest symbol of national unity.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, I just want to put a few remarks on record with respect to this important debate which comes at an important time in the debate over Canadian unity.
Everybody in Canada wears Canadian pins with pride, waves the flag on July 1 and at other functions with pride. You can certainly see it in the faces and actions of our children. We look to our flag when we are in other countries with pride. Although our flag itself is rather new to our history, it is already steeped in a lot of tradition over a short period of time.

As has been said already, whether it be in peacekeeping or whether it be in celebrations in various parts of the world, whether it be at the United Nations or in Commonwealth conferences, we look upon our flag with a great deal of pride.
We are looked on by every country in the world with some envy because for the most part, Canadians are seen as peace-loving, peacemaking and peacekeeping people. That is what our flag has shown over the past 25 to 30 years that we have had the maple leaf.
The symbol of the flag is something that certainly my children are proud to have in pointing to their heritage and their country. They were born in Canada as I was, and I am always very pleased to be able to give out flags, flag pins and table flags to young people who represent Canadians on rotary exchange trips or school trips while they go overseas. That is the symbol that says: "We are from a country, from a place that we are proud of."
This bill, however, goes a little far. As a lawyer, I have seen municipal, provincial, federal and criminal legislation that goes essentially unused or ignored. People are reluctant to prosecute because of problems or difficulties inherent in it.
I do not believe for a moment that people should desecrate or in anyway deface the flag. It is something that we are all proud of but I question whether the route to go in this case is through legislating it as a criminal offence within the Criminal Code of Canada.
Now, I say that partially from my background and partially from my own feeling that, no, I do not want to see things happen to the flag. I also do not want to see us bring in legislation for things that may be very difficult to prosecute and may lead to having one more law on the books that is essentially unenforceable because of the problems that it brings.
Personally, I turn inside out when I see any demonstration in my country by fellow Canadians that defiles or defaces what I have come to know and love as part of Canada. It is a part of my heritage, a part of what I like to wear and take with me when I leave our country, to be identified as Canadian.
I do not know whether we solve the problem by putting it into the Criminal Code. It has been pointed out to me during the course of this debate that perhaps the route to go is through an educational
Private Members' Business
process. There will always be the odd one who is outside of the law. What we have to do as parliamentarians, as adults, as teachers, is to try to instil in our children and in our children's children, in our friends and our neighbours, the same love for our country, the same love for the symbol of our country as we have. I do not think we have to take that added step of saying: "If you do something then you could go to prison".
I firmly believe this can be done in a way that may take some evolving, it may require an evolution. I appreciate what the member is trying to do in hurrying that step along. I do not see this as the solution to the problem of defacing of our flag.
I want to see people voluntarily feeling that national spirit. We can do that. We do not have to throw a lot of money at it. It is a matter of our expressing our feelings to others and having them express their feelings to their friends and neighbours. We do not have to follow the American way. We have been and are a gentler people, and this is one area where we do not necessarily have to follow them down the path. It is not the best way, I would suggest, to get where we want to go.
I hope that this bill will be reconsidered and I hope that an alternative might be found for it, because I do not believe that it is the route we should be taking at this stage.
I appreciate the member's love for country, love for flag, love for the symbol of nationalism but I must repeat once again, I do not think the criminal route is the route to go on this.
I cannot support the bill personally at this stage. I speak for myself. I cannot support the bill in criminalizing the defacing of the flag.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I know the hour is late. Perhaps you would be kind enough to advise me how much time I have.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Five minutes.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: I am pleased today and thankful that I at least have five minutes to lend my support to my colleague for Scarborough East, my neighbour in the Confederation building. I appreciate the opportunity I have today to express my thoughts about the symbol that we have, the flag of Canada.

The Environment
I am sorry that I cannot agree with the previous speaker inasmuch as he is in the same profession as I, the legal profession. I find no difficulty at all in supporting a bill that would save and respect such an important symbol for our country.
It is perhaps apropos that this debate is on today inasmuch as Canada is in the process of commencing celebrations for its 125th anniversary since the founding of Canada. We were under the symbol of other flags for a period of time and it is only in the last 25 years that we were able to establish our own symbol.
We stand today at the threshold of a new Canada, of an extremely invigorated Canada. It is a Canada that will thrive under the new constitutional arrangements. I am satisfied clearly, unequivocally and beyond any doubt that when the unity debate is ended, we will be united under ten provinces and two territories, perhaps three as a result of the vote that was held the other night, and we will all be gathered together as one country, under one flag, our symbol.
It is apropos that we are at that threshold this evening. Again, I compliment my colleague for Scarborough East for bringing this important legislation before the House today.
Let me just come out with one thought. I come from an area that I am sure you will visit, Madam Speaker, in the very near future under the Voyageur Program. We look forward to welcoming you to the area of northwestern Ontario and Thunder Bay. As I thought about the remarks I was making tonight, I can only think that you will meet these folks, Madam Speaker.
I think about the community I represent. We have people from Scotland and Finland, people from Ukraine, from England, Ireland and Poland. We have people from Greece, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Holland, Croatia, Slovenia, China, Japan, Jamaica and other Caribbean nations. I am sure I have forgotten some.
Many of them left their homeland and chose Canada for their home. When they chose Canada as their home, they chose the flag as a symbol of our country. Many of these people from the countries that I have mentioned chose Canada because they wanted to be in a country where we live in peace, harmony and understanding of one another.
Surely the people I represent from the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon would become very distressed if we were to allow anyone to desecrate not just that symbol of national unity, but what the symbol truly represents, which is the unity of Canada and all people in Canada. I compliment and thank my friend for bringing this important debate before this House of Commons at such an appropriate time. I certainly support this legislation to the fullest extent. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the time to make those points.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-227 this afternoon. There is no doubt whatsoever that desecrating our national flag is an act which is offensive. Like others here today, though, I have some reservations concerning the use of the criminal law to deal with such an affront.
Various sectors of our society have been urging the government to exercise restraint in the application of our criminal law. The government has been urged to use the criminal law only to reaffirm fundamental values.
I believe our Criminal Code should contain-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I will have to interrupt the hon. member.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3) the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



SPECIAL DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Charest (p. 10331).
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, I rise with pleasure this afternoon to speak to the motion that is before us because it is certainly dealing with a subject about which many Canadians are deeply concerned. It is dealing with the environmental effects of what we hope will be accomplished in the environmental conference that will be held later this year in Brazil.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is a forum for finding solutions to the world's pressing environmental problems. Therefore this conference presents a significant opportunity for Canada to work with other coastal states toward international solutions to high seas overfishing of straddling stocks.
One of the realities Canadians face is that unlike other coastal states some of our fish stocks straddle our 200-mile fishing zone. They are therefore for parts of the year beyond our management jurisdiction. Hence they are vulnerable to overexploitation on the high seas by distant water fleets.
In preparation for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June we have been working with other coastal states to develop more effective measures on conservation and management of the marine resources in the high seas and, in particular, the straddling stocks.
Through the two years of preparatory meetings for this conference, Canada has found an increasing number of allies who wish to see an end to high seas overfishing. The resolution that Canada is co-sponsoring sets our principles and measures that would help give full effect to the Law of the Sea provisions on the rights and responsibilities of coastal states and others to co-operate in high seas conservation.
More than 40 countries have co-sponsored this resolution and wish to see full international agreement to its principles by world leaders at UNCED.
In addition, in New York at the final preparatory meetings non-government organizations also joined governments in calls for an end to high seas overfishing. They issued the New York declaration of high seas overfishing which reads in part: "All states should work to reinforce the provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, recognizing the special rights of coastal states to straddling stocks and
The Environment
the concomitant obligations of distant water fishing nations to respect conservation measures on the high seas".
Canada is building support in the international community of this issue.
Let me put high seas overfishing in an international context by describing the global situation that Canada and its allies are seeking to improve.
The English scientist and statesman, Sir Francis Bacon, said:
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"
Man cannot command of the oceans what he will. Disobedience of the laws of nature bring retribution. If we obey ecological limits we can command of nature a bountiful and a sustained harvest. If we exceed those limits, we will destroy the ecological integrity of living marine resources.
As the UN food and agricultural organization has pointed out, the world fishery situation is generally not one of bounty arising from obeying ecological limits. Rather it is one of decline caused by exceeding those limits. No area is more vulnerable to this than the high seas.
It is almost axiomatic: where fish can be harvested on high seas they are overly exploited leading to stock declines. There is an ecological crisis in high seas fisheries, one carrying grave social and economic consequences for fisheries-dependent populations.
No coastal fishery is more vulnerable to such stock declines than one where the fish migrate between coastal states jurisdiction and the high seas, and that is especially true for straddling stocks. I certainly do not have to tell our friends on the east coast of Canada about the stock that straddles the outer limits of our 200-mile limit, namely, the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks.
It is true for groundfish stocks like hake in the southwest Atlantic on Argentina's Patagonian Shelf. It is true for the orange roughy on the Challenger Plateau off New Zealand. It is true for blue whiting and jack mackerel in the east central and southeast Pacific off Chile and Peru. It is true for the pollack in the Doughnut Hole in the central Bering Sea between Russia and the United States. It is true again for pollack in the Peanut Hole in the centre of the Sea of Okhotsk off Russia's Pacific coast.

The Environment
It is true in the Sea of Japan, where the exclusive economic zones or better known as the EEZs have not been established and so the high seas begin at the limit of the territorial sea. It is true for cod, flounder and redfish on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland off Canada's Atlantic coast.
Some of these international fisheries are relatively new, like for orange roughy off New Zealand. The fishery on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland has been conducted internationally since the 16th century and from coastal populations in Newfoundland from the 17th century, but what was sustainable for so long no longer is so, given modern harvesting technologies, unless effective international controls are applied.
Let me give an example. There is an important flounder stock, American plaice, that straddles the 200-mile zone on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Because of harvesting by distant water fleets at levels far beyond what the resource can sustain, much of it immature fish taken in nursery areas, the total allowable catch and Canada's quotas have plunged by more than 50 per cent in five years. Similar dramatic declines have occurred in the cod and other flounder stocks. This has contributed to a 30 per cent reduction in Canada's offshore fleet and has severely reduced catches by small boat fishermen.
What happens when there is a conflict regarding harvesting of straddling stocks? Here is how a report of last July by the UN office for ocean affairs and Law of the Sea described the situation:
The dilemma posed for the coastal state is that unrestrained fishing of a straddling stock in an area beyond 200 miles can render useless any measures taken within 200 miles to manage that stock. Moreover, if the stock is predominantly within 200 miles during the greater part of the year, its depletion through overfishing beyond 200 miles may be disproportionate to the actual interest distant-water fishing states should have in the stock given its distribution between the areas within and outside 200 miles.
This is exactly the situation that Canada faces in the northwest Atlantic. There is perhaps no other coastal fishing area whose population is so vulnerable to overharvesting of straddling stocks on the high seas. What Canada and other fishing coastal states have sought to do in accordance with the Law of the Sea convention is to achieve conservation and proper resource management of straddling stocks through
regional fisheries organizations. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization or NAFO manages straddling stocks off of Canada's Atlantic coast.
From 1979 through to 1985, NAFO was effective in rebuilding stocks depleted before establishment of a 200-mile zone. Since 1986 however NAFO has been increasingly afflicted by the type of problems that have crippled other regional fisheries organizations, particularly disagreement by one major member over allocation decisions and inadequate measures for surveillance and control.
Inadequate surveillance and control is the Achilles heel of international fisheries management, rendering all else meaningless. There are some helpful signs though. However, there is a growing realization among certain distant water states of the need to reflect ecological limits. These responsible distant water states participate in regional fisheries organizations. They support stable resource sharing arrangements and accept needed international control measures. By contrast, several distant waters states do not act responsibly. For them, the right to fish on the high seas is a licence to fish at will, whatever the consequences.
There is a critical difference of views between coastal states and at least some distant water states regarding the nature of the right to fish on the high seas. In the UN report of last July to which I referred to earlier it stated:
The high seas right to fish is subject to the rights, duties, and
interests of the coastal state in respect of straddling stocks.
This is opposed by a view that there is a balance of interest struck in the Law of the Sea convention whereby distant-water states have virtually unlimited rights to fish on high seas in order to balance the rights of coastal states to resources within their EEZs.
This is not a proper reading of the Law of the Sea convention however. Rather, as the chairman of the fourth UNCED preparatory meeting, Tommy Koh of Singapore, recently pointed out, the freedom to fish on the high seas must be balanced with the obligation to co-operate with other states to ensure conservation of living resources. In effect, the freedom to fish on the high seas is subject to the principle of sustainable development and the action of distant water states should be measured against that standard.

As the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, more commonly known as the Brundtland commission, stated:
Without agreed, equitable and enforceable rules governing the rights and duties of states in respect of the global commons, the pressure of demands on finite resources will destroy their ecological integrity over time-Only the high seas outside of national jurisdiction are truly 'commons'; but fish species, pollution and other effects of economic development do not respect these legal boundaries.
Surely freedom of the high seas must mean more in practice than the right to overfish.
As I indicated when I began, to give practical effect to the principle of sustainable development in high seas fisheries, Canada is one of 40 countries that is sponsoring a resolution on high seas fisheries at UNCED. This resolution outlines the principles and measures that will give proper effect to the provisions of the Law of the Sea convention regarding stocks that migrate between coastal state jurisdiction and the high seas.
It also calls for an intergovernmental conference on high seas fisheries. We are seeking the support of those wishing to avert ecological disaster, whether coastal states or distant-water states. By this means we are endeavouring to heed Sir Francis Bacon's dictum by obeying nature in order to command of her a bountiful and sustainable harvest.
Protection of the ocean resources is but one of several areas of Canadian concern for the environment. Canada has put a high priority on the environment through its green plan. Major programs both domestically and internationally are moving many parts of the environmental agenda forward. Green plan support for Canada's participation in the implementation of the Montreal protocol for control of the chlorofluorocarbons is just one example.
The green plan support of the Canadian participatory committee for UNCED brought Canadians into the international UNCED forum to ensure that the objectives sought there reflect the wishes of individuals and communities.
I can assure the members of this House that those individuals and communities affected by high seas
The Environment
overfishing support Canada's efforts at UNCED to put an end to the destructive fishing of straddling stocks on the high seas.
All of the fish in the sea has a hollow ring in the many fishing communities of Canada's Atlantic coast. There is seen firsthand what happens when an ecosystem is under attack. Those communities as well as the other coastal states around the world are looking to UNCED for help.
The Canadian delegation at UNCED will be led by the Prime Minister. The issue of overfishing is a major reason he has decided to attend, and I know that all members from both sides of this House join in giving the delegation that goes from Canada to the conference in Rio their strong backing. It needs the enlisting of all the help of the countries that are interested in fishing, whether they be from the distant fishing fleets or from the ones that have their own coastal waters.
We need that kind of backing and that kind of support so that proper control can be taken of the straddling stocks, particularly over the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. We will be looking forward with anticipation to the reports of the Rio conference that takes place this coming month.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in this debate, my colleague for Northumberland has effectively dealt with the impact of Third World poverty on the environment while my colleague for LaSalle-Emard made a substantial contribution with his speech on sustainable development, the depletion of natural resources and the importance of technological transfer to developing nations. Later on, my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception will make an important contribution on fisheries.
The issues before us today, all so very vaguely worded in the government's motion, are of enormous importance. In the limited time at my disposal, I will deal with the position of the Government of Canada and the one that the Government of Canada, in my view, should take at the earth summit if Canada is to live up to repeated declarations made by the Prime Minister at home and abroad over the past five years.

The Environment
First, let me say that Canada's record on sustainable development-this is what the earth summit will be all about-is not something to write home about because while we have talked a lot about sustainable development, we have hardly and are hardly practising it.
From fisheries to forests, from agriculture to energy consumption, from megaprojects to land use, from topsoil erosion to chemical fertilizers, our record leaves much to be desired. How then can we preach sustainable development at the earth summit if we do not practise at home what we preach abroad? How can we urge other nations to reduce their per capita emissions of carbon dioxide if we are at the top of the list? How can we preach sustainable forestry when we apply barbaric, clear cutting techniques in the forests of British Columbia?
Our inefficient methods in energy consumption, our lavish approach to land use, our ever weakening public transit policies, our rampant consumerism, our insensitivity to aboriginal peoples' requests to leave the land to them as in the case of the Great Whale or Oldman dam, our pathetic efforts in developing renewable energy technologies, the political propensity to yield to pressures from the fossil fuel lobby, the political impotence with respect to the ratification of the Law of the Sea, the dreadful decision to cancel the Science Council and the Ocean Institute, the insidious and systematic weakening of the National Research Council, all these facts put together point to the fact that this government five years after the publication of the Brundtland report and its endorsement by Canada at the United Nations General Assembly, that this government with one national and 10 provincial round tables across the nation, that this government with major declarations of complete commitments made at the United Nations, at The Hague, in Bergen, in Geneva, you name it, has not yet started to apply sustainable development in a substantive manner. So far the green plan has produced very few results. It attacks problems at the end of the process and not in the planning stage.
The Minister of the Environment earlier this afternoon made a reference to acid rain and the necessity of tackling global issues with other nations. Had we waited in 1983 for the U.S. government to move on reducing SO*in2*xx emissions, we would not be able
to claim, as we can today, having cut acid rain pollution in Canada by half in 1992.
We went ahead alone. We did it and finally, with President Reagan out of the way, the U.S. administration came on board. We proceeded alone because we had to give leadership on a matter of urgent necessity as we should also now with carbon dioxide and the convention on the atmosphere.
The weakness of this government is that when it comes to the crunch it is incapable of moving unless Washington gives the green light. That is the sad conclusion.
Since the earth summit will deal with the protection of the atmosphere on behalf of the entire global community, I must now turn my attention to this matter and inform the House that Environment Canada issued on April 28 of this year an important press release entitled, "Winter 1992 warmer than normal". This may come as a surprise to people, particularly in eastern Canada, but Environment Canada reports that in this past winter the trend toward warmer winters continued as temperatures in most regions were generally above normal, according to our meteorologists.
Temperatures were six to eight degrees above normal in central British Columbia and on the prairies but were near or below normal in the north and the east. A breakdown of average winter temperatures dating back to 1895 shows a trend toward warmer winters in most regions of Canada. Nationally, winter 1992 was the warmest winter in southern British Columbia, the third warmest on the prairies, the fifth warmest along the Pacific coast.
In the past 10 years we have had some of the warmest summers ever recorded in Canada. The prediction of meteorologists the world over is slowly emerging, namely, that climate change is taking place. The consequences could be devastating to the millions who live in coastal lands. Approximately one-third of the world's population from Bangladesh to the islands in the Pacific Ocean would be threatened should the Arctic cap start melting and sea levels rise as predicted by scientists.
In today's Globe and Mail members will find an article in which it is reported that global warming will cost the United States economy alone $60 billion a year by the year 2050.

The root cause of this climate change is attributed to the greenhouse effect, which in turn is attributed to our consumption of fossil fuels, namely oil and
coal.
Members will see why some of us on this side of the House, in particular, were so disappointed at the speech given at the opening of this debate today by the Minister of the Environment who ignored the urgency of changing our energy policies, the urgency of integrating the environment in our economic policies, the urgency of arriving at the earth summit with clear ideas as to what we want to achieve through an international agreement on the protection of the atmosphere. Clearly we want an agreement of substance, with teeth, with targets and timetables, none of that wishy-washy pap advanced by the parliamentary secretary for external affairs earlier this afternoon. A sheer disgrace.
Nations like Holland, Germany, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand have understood the importance of dealing with the greenhouse effect and climate change. Unlike Canada, they have already announced commitments to reduce the greenhouse emissions by the year 2005 by some 20 per cent. By contrast, in Canada we are timidly hearing the government talk about stabilizing its C02 emissions by the year 2000, but the fact that this afternoon the Minister of the Environment did not even reiterate this commitment tells us that even that weak commitment is uncertain.
Some of our major competitors, including Japan and Germany, have adopted energy efficiency policies which lead to the reduction of carbon dioxide and to better economic performance at the same time. It is good business, in other words, to be energy efficient, but this government has not got the courage, the vision or the intelligence to put it together.
It is inevitable at this point that one should ask why the government does not follow its words, its declaratory ability, particularly abroad, with actions at home. Why does it refuse to sign the draft on the atmospheric convention not unless, and by making it quite clear to the global community, it includes specific targets and timetables for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
This is not a wide-eyed idea from the Official Opposition. This is a recommendation of the national round table on the environment and the economy, a body created by this government.
The Environment
We also call on the government, as the national round table has done, to contribute a minimum of $100 million to the financial package proposed by Maurice Strong on behalf of the earth summit and the global community.
Furthermore, the national round table proposes the establishment of an independent commission to identify federal government subsidy programs, especially in the area of agriculture, forestry and energy according to their sustainable development effects and then to begin a phase-out of the least desirable subsidies. With those freed moneys the government should consider improving the environmental efficiency of industry in those same sectors and enhance our commitment to support sustainable development in the developing world.
The national round table also urges the government to encourage reduction initiatives which would allow the poor nations in the Third World to practise and implement sustainable development, something that they cannot do now because they are under pressure to pay their debts and the interest on those debts.
A debate on the earth summit, without a reference to population increase, would be incomplete. The forecast is that the global community will double in the next 40 years from five billion to 10 billion inhabitants. Proposals have been made to the effect that women and couples must be given the tools and the right to choose the size of their own families.
In addition, population growth must be understood in terms of increased consumption and the impact on their resource base; namely land, water and air resources. Unfortunately the convention on population at the earth summit has been watered down so badly that it actually represents a retreat from earlier conventions in Mexico City and Bucharest.
What this debate and all the discussions which have taken place so far on the earth summit point to is the growing degree of interdependence around the globe between continents, between regional communities, between peoples of different backgrounds and cultures. This means, for instance, that the traditional knowledge of aboriginal peoples should be used as a basis for sustainable development, be they inhabitants of the Arctic or the tropics. This means that national delegations should include representatives from the aboriginal peoples. It means we should support their efforts to be recognized as peoples with legitimate nationhood status.

The Environment
On the broader front of north-south relations, it means that Canada and other developed countries should ensure that developing countries have equitable access to the technologies needed to support
sustainable development.
Again, on the north-south front it means that governments of developed countries should promote at the earth summit urgently needed measures that would reverse the tragic flow of capital from poorer to richer nations. Governments should press for a substantive convention aimed at stabilizing greenhouse gases. Governments should agree to the promotion of measures aimed at stabilizing world population. Governments should practise at home sustainability in forests, in fisheries, in agriculture, in energy and in the totality of their economic and social programs. Governments should forge a new concept of security based on the elimination of threats from pollution, threats from possible collapse of life in food support systems, threats from desertification, threats from overfishing and overcutting.
It means that governments should finally ratify the Law of the Sea to make it operative. Canada, unfortunately, has not done so yet. Governments, as originally intended, should look at the earth summit as a place where a new political agenda ought to be pursued and, with the agenda and the provision of funds, to implement it. This is where the summit will make it or break it. If the funds are requested by Maurice Strong to implement it every year in the range of $125 billion, it will not come through.
The earth summit is to be a place where the policies would be pursued of growth sufficient to meet human needs and aspirations. It would be the place where you would agree on policies that would increase equity within nations, where you would agree on policies that would increase equity between developed and developing countries. You would agree on policies that would reduce rates of population growth, policies that would conserve and enhance the natural resource base of the globe, policies that would ensure a reduction in the energy and resource content in economic growth, policies that would lead to institutional change, to integrate at last the economy and the environment in one flow of decision making right from the beginning,
rather than picking up the cost of environmental damage because of bad economic decisions.
In conclusion, what is badly needed at the earth summit, and there is still enough time to generate it, is good political will and nothing else; political will to implement the new agenda, which I roughly sketched out here for you this evening. It is the new agenda which has been proposed by Maurice Strong, which has been proposed by Jim MacNeill, which has been proposed by David Munroe and many other distinguished Canadians.
What will be decided at the earth summit will have a profound impact on the global community over the next century. This summit is a crucial appointment with destiny and with history. The well-being of the global community will depend on the enlightenment and courage of the world leaders.
The question that has yet to be answered is: Will these leaders live up to the occasion?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot of debate in the world today about who will go to Rio, who will not go to Rio, what they will say in Rio, or more important I suppose, what they will not say.
As we look at the emergence of the conference, when all the posturing is done, when all the rhetoric is finished, when all the trees are chopped down and the papers are piled on desks and faxed around the world, what will be left?
How will we measure the results of Rio? We hope that it will be more than a debate, an argument, between developed and developing countries. We hope that it will not break down over the differences of developed and developing countries, but rather results can be found by bringing developed and developing countries together through issues of common concern.
Those are the scientific issues of global warming, the ozone layer. These important big science and technological kinds of issues are facing the very survival of our globe. These are the major elements of discussion at Rio.

The real measure of the success or lack of success of Rio will be the quality of the air we are able to breath a few months or a few years later. Will it be better or worse? If the quality of air continues to deteriorate and we can no longer breathe, we have failed.
If the water that we drink continues to deteriorate in quality, we will have failed.
If we cannot find a solution to waste management programs, if we cannot find any place to put our garbage or to reduce the amount of garbage that we are piling up until we sit on piles of garbage that leach out into our rivers, we will have failed.
If we cannot find answers to waste management control and if whatever over and wonderful structure that we place does not provide green open spaces left in the world so that not just human beings can breathe, but those in the bio-diversity chains of life can continue to exist, one related to the other, we will have failed.
Those are the true measures. Can we save and sustain a minimal quality of life? Can we move beyond the doomsday, the sky is falling in, and say we can accommodate a world that not only can survive but maybe can survive and make our quality of life even better, be it that quality of life is in the least developed country and simply means the quality of moving from no food to basic food? Can we develop in the world a sense of upward mobility and production and at the same time containing our consumption?
There are only two things we can count on in the world today and be sure of. We can lament them and say we wish they were not going to happen, but as the previous member just said, the population will double from 5 billion to 10 billion. We might want it otherwise but it seems inevitable.
With that doubling of population and the acceptance of market systems, pluralistic democracies and these other trends of today, can we sustain the growth, can we sustain even a minimal quality of life, can we make life better?
I would like to accept that the task is difficult, maybe improbable, but that if mankind chooses to come together in Rio and come together in that way in the world with commitment at least, there is hope and we can live in the new world.
The Environment
Let us recognize what the new world is. The new world is a world of cities. It is a world of urbanization. For years we have focused in the United Nations on the important issues of basic potable water, or rural development, of response to emergency relief and these kinds of things in an effective way.
That is not where the next century is. The next century is going to place the people of the world from those rural areas into cities. That is where the consumption will be, that is where the degradation will be and that is where your lifestyle and my lifestyle will be, even though we might desire that it should be otherwise.
In 1980 there were 1.8 billion people living in cities. By 2010 that will increase to about 3.4 billion and by 2025 it is suggested it will be around 5.5 billion. What kind of cities? Will they be the massive megacities with the rotten homeless in the central core, with the shantytown surroundings, with people drinking undrinkable water, breathing unbreathable air and sitting bumper to bumper in rotting cars on freeways for three and four hours to and from work? Need it be that way in this kind of mega-city that is evolving? Not necessarily if we can recognize this trend toward urbanization and we can begin to manage urbanization in a realistic way to improve and sustain the quality of life and to sustain cities.
One factor that really illustrates this for me is I saw a picture from space. This picture was taken of the lights of North America. My first reaction was that it was a terrible waste of energy, the lights of North America at night. Then I started to realize what it really was. It was showing us this trend, the reality that the most developed nation in the world is really a nation of growing cities that are linked by jet streams of C02, that are linked by ribbons of asphalt, ribbons of wires carrying light and electricity, ships across our oceans, submarines underneath our oceans, ocean dumping. I thought this is real. We better look to that future.
While the scientific issues of global warming are extremely critical, the one element that developed and developing countries have in common is that they are all facing the issues of urbanization. Where will people work? How will they work? What jobs will they do? How will they travel to and from those jobs?

The Environment
That is what the people in my riding care about. I live 40 minutes from downtown Vancouver. Five years ago it was 35 minutes. Now it is 40 minutes or 45 minutes or one hour. The road did not stretch any longer. We put twice as many cars on it. I wonder how we are going to feel on those same roads when the city of Vancouver grows from 1.7 million to 3 million by 2010 and there is twice as many cars.
I wonder how we are going to breathe in my valley any more than we breathe in Los Angeles in the San Bernadino. Now when we drive into work in our cars in Vancouver in the morning by eleven o'clock in the afternoon it is all blown back up the valley. We cannot see our mountains anymore. That is what it is really about.
Can we sustain the quality of air that I, you and our children are trying to breathe? Our children and your children will move to the cities and they will be in those cars. Can we create liveable regional urban areas?
I looked at this map and I used to think I came from greater Vancouver. All of a sudden I look at the map and I find out that it is not greater Vancouver I come from but a new megacity, a new urbanization area running all the way from Seattle to Vancouver.
Unfortunately, in the United States the polls show that most Americans no longer think that the most desirable place in the United States to live is Los Angeles. That is an easy one, is it not? It is another failure of urbanization. We did not build our cities so that they were liveable, so that people could find identity and place in those communities, in those megalopolises.
We must learn from that if we are to sustain the quality of life that makes everyone in the United States want to migrate to the Seattle area and everybody in Canada want to migrate to Vancouver and Victoria, that is what the polls show. However, they are going to destroy everything that we all want to move and live there for unless we have the vision to see the whole city that goes from Portland, Seattle, and Tacoma all the way up to Vancouver as the one city that it is and to treat it as such.
We have some promising signs. One of those promising signs came from the premier of the new government. He suggested a few years ago a great idea called the Georgia Basin. He said: "We should not think that
the city of Vancouver is just Vancouver. It really is the water in between all the way over to Victoria, and it is that whole strait, and even moving down toward the United States".
I am pleased to say that I spoke with him this week. I know that he is meeting with Booth Gardner, the governor of the state of Washington. They are signing accords and starting to move toward the recognition of this greater unit in probably the most wonderful place to live in the world. Can we preserve it? Can we sustain it?
If in North America, in two of the wealthiest countries of the world with the highest quality of life, we cannot demonstrate that we can preserve that quality of life there is no point in going to Rio. If we cannot do it how can a developed country that cannot even provide basic food, shelter and health care to its people provide, sustain and hope for any future or quality of life?
It is because of these concerns that all levels of government must work together-the municipal governments that plan, the regional governments that plan, the provincial governments and the state governments that provide planning and energy and the national governments with their green plans. How can we tie those green plans into the sustainable cities programs of human settlements at the United Nations of the UNDP programs, with the World Bank Development Program?
I think we can if we can work together, if we can see the objective of desirable quality lifestyles within rural urbanized areas. With that in mind I am pleased to say that we have developed what we call the Vancouver charter.
Fifty-four nations of the world gathered in March in Vancouver and said: "Yes, we see the problem of urbanization. We want the United Nations to turn its focus that way and address the problem of sustainable cities". That was the first good recommendation that came out of the Vancouver declaration.
The second good recommendation that came out of it was one that said: "Let us show the way. Let us do three major world demonstration projects. One demonstration project would be our own right at home. Let us show that we can do a world demonstration project pulling all of the jurisdictions together in the Peugot and Georgia Basins and show not only that we can sustain the quality of life but improve that quality of life".

If we can do that then let us find another city in the rapid industrialization area that has to turn the factories off at two o'clock in the afternoon and send the kids home from school to let people breathe. Let us find another one of those rapid industrializations and see if we can take contemporary technology and turn it into a renewed industrialized city that provides both quality of jobs and work and quality of life.
Let us look over at eastern Europe at the terrible gloom and doom that still remains after the Second World War, at those poor once glorious cities. Can we rehabilitate them? Can we restore them? Let us do another world demonstration project.
In Rio let us take our focus, choose a few demonstration projects and show what all this science, technology, political will and human concern can do. Global parliamentarians on habitat, human settlements, development and the environment struck that tone in the Vancouver conference.
They addressed many other urbanization issues that they have mentioned in that charter: human settlements, management, effective land use, land resource management, adequate shelter for all, integrated provision of environmental infrastructure, sustainable transport and energy systems, human resource development and capacity building, promoting human settlements, planning and management in disaster prone areas, promoting sustainable construction, and industry activities, as well as another one that was added by a far-thinking Canadian.
That far-thinking Canadian is sitting in the House tonight, the member for Ottawa West. She came to our conference of 54 parliaments, one of the largest parliamentary conferences in Canada's history, and asked: "What about the role of women in urbanization?" She wrote a special paragraph on that into the charter, into the declaration.
I commend her tonight. I thank her for her role there, and for her continuing role in that international organization that was created there.
There are many other issues that we wish to speak about with respect to human settlements. As we pushed the science in Brazil we have forgotten what we have in common, which is urbanization.
The Environment
I hope that urbanization can grow in its strength and its central theme. It was recognized in New York at the prep-com that we have not done enough to deal with how people live together, one with the other. How do we survive within that quality of environment? As I speak tonight on sustainable cities and urbanization I know I am speaking about a subject of yesterday and a subject of today, but I am talking about the subject of the future.
Canada has shown world leadership through Monique Landry, Jean Charest and others who helped us form one of the largest parliamentary non-governmental organizations of the United Nations. We are going to bring the issue of urbanization to the forefront of the United Nations.
I am very pleased as chairman of the organization to join Senator Nakanichi of Japan, the international chairman, to take these ideas to Brazil. We have a ten-minute slide show that is now being shown all over the world that illustrates these ideas. We have received support from all of the congressmen in the state of Washington for the idea of a demonstration project.
We have received support from the Government of British Columbia, from many people within the Government of Canada, from Mayor Gordon Campbell and the regional district, Mayor Bose and all of the planners on both sides of the border. Congressman John Miller has struck a parallel committee in the United States.
We are working together to show the world that we can do it, that we can double our population, that we can double our consumption within a rationalized, urbanized setting. Cities can be wonderful places to live if we have the foresight to look to their future.
I am enthusiastic about Rio. I am hopeful for Rio. I am hopeful because of the very fact that we are having this debate tonight. I hope that many members of Parliament will join our Prime Minister in a Canadian delegation, on their own or in their international NGOs. Another great Canadian parliamentary NGO, Parliamentarians for Global Action, will be there. Our environment committee chairman, the member for Rosedale, is doing such great things. There is good work from Canada.

The Environment
We have a leadership role to play there and we have a responsibility to carry out there. I look forward to being part of that team to carry these messages to the world for a better place for you, myself and our children.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in this debate on the earth summit, the UN Conference on Environment and Development, to take place next month.
I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, who made a very impassioned speech earlier today on issues of environmental concern. She spoke about militarization, or demilitarization. She spoke about over-population and the crisis it is causing for our environment. She spoke about the debt crisis that the developed world finds itself in and our obligation in the developed world to deal with that in a humanitarian and environmentally sensitive manner. I know that she has a very heartfelt commitment to the issue of environmental sustainability. I want to pay tribute to the remarks she made and perhaps expand on some of the issues she raised in terms of women's agenda for the environment.
The World Women's Congress action agenda is a compilation of the work, ideas and values of over 1,500 women from all around the world, from the north, south, east and west who gathered for a conference on women and the environment last year.
These 1,500 women represent millions of women from all over the world. They are presenting recommendations to the UN as a basic guide to promote environmental and economic security.
It is important to let members of Parliament and the Canadian public know of this women's action agenda, agenda 21. Unfortunately I cannot put our entire agenda onto the record as I only have 20 minutes to speak tonight. However in that time I want to give voice to the work of these women. I will read right from their document. I quote:
We, women of many nations, cultures and creeds, of different colours and classes, have come together to voice our concern for the health of our living planet and all its interdependent life forms. . .
As caring women, we speak on behalf of those who could not be with us, the millions of women who experience daily the violence of environmental degradation, poverty, and exploitation of their work and their bodies. As long as Nature and women are abused by a so-called "free market" ideology and wrong concepts of "economic growth", there can be no environmental security. Rainforest dwellers, island peoples, and inhabitants of fragile arid zones are threatened with displacement and dispossession due to human disruption and pollution of vulnerable ecosystems. In a world that condones such practices, there lies little hope for long-term survival or peace among peoples.
We are deeply troubled by the increasing quality of life disparities between inhabitants of industrialized nations and those in so-called "developing" nations and by the growing numbers of poor within the rich countries. In all instances, women, children, minorities, and indigenous people are the chief victims.
We are outraged by the inequities among children the world over, with millions denied food, shelter, health care, education and opportunities for a full and productive life. We condemn the racism and disrespect of diversity on which this inequity feeds. . .
We will no longer tolerate the enormous role played by military establishments and industries in making the 20th century the bloodiest and most violent in all of human history. Militarism is impoverishing and maiming both the Earth and humanity. It is urgent that resources currently consumed by the military be redirected to meet the needs of people and our planet.
We believe that a healthy and sustainable environment is contingent upon world peace, respect for human rights, participatory democracy, the self-determination of peoples, respect for indigenous peoples and their lands, cultures, and traditions, and the protection of all species.
We believe that basic human rights include access to clean air and water, food, shelter, health, education, personal liberty, and freedom of information.
We come together to pledge our commitment to the empowerment of women, the central and powerful force in the search for equity between and among the peoples of the Earth and for a balance between them and the life-support systems that sustain us all.
Women are a powerful force for change. In the past two decades thousands of new women's groups have been organized in every region of the world, ranging from community based groups to international networks. Everywhere, women are catalysts and initiators of environmental activism. Yet policy-makers continue to ignore the centrality of women's roles and needs as they make Fate of the Earth decisions.

We demand our right, as half the world's population, to bring our perspectives, values, skills, and experiences into policy - making, on an equal basis with men, not only at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.. .but on into the 21st century.. .We appeal to all women and men to join in this call for profound and immediate transformation in human values and activities.. .Knowing that it is the number of people plus their consumption of resources plus their wastes that determine their environmental impact, we note that a person in the industrialized world has a far greater negative impact on the environment than a person living in a poor country.
Aware that the right to reproductive health and choice is a basic human right of all individuals, we point out that the World Fertility Survey estimates that there are 500 million couples who wish to plan their family size but have no access to the means to do so.
Fearful of the threat to women's lives by the HIV pandemic and recognizing that women's ability to protect themselves from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and to determine when and if to have children is a prerequisite for women's health, selfdetermination, and empowerment.
We condemn any attempt to deprive women of reproductive freedom or the knowledge to exercise that freedom.
We demand	women-centred,	women-managed,
comprehensive reproductive health care and family planning, including the right to prenatal care, safe and legal voluntary contraceptives and abortion, sex education, and information.
We urge governments, multilateral and donor agencies to increase investments in comprehensive reproductive health services and to include men as beneficiaries of family planning education and services. Family support services should include child care and parental leave.
We call on policy-makers to recognize that raising the economic, health, education, and social status of women are essential to ending environmental degradation.
We call for recognition of the existence of a global, environmentally induced cancer epidemic and demand removal from the environment of carcinogenic substances, which have particularly adverse effects on women and children. Particular attention in medical research and treatment should be paid to women's cancers: breast, ovarian, cervical, uterine and vaginal. Research and remedial action should also focus on the effects on health of toxic chemicals, nuclear wastes, radiation, pesticides and fertilizers.
We demand that all governments systematically alert their citizens to the danger of AIDS and provide them with the information on how to avoid contamination.
We ask the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization, national governments, public health groups, corporations and unions to increase efforts to eliminate environmental occupational hazards in factories, offices and on the land.
That is a part of women's action agenda 21. There are many issues the women's action agenda touches on in great detail. It discusses specific steps for con-
The Environment
version of military resources and personnel to socially and environmentally productive rather than destructive purposes.
It recommends gender balance on all UN bodies, as well as including an equal number of women in the decision-making capacities in all governmental and non-governmental organizations at international, national and community levels. Without this there is no true democracy. There can be no democracy, no real democracy, when the majority of the world's population, women, has almost no say in world decisions.
The women's agenda points out the need for an international code of environmental ethics and accountability. It deplores the disempowerment of women in the face of technology and encourages the education and training of women in math and sciences. It recommends specific action on the issues of foreign debt and trade. It discusses women, poverty, land rights, food security, credit, bio-diversity, biotechnology, nuclear power, alternative energy and women's consumer power.
I would like to expand on the issues of poverty, over-population and reproductive choice. First I would like to state that over-consumption by the industrialized world is responsible for the vast majority of the environmental problems that we face. Poverty also leads to environmental destruction because the poor are forced to use whatever they can to stay alive.
If they have to plant crops on depleted land, cut down more trees for firewood than they can replace, or clear forests for cultivation, they will do so in order to survive. The result is shrinking forests, spreading deserts, rampant soil erosion, and even more poverty and even more hunger.
The world has experienced an unprecedented increase in population. Other speakers tonight have made mention of this. There were one billion people on the planet in the year 1830. Now there are more than four billion people. According to the Brundtland report, within the next 35 to 40 years there are likely to be twice as many people on earth consuming three times as much food and seeking four times as much energy.

The Environment
Women have an important role to play in sustainable development. Women in developing nations tend to do most of the productive work. In Africa women do 80 per cent of the agricultural work. When women have few rights and no options, they also cannot exercise environmental standards in the subsistence work that they do. Development and environmental programs are often not aimed at them, nor are they developed by the women themselves. Their literacy rate is far below that of men's. They are kept often in ignorance and have little control over their own bodies.
Women are the teachers of our children. Poverty, over-population and environmental degradation will continue indefinitely unless the status of women improves. It is unfortunate but often women are treated as simple receptacles for child bearing. Women are urged to have more children as their duty to their husbands and their duty to their country. No one takes the woman's own needs into account. Unwanted pregnancy does not lead to stronger, more stable countries. In fact the opposite is true.
When children are wanted, they are loved and they are cherished. When children have a good chance of survival, women do not feel the need to have as many as possible. When economic options exist for women, they do not need to rely on large numbers of children to support them in their old age.
Over-population and poverty are interrelated. Poverty, the lack of access to family planning and the low status of women cause over-population, and over-population reinforces poverty. Family planning alone is not enough. Where men decide how many children wives should have, where women are forced by the community to bear children, where poverty and lack of health care mean that only a few children will survive, women do have many children.
Family planning resources must be accompanied by the right of women to decide the number and the spacing of their children without coercion. Better health care for mothers, infants and children so that the children who are born do survive is essential in keeping population manageable. Over-population is a tax on our resources and can only be slowed with the distribution of resources.
There is more than an environmental consideration here. There is a very sad human one. In Latin America there are an estimated 40 million children who live on the streets. That is more than the entire population of Canada. The World Watch Institute reports that reproductive problems are the leading killer of women of child bearing age throughout the developing world. At least one million women die each year and more than a hundred million suffer disabling illnesses from childbirth, illegal abortion and pregnancy complications. "A deadly combination of high birth rate and little or no access to contraception, safe abortion, and maternal care lies behind these numbers", the report said.
The report's author stated that the annual number of deaths due to reproductive causes would double by the end of the decade without a reordering of priorities toward health care and family planning.
Family planning must give people information and choice and must be accompanied by environmentally friendly economic development and resources to improve the health, the literacy and the status of women.
Sterilization and birth control should never be forced, but everyone should have access to family planning so they can determine for themselves the number and the spacing of their children.
Throughout history the biological imperative for human survival has been to reproduce as much as possible. Now that situation has reversed itself. Over-population is a threat to our common survival and is particularly detrimental to developing nations.
Our world's resources are being squandered. We overconsume in the industrialized world and we do not share our resources. World governments are not yet serious about the environment and equality. First, we must care for our resources and ensure that we do not harm the environment or each other. Second, we must distribute those resources.
As long as the developing world is poor leading to over-population and economic development contrary to environmental goals, the world's environment will suffer. We will all suffer. As long as the industrialized world over-consumes the world environment will suffer. We are all in this together. Everyone is affected.

Poverty is not just something that happens in developing nations. Aboriginal people in Canada suffer over-proportionately from poverty. Some 60 per cent of Canada's poor are women. We have countless homeless people, and one in ten Canadians is now unemployed. Lack of respect for the environment exists right here in Canada. Not all Canadians have access yet today to safe and effective contraception and family planning information, not even here in Canada.
The women's action agenda pledges to act in solidarity with women around the world to change policies responsible for economic, social and political inequities and to restore health to our planet.
Poor women means poor children. It means a cycle of poverty. Environmental degradation, disease and instability will continue throughout every generation until we address the status of women issues.
Sadly Canada is not in a leadership position on the status of women according to the UN human development report. We are one of the best countries in the world in which to live, the report says, except for women. Canada must take action within its own borders and internationally on the issues I have mentioned if we are to survive, if our planet is to survive.
Finally I want to bring to the attention of the House that the Population Institute has produced a priority declaration. In the preamble it states: "World population currently at 5.4 billion burgeons by more than 95 million each year. It is expected that the annual net increase will reach 100 million by the middle of this decade. Three billion people, an amount equal to the entire population in the world in 1960, will reach their reproductive years within the next generation". In this declaration they call on all nations to redouble their support to the UN population fund.
I would like to call on my colleagues and other members of Parliament who are here tonight to join with me in signing this declaration on world population.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you on the responsibilities you have accepted, even if it be only for a moment.
In the absence of the Minister of Forestry, I would like to spend a few moments this evening talking
The Environment
about the importance of forests in the global community, here in Canada, and certainly to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which will be occurring in Rio in just a few weeks time.
I would like to do that because forests are certainly our most bountiful and versatile renewable resource. They are a major source of economic activity and employment in many countries around the world. Their products are environmentally friendly, biodegradable and often recyclable.
The environmental role of forests is well recognized. Forests are a provider of wildlife habitat and they are indispensable to soil and water conservation and in local and regional climatic stability. More recently their significant global carbon, hydrological and climatic cycles is receiving increased world-wide attention.
The importance of forests in maintaining biodiversity for the production of food, fibre and pharmaceuticals is gaining in prominence and recognition.
From a societal perspective, forests are important for the maintenance of social and cultural diversity, particularly for people living in and around them. In some cases entire communities depend upon forests for their survival.
Recent studies show that world-wide the area of degraded land is equal to the total land base of China and India combined. The rehabilitation of such land would constitute an important contribution to sustainable development of the world's forests.
The use of forests in developed countries has shifted with changing social and economic needs and evolving technological capacities. In pre-agricultural society, forests served as a major source of food, fibre, fuel and shelter. Subsequently large tracts of forest land were harvested and cleared to meet the perceived need for economic development and capital generation and to create arable agricultural land in order to produce the necessary food for an expanding population.
However, this same sequence of events which has been experienced by developing countries is being repeated in many developing countries and at a considerably faster rate and with increasingly complex technologies.

The Environment
At the same time the effects of tropical boreal and temperate forests on the environment are receiving world-wide attention, particularly in developed countries.
There is now greater recognition of the need to shift our approach to forestry from sustained yield, which is aimed at maintaining an annual flow of wood to sustainable development, which takes into account both wood production and environmental outputs and values such wildlife habitat and soil and water conservation. Attaining this shift in the outputs and values would involve an associated shift from forest management to forest ecosystem management.
During the past two decades the scale, scope and complexity of environmental issues has been widening from local and national to regional and global levels. Within this broadened context, forest related economic environmental issues have emerged as a priority on the agenda of world leaders and this has happened for several reasons.
It has happened because of the need to satisfy the growing demand for forest products as the result of a rapidly growing world population. It has happened as a result of the need to facilitate international trade in forest products.
To address the issue of constantly shrinking forest cover and the consequence of soil erosion and environmental and watershed degradation, including loss, of course, of wildlife habitat.
It has happened because of the need to protect forests world-wide because of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases and the impact of forests on the environment regarding global carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrological and climatic cycles. It has happened because of the need to protect and conserve forests for the biodiversity and heritage values and to counteract forest soil acidification and forest decline associated with acid rain.
It has also happened because of the need to protect forests from negative impacts of anticipated global warming. As a result, forest harvesting and deforestation are exceedingly important in the minds of many people. It is important to understand that neither of these two in themselves are the main cause of global warming nor, on the other hand, would reforestation and afforestation be the principal solutions.
However, the role of forests in the global carbon cycle is now receiving special and well deserved world-wide attention. Regarding this particular issue, it is important in my mind to note that the right of sovereign nations to conserve, manage and utilize forest reserves within their jurisdiction is unquestioned and must continue to be recognized universally. However, with the recognition of sovereignty follows the responsibility to consult and to co-operate with other nations on global and transboundary levels.
This also involves a responsibility to maintain and to develop the productive capacity and ecological diversity of our land, which is to be inherited by future generations.
In an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, global problems require collective action and co-operation. Consequently, through mutual agreement, financial and technical assistance, and investment and trade arrangements, nations both individually and collectively are searching for an appropriate framework to co-operate in the conservation, management and utilization of forests at both the regional and global levels.
As a result, sustainable development of forests is the most pressing challenge facing forest managers and forest policy makers today.
Before specifically discussing the UNCED forestry agenda, I think it is worth while to stop for a moment and to outline, albeit briefly, the importance of forests to Canada and to Canadians. I think that is important because, as you know Mr. Speaker, Canada's forests cover over half of our territory and represent some 10 per cent of the world's forest cover.
Forests simultaneously provide a wide range of economic and environmental benefits. The forest and our relationship with it is an integral part of Canadian history and our social-cultural identity.
Canada, in fact, has been and is a forest nation and the future of our forests, therefore, should be of concern to all Canadians. Economically the forest products sector is Canada's largest industry. It employs over 800,000 Canadians, both directly and indirectly.
In 1990 alone it generated over $50 billion in economic activity. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are over 350 single industry towns in Canada which are dependent on forestry. In fact Canada is the world's largest exporter of forest products. Annually forestry contributes more to the country's net balance of trade than the net export earnings of fishing, agriculture, energy and mining combined.

In addition, our forests are an essential component of our multi-billion dollar tourism and recreational industry. In fact, this undoubtedly will be a growing industry because of the interest throughout the world in what is generally ecotourism.
Environmentally, Canada's forests form a critical component of our life support system. Our forests preserve and purify our fresh water supplies, conserve the soil, reduce flooding and landslides, and provide wildlife habitat, as I said earlier. Our forests provide life-giving oxygen, moderate the climate and help clean the air.
As forests grow they absorb carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. They provide natural and wilderness areas for the cultural, spiritual and recreational benefit of Canadians.
Since time immemorial forests have sustained the cultural, spiritual and economic needs of many of Canada's aboriginal peoples.
A number of existing and planned international agreements, include a forest related component such as the conventions on climate change and biodiversity. However, from a forestry perspective, this approach is still fragmented. Consequently, Canada has assumed a leadership role in calling for a comprehensive and cohesive approach on a global basis to address forest-related issues and opportunities.
In July 1990 the G-7 leaders at the Houston economic summit called for a global agreement on forests. Since then, many countries have actively supported the concept, with Canada continuing to demonstrate leadership on the issue.
At the first UNCED prep-com which occurred in Nairobi, Canada drew attention to the G-7 declaration and proposed that UNCED study the conservation and sustainable development of forests rather than the much narrower topic of deforestation, which had been originally considered.
This idea was accepted and led to a decision at the second prep-com to develop a non-legally binding "authoritative statement of principles" for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all the world's forests.
The concept of an agreement on principles for forests, leading to a global forest convention, was confirmed by the G-7 summit meeting in London just
The Environment
a year ago, last July. Consequently Canada attaches great importance to the progress being made on forest issues during the UNCED preparatory process.
Moreover, we look forward to the guiding principles being endorsed by world leaders at Brazil in just a few weeks time. Hopefully, a signed authoritative statement will become the basis for the eventual negotiation of a legally binding and comprehensive convention on forests, one that would balance and accommodate both the economic and environmental dimension of forests, while making appropriate linkages with the climate change and biodiversity conventions.
Forestry Canada's role in the interdepartmental mechanisms dealing with UNCED is being complemented by an extensive consultative process designed to ensure that all major Canadian forestry stakeholders have the opportunity to present their views prior to seeking cabinet approval of the Canadian negotiating position.
The round of formal consultations which were held involved a full range of representatives from provincial and territorial governments, industry, labour, environmental non-governmental organizations, professional associations, small woodlot owners, aboriginal groups and as well, the academic community.
As we approach Rio, there is a high degree of consensus and supporting Canada for the development endorsement of meaningful guidance and principles. There is as well a commitment to negotiate a forest convention, including internationally agreed criteria for sustainable forest management. This strong Canadian consensus has been carefully built over the last 18 months.
Furthermore, our international activities have been undertaken in concert with a number of major domestic initiatives. These include the establishment of the Department of Forestry itself in 1989 which has a legislative mandate to promote sustainable development. It includes a national forest strategy announced in March 1992 entitled "Sustainable Forests: A Canadian Commitment" which expresses the views of all of the Canadian stakeholders and it includes as well forest related initiatives in the green plan and federal-provincial forest resource development agreements.

The Environment
It is the government's intention at the upcoming meetings in Rio to actively seek a commitment to negotiate an international convention on forests. We will also actively seek agreement on a set of guiding principles for forests, with the goal of balancing economic opportunities and environmental responsibilities at both the national and global levels.
Forests are a precious national and global resource which must be developed in a sustainable manner for the benefit of present and future generations. In Canada, we are addressing our domestic forestry opportunities with major initiatives in support of sustainable development. Internationally, global challenges will require global solutions.
We believe that the Rio earth summit is indeed an important step in establishing a fragile balance between the human need for economic development and the necessity to meet this need in harmony with our natural environment.
We look forward to Rio with the understanding that it is an important step forward and indeed it will be but a step in an ongoing process. I do believe that those who have special responsibility for the management of forestry and forests in Canada whether it be at the ministerial or other level have indeed been acting in a co-operative and constructive manner toward achieving that objective.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and talk about the earth summit. We tend to think of summits as being called to discuss how to end a war or how to expand trade or international economies. But this is the earth summit and it is without doubt the most important, the most urgent summit ever held in history.
It is a question of more than our health although certainly the health of individuals world-wide is at stake. What is at stake in this earth summit is nothing less than the survival of life on this planet. It is the survival of the atmosphere of the globe which sustains life. It is the survival of the soil and everything that comes from it. It is the survival of the water systems of the globe. It is the survival of everything that makes life, not good, but possible.
We have been doing such irreparable damage to our environment and to our globe that we risk being
unable to even survive. That risk is not a century from now or a millennium from now, it is a matter of years from now. Therefore the time for action is now.
When the Brundtland commission came out with the report called Our Common Future, it certainly revolutionized talks from politicians at least. For some it revolutionized thinking about the environment and the economy. To date, it has failed to revolutionize action in the way that is necessary if we are to stem the terrible damage that has been done largely in the northern half of this world and largely by those of us who enjoy the greatest of the benefits of the resources of this earth.
We have talked about the sustainable development as meaning linking care for the environment and economic development. What we usually end up talking about are trade-offs. Can we afford to protect the environment? Translate that question and it is can we afford to live? Can we afford to survive? What is life worth? What is the survival of all life worth? We have failed miserably to recognize that what we have to do is integrate what we do economically with what we do to the environment and for the environment. Without trees there is no forest industry. Without fish there is no fishing industry. Without oil there is no energy. In every domain of our economy, without natural resources there is no prosperity and there is no quality of life.
We have tended to ignore the fact that sustainable development is a three-legged stool, not a twolegged stool. In addition to economy and environment, there is a link called equity. Because we have ignored that third aspect of sustainable development, we have created a situation in which the very security of our world is threatened, in which one billion people live in poverty, under nourished and in danger of starvation. We have created a dichotomy between the industrialized so-called developed countries of the world and those that are euphemistically called developing.
What we can see in the next 40 years is a doubling of the population of the world and an increase by six times in energy consumption if the developing countries follow the same pattern of lifestyle as we have followed. We know that will lead to a global climate change of catastrophic proportions.

We have the issue of equity between the north and the south, but we also have the very important issue of equity between people. As the speaker before me has said, equity for women is a fundamental building block if we are to save our environment and save our world. Of the one billion who live in poverty, most are women. Forty thousand children a day still die for lack of clean water. How can we say that in a world that is so rich? We allow it to go on day after day while we spend money on the instruments of death instead of providing for life.
Barely a month ago I was at a conference in Vancouver as part of the Globe 92 conference on the environment. It was focused on habitat and on our cities and on our communities, rural and urban. When we got to that conference we had a declaration there, but very quickly the women got together and said this declaration about communities is all about business and buildings. It is not about people. We sat down, as the member for Fraser Valley West has said, and worked hard to change that declaration, not to take out what was there, but to add the voices of women which complete the humanity of our statements and our actions.
What the women wanted to add to that declaration had to do with how are the elderly cared for, how are the disabled cared for, how do cities provide green spaces and play spaces for children, how do we integrate our home and our work. What the women wanted to deal with was clean water, access to fuel, access to food; all the fundamentals of life.
Women talked about cities and children. We think we had a problem in Los Angeles in the last week. We think we have had a problem in Toronto in the last few days. What kind of problem do we think we are building up in this world when 40 million children around the world are homeless, literally living on the streets of cities with no other value except survival, often from the age of two?
What kind of a population do we think we are raising in this world in which nobody is caring for children, in which they are not caring for each other? How do we expect them to care for us and our cities or for our values?
We have seen a very small symptom in our own continent in the last few days of what we can expect
The Environment
mega-times greater in the cities of the world if we do not act quickly to look after our children. We pay no attention to the economic value of the work of women.
When men lay a pipe in a village to bring water, that has economic value. When women, as many around the world do, work four and five hours a day to carry water to their homes, their families and their children, that has no economic value. Women can spend as many hours every day seeking fuel to cook for their families and we know that when we free the time of women from those essential tasks of getting fuel, food and water, immediately we improve the condition of their children. We improve the nutrition of their children. We improve the education of their children.
Two thirds of those who are illiterate in this world are women, women raising the next generation. We are concerned about over-population and we want to impose on the developing countries some kinds of limits on their population growth. It is really easy.
The single most effective way to reduce population growth is to improve the education of women. It operates internationally. The greater the education of women, the lower the birth rate. Women are the key decision makers and innovators in the communities. They are the ones who relate most closely to the natural environment. It is a source of food. It is a source of medicine. It is a source of fuel to provide for their families. Around the world women and their children are the victims of abuse of economic activity.
I listened in Vancouver to women from Peru talk about the economic terrorism by the drug trade against women in the small villages where they and their children are coerced into being part of the drug trade and growing the coca. When the forces of the world converge on them to destroy the coca plants, what they also do is destroy the fields that are growing the food.
I heard from them about the abuse of children internationally because we have the economic power to travel anywhere in the world we want to and do whatever we want to do to children.
I heard about the international trade in children. Women have to be given access to resources, access to the decision making process, access to the implementation policies and full and equal participation or our full humanity is not involved in solving the tremendous problems we have created.

The Environment
The third preparatory conference for the earth summit made it very clear that the concerns of women have to be integrated in every single aspect of all the programs, all the policies and all the international conventions being discussed at the earth summit. This has not yet happened.
Canada is first in the world as the best place in the world to live, but not for women. We are number one, but not for women. We drop to number eight and I have to repeat that. When we include the status of women, Canada is the eighth country in the world.
I see the danger of the increasing inequity as I see the globalization of trade and a new economic colonialism that can go anywhere, wherever the environmental standards are lowest, wherever people are poorest and most desperate, and exploit both the human and natural resources of the world.
Canadians are concerned about their environment. They say, on the other hand, that they want to see cuts in foreign aid. I want to tell Canadians that the only way we can improve the environment is to improve the economic situation of the poorest countries and the poorest peoples in the world. We are now taking $50 billion more as the wealthiest countries in the world out of the poorest countries of the world. We are not putting into the poor countries. We are taking from them.
These are some of the things that the women I have spoken to are concerned about. If protecting bio-diversity means protecting the plants that they have relied on for generations to heal their children so that international companies can come in and take those plants and turn them into expensive patent medicines and sell them back into the country from which they took those plant products at a price that the women can no longer afford to heal their children, what have those women gained, what have those children gained, what have those communities gained?
What does a community in a poor country gain when we import cotton and return it in the form of shirts and clothing that the people in that country cannot afford to buy? A few people in the wealthy countries may have become wealthier but a lot of people have become poorer.
We have to say that it is not good enough to wait for somebody else. Leadership is not huddling in the middle of a pack and shuffling forward as the pack shuffles forward. That is the sign of somebody just coming into adolescence and saying, "I cannot do anything different than anybody else. I might stand out and I may not be able to cope with it". Leadership means knowing what needs to be done and doing it and setting the kind of example that other people will want to follow.
We cannot say to the developing country: "Cut your demand for energy. Do not hope to have refrigerators and do not hope to have your homes comfortable and do not hope to have what we in the north have because you will damage the environment". How can we tell somebody in Africa not to have eight children when every one of our children takes 80 times the energy and does 80 times the damage to the environment of any one of their children?
This is true in a number of areas. We talk about being concerned. We know that if all the ozone destroying substances in the world were released overnight, the ozone would be gone and life on this earth would end. We continue to produce and we continue to use and we continue to expand our use of ozone. We know that the climate of our world is threatened and yet we fail to set clear targets and timetables for cutting or for even stabilizing the climate change gases that we are putting into the atmosphere. We know that the world's water supply is under threat and yet we pass regulations in Canada that still allow 400,000 tonnes a year of organic chlorines and poisonous substances to flow freely into our rivers and lakes. What kind of responsibility is that? How can we possibly then stand up on the world stage and claim to be leaders?
Canada must make it clear that we will not accept wishy-washy statements. It is too late for that. We need clear targets and timetables. We need concrete objectives. We need internationally binding conventions, not statements. We have to make it clear, if we want to persuade the rest of the world, that this is what is needed, that is what we are prepared to do because that is what we believe is not only right, but is necessary for survival.

The key issue for Canada has to become, not what the world will do, but what we will do. We simply cannot sit back and wait for somebody else to go first. Somebody has to go first. The world expects it to be Canada and I hope it will be.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, as have members on all sides of the House, to participate in this debate and also to follow one of my colleagues who has been an active member of the environment committee on which we both work.
As she and virtually all those who have spoken in this debate have said the issues at stake one can only describe them as having global proportions.
The preparations for this conference have gone on now for the better part of two years. I know that several people have said something about my involvement or participation in this process which has been very modest in comparison to those who have played a major role, particularly at the official level, and those who have followed the process leading up to the earth summit who have represented many of the independent sectors.
It is not often that one has an opportunity in advance of a conference to take note of some of the important work that has been done and that we hope will result in a significant measure of success in a little over a month's time.
I want to take the opportunity this evening because it might not come easily again to mention two things. First of all, extraordinary collaboration has existed among a variety of professional people from a number of federal government departments and from a large range of the public sector.
I want to even go beyond that, and this is about the most risky thing anyone can do, to mention a few names of people who have made a significant contribution already. They have worked in the shadows for the last two years to prepare this event.
My colleague from Ottawa said a moment ago: "It will be important for Canada and Canadians to take a leading role". Well I think I can confirm to this stage that Canadians have done just that.
The most symbolic aspect of that of course is Maurice Strong who is doing something that in its own way
The Environment
is truly historic. Having been the secretary general of the first conference on the environment 20 years ago at Stockholm, he is repeating that effort with an even larger conference this time, representing not only issues of environment 20 years later but the whole of the development agenda as well. That is truly something of Herculean proportions.
Very briefly though I want to recognize the fact that there have been a number of Canadian officials in the first instance beginning with the head of the Canadian delegation, Ambassador John Bell, supported by people like Vic Buxton. Ambassador Arthur Campeau has worked actively to provide leadership to this process and has recently been designated as the Prime Minister's personal representative for the earth summit. As well, there are people like the Assistant Deputy Minister of Forests, Dr. Maini, Serge April, Bob Apple-baum, George Greene, Michael Small, Janice Kostash, Barbara Brown, Louise Cote, and Tim Leah, and permanent Canadian diplomats such as John Sloan, David Malone, and Alexandra Bezerechi.
These are just some of the key people on the government side. I could have also mentioned the outstanding collaboration of representatives of the NGO sector, Johannah Bernstein, Peter Padbury, Geoffrey Grenville-Wood, and people from specially designated areas like Dan Smith from the Indigenous People and Miriam Wyman and a host of others.
I will not mention any more names but it was simply to give the idea that there are a lot of people who have been involved over the last two years to make this earth summit a successful venture, not just for Canadians I might add but for the whole of the human community. That is no small undertaking.
One of the things I wanted to say at the outset at this stage in the proceedings for those who have been following this somewhat closely there is a tendency even before the meetings in Rio to say that we have reached the point of exhaustion. Can we do anything more?
There have been four long preparatory committee meetings. The first one was in Nairobi almost two years ago. The second and third meetings took place in Geneva over the course of the last year. The final meeting concluded just a few weeks ago in New York.

The Environment
Each one of those meetings went on for a month and involved non-stop negotiating sessions, thousands of pages of documents that were constantly being amended and revised, late night sessions, early morning sessions, sometimes all night sessions, in order to try and bring together two agendas that are absolutely unique to our period of human history.
Before the 1950s it would have been virtually impossible to have a discussion anywhere on this planet about international development. By and large, it just did not exist. Until the meetings in Colombo and the beginnings of the Colombo plan and the work of the Commonwealth and the establishment of government departments on international development in the 1950s and 1960s, there was no such thing as an international development approach.
There might have been organizations of goodwill and good works. One can think of the international committee of the Red Cross, the YMCA, church and religious organizations which have existed in some cases for many centuries but to have governments dedicated to carrying out consistent, coherent, longterm programs of international development was really a phenomenon occurring after World War II.
Of course, in some ways it may have peaked in the 1970s. Certainly, in some ways we have been struggling over the last 20 years to try and recapture some of the momentum that was very clearly there at the time of and after the Pearson commission which made its first major program of development recommendations for the international community.
Somewhat more recently beginning in the 1960s certainly with the landmark publication of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, we have had the establishment first of domestic departments of environment in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Of course in 1972 in Stockholm the first world conference on the environment was held. From that the first major United Nations agency for environmental protection was established in Nairobi.
It is fair to say that we have seen both of these phenomena on parallel tracks. Some of us have even been travelling in those parallel tracks and sometimes, to state the obvious, parallel tracks never meet.
We have had those who have been concerned with development activities chugging along in their direction and having some success some days, little success on others.
Then in the course of the last two decades we have had those who have been concerned about matters having to do with environmental protection, with some of the megaproblems of pollution, whether it was the pollution of the earth's oceans, which cover two-thirds of the globe's surface, whether it was concern for what was happening to our atmosphere or our loss of arable land, or whether it was simply a general mix of all these things, especially for the world that is rapidly moving into urban and sometimes somewhat inhospitable surroundings.
About five years ago we had a commission that was established by the United Nations which decided to take a look at these two phenomena and see if they could somehow be brought together.
We had the publication of the Brundtland report and in my view the unique proposal that no longer should we try to deal with environment matters and development matters as separate agenda items. We should bring them together as a single issue because as I am sure has been said today and I have said many times now, these are opposite sides of the same reality.
That is not easy. You can say it. You can think about it. But to try and change in some cases half a century of activity in a very short space of time-and I regard a year or two as a short space of time-that is not easy.
Having observed at fairly close range during the last two years the preparations that have gone into the earth summit, the dedication and the insight, it is sufficiently important to say that even at this stage without knowing if anything more will be decided at Rio, that Rio will be an important watershed in human history.
It will no longer be possible in my view to be able to say we are going to deal with this as primarily a matter of development, or we are going to deal with that as primarily a matter of environment, and later on we will think about the other thing when it is appropriate.
I just do not think it will be possible to do that and I know, even as recently as this week, we had officials from the World Bank meeting with members of Parliament in Ottawa telling us that within 10 days they will publish their human development report for 1992 on the subject of environment and economics. The two are inextricably linked.

It is for that reason that we can regard this even as we anticipate it as an historic event.
Now what are some of the matters that will need to be looked at more closely? In anticipation of the earth summit three conventions have been actively negotiated.
The first convention had to do with the matter of biological diversity. It is well known that in the kind of rapid changes that are taking place on our planet we are losing the species of biological diversity at an incredibly advancing rate, disturbingly so. It is important sooner rather than later that we begin to provide a way in which the process of deterioration which has gone on throughout the whole of our ecosystem can be arrested.
We cannot say at this stage how much success we are going to make with that particular convention. But if I were a betting person, I would say that that convention has somewhat more hope of success at this point in time for this earth summit than any of the others that are currently being negotiated.
The second one is one that will not be a convention at all because there have been enormous difficulties between rich and poor countries in trying to come to an agreement. That is the hope for a forest convention.
We in this country, where we have 10 per cent of the earth's forests, are particularly concerned about having a convention that has some real meaning to it in terms of respecting and recognizing the importance both of diversity and the replenishment aspects of our forest situation.
It is fair to say that there are many anxieties and fears in Third World countries, particularly in southeast Asia, that a forest convention at this stage would benefit the rich countries and greatly weaken and endanger poor countries. We may have a set of forest principles but beyond that it is not very likely.
The third matter and the one that has concerned a number of members of this House, in particular the environment committee for well over a year, has been the matter of a convention on climate change, on global warming.
The Environment
This has been extremely difficult because nothing so much goes to the heart of industrialized countries than their heavy dependence on fossil fuels as well as the threats that may exist for developing countries that hope to go through some similar processes of development as changes that might take place with respect to activities emitting carbon dioxide, the 50 per cent critical aspect of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are negotiations which I understand may have concluded even on the last day in New York that may have arrived at some kind of convention, though there are suggestions that perhaps the convention that will be agreed to at this stage will not have much by way of specifics in terms of achieving any real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the near future.
Beyond those three conventions, there is a real attempt in the context of this UN process to try to put down an action plan. I am sure it has already been referred to today in this debate but perhaps the most interesting and imaginative aspect of this UN conference is that it would produce an action plan called agenda 21, an agenda for the 21st century, which would contain a whole series of activities, a whole series of commitments, a whole series of strategies that would make the fine rhetoric and the discussions and the intentions of this particular earth summit have some real meaning.
I just received in the last day or two in my office on a computer disk the document agenda 21 and I have not yet printed it out because I am told it is 800 pages long. That will give all members a realization of how complex this whole program is.
I want to add one further thought because I believe there are a number of items that have not been touched upon clearly in the process so far. One of them is the need for more democratic participation in the decision-making around these crucial issues.
I was pleased to chair in New York about a month ago a meeting of parliamentarians that was brought together by Parliamentarians for Global Action. This was a group of parliamentarians who were there at the same time as the fourth prep-com representing more than 20 countries, north and south, east and west, Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America.

The Environment
What perhaps was most interesting about it was that it was almost the exact mirror of our globe. A quarter of the delegates came from developed countries. Three-quarters came from developing or underdeveloped countries. Elere is the most interesting part. More than half the parliamentarians there were women.
We discussed two items over two days. One of them had to do with financial resources. In my view, the single most critical issue that will need to be resolved at the earth summit is: Can there be a new global bargain? Will there be a commitment to make the kind of expenditures necessary in order to make significant changes? If there was one singular failure out of the meetings in Stockholm 20 years ago, it was that in spite of the Stockholm declaration, in spite of all the fine language and the establishment of UNEP, no significant expenditures were put on the table then or in the 20 years since to make environmental protection truly a priority.
This time around Maurice Strong and his colleagues have learned something. They have already started talking about sums of money that for some of us may seem rather astronomical. The price tag for the package in Agenda 21 can be anywhere, depending on how it is calculated, from $125 billion up to $600 billion. People may shake their heads. I noticed you shaking your head, Mr. Speaker. People are saying: "How can we possibly meet that, given all the national deficits and national debts we are struggling with?" I ask members to think for a moment.
During the course of the last half century virtually, as we have concerned ourselves with issues of national security, and you know this well from your own career, Mr. Speaker, we have been prepared to spend, not $10 billion, not $100 billion, not a trillion dollars, but trillions and trillions of dollars over the course of many decades to effect some kind of national protection and national security.
What I am suggesting and what colleagues with UNCED are suggesting is that only a small part of that would be necessary to make a dramatic difference in the outcome of the UNCED agenda. Whether it is $125 billion or $500 billion, it will be a small price to pay in terms of the human agony that currently exists for the millions of the world's poor who are currently experiencing drastic and dire poverty or for all of us, and our children particularly, who will face the environmental consequences of our failing to act in this UNCED process.
We said at this conference that I participated in that there were a number of actions we could take with respect to adequate financial resources to make UNCED a success. I will not read the details but I would invite members, if they wish, to get a copy of this document from my office.
The other matter we addressed which, in my view, is equally important and particularly by this group of parliamentarians, more than 50 per cent of whom are women, was that unless women were front and centre in the whole process-I have heard several members in this debate today talking about this-then we can forget the significant human community based, local, world-wide impact of the UNCED decision. All the money in the world will be meaningless unless women are involved at every level of the UNCED process. We have said this in our document, in the consultation, in the planning, in the participation, in the benefits.
It is well know that in most rural societies, particularly through Africa, Asia and Latin America, that women are the chief bread winners. We may regard the economic importance of males in Europe and North America, but in my experience in Africa in the basic industries, it is women who are going to provide and make the difference. If they are not being recognized in a way that makes their contribution significant as we attempt to create a new set of norms, a new set of standards, then we will miss the boat almost entirely.
I know my time is just about exhausted. I have a couple of minutes left. I do not want to trespass on your good nature, Sir, or on the House but I do want to repeat in conclusion that I think this debate we are having today is one of the most important we could have in this Chamber. I do want to say as well that both at Stockholm and certainly at Rio, Canada has already played a major leadership role. That puts us, perhaps, in a bit of a spotlight.
While Canadians like to think of themselves as playing a leadership role, they sometimes become a little bit uncomfortable if they are little too far out in front. I want to assure and encourage all my colleagues not to flinch, not to back off at this time because within a month we will have the opportunity to make some of the most important achievements for humanity than we have been able to make for a very long time.

I trust that all of us together will support the actions of the government representatives and of the NGOs and the independent sector which will be there to provide leadership on Canada's behalf.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to take part in this special debate on the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development. I am pleased that you are in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, listening to this important debate.
A lot has been said today about the UNCED conference. A lot has been said prior to today's debates, and a lot will be said after the conference. I asked myself how much of what we said here in the House today will actually be implemented, how much we say here today is actually being listened to.
I would like to take a little different approach on this topic and share with the viewers and the people in the Chamber one concept that if implemented will change the direction of this planet toward a sustainable development environment. If it is not implemented, 10 years from now we will be having similar debates and the planet will be going further and further downhill instead of being cleaned up.
But to do that I think the people attending the Rio conference will have to change their thinking from two-dimensional thinking to multi-dimensional thinking or at least three-dimensional thinking. If the people continue in their two-dimensional thinking the planet will not change. It will continue to be polluted. The approaches are going to have to be holistic approaches to any recommendations made at this conference.
The one concept that I would like to share with the House is the idea of elevated bicycle expressway systems for large cities. The concept of a bicycle expressway system was developed by Joseph Adler, an engineer from Toronto who is an enthusiastic cyclist, a professional engineer and a resident of Toronto. These three assets brought him to the idea of improving, in a radical, engineered way, cycling as a means of mass transportation and recreation in large cities.
The bicycle expressway system represents an additional transportation facility provided exclusively for
The Environment
bicycles and the servicing of large city areas. Its purpose would be to create the conditions and to give all residents the choice of replacing the use of a car by the use of a bike in most of their daily trips within the city limits and to create a convenience for everybody who would be willing to use a bike. As we know, the car is one of the greatest polluters on this planet.
We talked about different modes of transportation. We were talking about a high speed railway system corridor from Windsor to Quebec City. That is an excellent idea, but if we just take the people who are using buses and move them on to trains that is not going to solve the problem. But if we can take the people out of the cars between Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec and put them on a high speed electric train, then yes we are working toward sustainable development.
My concept is to take the people out of their cars in the big cities and put them on bicycles. That can only be done if we have a bicycle expressway system that includes a network of elevated, covered, level or downhill bicycle expressways accessible from the street level by escalators or ramps, provided in numerous locations in all of the large city areas.
The basic philosophy of this concept is that all expressways on all their length are elevated at a minimum of five metres above street level, covered with transparent, sun-reflecting material and at level or with downhill slopes. Conceived in this way, the bicycle expressway system provides complete separation from car and pedestrian traffic and therefore complete safety, full protection against bad weather year round and eliminates the need of climbing the differences in elevation between any two points in the city.
There is no intersection at the same level between bike expressways running north-south with those running east-west. They will be interconnected by ramps and escalators. In these conditions, no stop signs or stop lights are necessary, and the non-stop bicycle ride with maximum speed will be possible.
According to engineer Joseph Adler, using the expressway system, the bicycle will become the safest, the cheapest, the healthiest and the fastest means of urban transportation, very easy, pleasant and convenient for most of the city residents.

The Environment
Imagine the amount of money that we would save in health bills alone if we could shift even 10 per cent of the population from cars on to bicycles. Imagine how fit these people will be going to work by bike, returning home by bike. We will write off many of the health bills.
Imagine how many whiplash cases we have in this country from car accidents and how much money is spent on the treatment of simple whiplashes. A lot of these accidents and injuries to people would be eliminated. The proposed system will create the opportunity for a tremendous increase in general fitness, great energy and money saving, and a dramatic reduction in the rate of traffic accidents, noise and air pollution. The cost of the system can be recuperated in a few years according to- engineer Joseph Adler.
Summarizing the features of such an expressway, first of all, it has to be elevated at close to five metres above street level. Any interference with streets, motorized or pedestrian traffic is eliminated leading to a completely safe system. The system would have to be covered with transparent, sun-reflecting material and full protection against bad weather year round, be it cold, rain, snow, sleet, wind, sun or heat.
The system would have to be at a level or downhill approach. There would be no more streets with long slopes to peddle up. There would be no more sweating. It would be a faster ride. Many people will not take a bike to work today because they work up a sweat, there is no shower at work so they hop in the car instead.
With this system of not having to peddle uphill, we would not even work up a sweat. Many people are shocked with that concept. How can you have a system where you never peddle uphill? Very simple. We all know of escalators. Where there is a slope, you provide an escalator, you get to the level of the city and then you just peddle on level or downhill.
In such a system the expressways do not interfere one with another at the same level. At intersections, they are interconnected by ramps and escalators. There are no stop lights or stop signs. It is direct, non-stop bike riding between any two points in the system. We have a very easy, safe, pleasant and fast riding system.
If it is such a great system, why has it not been implemented until now? The reason it has not is
because of economic barriers. I presented this concept to Transport Canada back in 1981, and I pressed them to do a feasibility study. I told them to choose any city they wanted; Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto. Do a feasibility study on an elevated bicycle expressway system. We were in government then, and the reason Transport Canada would not touch it was because of the 1981-82 recession.
Mr. Adler and I resurfaced this concept 10 years later. We are getting the same barrier, economic recession. In the years 2001 or 2002, someone will resurface this concept again and we will probably have the same barrier, economic recession. I hope not. I hope that we will get into multi-dimensional thinking instead of two-dimensional thinking. Hopefully, in a decade from now we will have not only a feasibility study, but a system well in place.
Imagine if a city like Toronto, where my riding is, developed such a system. It would be the first city in the world to have an elevated bicycle expressway system. Because it is elevated it does not interfere with the local pedestrian traffic, with the auto traffic, et cetera. It is a complete system unto itself.
Imagine the tourist attraction that this would be. Tourists would come from all over the world to look at this expressway system. Imagine what it would do to the bicycle economy. We could rent bikes at various locations along this system and drop them off at another location. People could tour cities on bikes, which is getting more and more popular.
Imagine what it will do to the environment. Toronto, a Canadian city, would be the first to make that important turn to a truly sustainable environment on this planet.
What I am appealing, through this debate, is for at least three levels of government-in metro Toronto it would be four levels of government-to get their heads together. We are talking about infrastructure, sharing infrastructure at one-third, one-third and one-third the cost among three levels of government.
Here is excellent sustainable infrastructure, sustainable transportation, sustainable development. That may look costly, but when we look at what we save in preventing accidents, improved health in the people and fewer medical costs, the system would probably pay for itself within five or ten years.

Here is an opportunity for Canada to take a leadership role at this conference and present at least one new creative idea, which this is. Most of the bicycle expressway systems present now consist of adding on a lane next to the cars. That is not the solution. We cannot put too many bikes and too many cars on the same level. Here the bicycles would be above the cars.
In Toronto, well right across Canada, there is a bid for Expo 98.1 have already written to the committee. I said that if it would implement a bicycle expressway system in the city of Toronto, I am sure Canada would win Expo 98 because we would be the only city in the world that would have such a show-piece as this to show.
After my referring Mr. Adler to representatives of the provincial government, they were very polite. They thought it was a great idea, but they had the same excuse, a dozen economic reasons. They did not see themselves taking part now.
We talked with the chairman of metropolitan Toronto who said that because the federal government was giving less money to them through the provinces they could not afford to pay their welfare recipients, never mind building a bicycle expressway system.
We went to the former mayor of Toronto and received a similar answer. I referred Mr. Adler to the new mayor of Toronto, and I am sure it will be the same answer: this economic barrier.
We have to break that barrier, as I said, with three-dimensional thinking. We have to get away from two-dimensional thinking. Let us get into multi-dimensional thinking. If we implement such a system, the economy of that city would just boom because of the world attention, because of the world attraction.
Imagine the conventions that would be held in that city just to see a unique bicycle expressway system.
I do not know who is going to Rio de Janeiro, but I hope they will drop in to see Dr. Adler's presentation. He has been accepted to make the presentation at the sustainable transportation conference which is going on at the same time.
The government parliamentary secretary is listening very attentively. I hope he will pass this message
The Environment
on to the government or to all of the delegates who go to Brazil to sit in on this presentation.
It is something unique. It is something creative. It is something that no other country has thought of. A Canadian engineer has thought of it. Why do we not give this Canadian some help? I am not saying to go an build it off the bat. Let us do a feasibility study. Surely, putting our heads together we can come up with enough money to do a feasibility study, and if the feasibility study shows, yes, we can do it, let us go ahead and do it. Let us not wait and waste another decade. Let us really put into practice what we are going with to the UNCED conference.
I do not know if I require unanimous consent of the House to table this document, The Bicycle Expressway System by engineer Joseph Adler. The presentation here has coloured photos, engineer's drawings. I feel it should be tabled, with your permission, so that anyone who reads this debate could come and could have access to this unique system which would save our environment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Our Standing Orders would not allow the hon. member to table the document, but I am sure that as it is offered to table it, it will be in our minutes, will be in Hansard that any member who is interested will get in touch with the hon. member, but our Standing Orders do not allow for a member to table such a report. This is our law. Now, if there was unanimous consent-


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. If there is unanimous consent, by all means.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park was right. I listened with great interest to his speech, as I have to the bulk of the speeches here tonight. I think we ought to do more of this. This gives the public of Canada an opportunity to see this place at its best, in the sense that various different points of view and some remarkably profound analyses can be displayed as a result of work and interest areas of members of Parliament.

The Environment
Frankly we tend to stereotype members of Parliament according to their areas of identified expertise. I see the hon. member for Skeena here, who I am informed is domestic environmental critic for his party. I thought he was a global environment critic for his party, and he may yet surprise us when it is his turn to speak.
There are many other members tonight who have contributed to this debate and who have shown unexpected profundity of thought in this area. I will not wax cynical and think that Rio may be the attraction, because it is really not an essay contest to go to Rio.
The earth summit is an important meeting for all humanity though. The agenda is heavy, the consequences crucial, and the expectations are great. If every country present defends its national interests vigorously, a large part of the debate will concern the priorities of the developing countries and the actions that must be taken by the international community to help that part of the world move irreversibly ahead on the path of sustainable development. Thus, at this United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the debate on the development-environment equation will reach a turning point, with some 150 participating countries trying to determine more precisely how the environment is linked to poverty, to debt, to population growth, and other socioeconomic factors.
This close relationship, this interdependence between development and environment-and as the hon. member for Rosedale was saying, the welding or the melding of the two together-has come to the fore since the proceedings of the Brundtland commission where the alarm was sounded on the state of our planet, and where it was stressed that sustainable development is out of the question if we continue to upset the global balance of our biosphere.
We now realize that not only must development minimize the environmental consequences of human activity, but global growth itself is threatened by declining environmental quality. Thus, the environmental dimension surges on to the socio-economic agenda of all the world's countries and calls for preventive action that is global, firm and healing.
If we look at the obstacles standing in the way of sustainable development by the developing countries,
it is clear that generalized poverty seriously compromises the future availability of the natural resources needed for the people to survive.
The urgent need for food, energy and shelter facing many poor countries forces them more often than not to overuse their natural resources. For them it is not a matter of choice but of human survival. Other countries are undergoing, in a way that cannot be supported, gross pollution related to the use of obsolete technology. I have not even mentioned the health problems suffered because of unclean water and catastrophes such as flood and drought caused by excessive deforestation.
Non-sustainable development accompanied by environmental degradation constitutes a source of conflicts which will only multiply with the increasing shortage of essential resources and will threaten the stability of many economies.
The population explosion represents another serious threat to our global biosphere. The world's population has already risen past five billion people, three-quarters of whom live in developing countries and have a per capita income on average 50 times less than that of people living in developed countries. If the current population trends are a good indication the world population could double over the next forty years. It is also not impossible that in the coming decade Canada will receive its first environmental refugees.
To reduce poverty and meet the needs and legitimate aspirations of growing populations, our efficiency in using natural resources and industrial processes must be increased to an optimal level.
From the beginning of its first mandate, our government has set in motion several environmental initiatives and legislative measures. It has also participated in a series of accords with the provincial governments to address common or sectoral environmental problems. It has done the same with the United States and members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development with regard to the collective and concurrent global measures to be taken to combat the irreversible deterioration of ecosystems.

The Government of Canada is committed to working with a wide range of partners. To be able to play a well defined role in closing the gap between the north and the south we need to work together as never before to take action in ways that are radical.
I mean by that, action that goes to the root of the problem.
As representatives of the people of Canada we have a special responsibility to make sure that Canadian policies and actions in the broad field of international co-operation do not add to the global environmental problem but instead are part of the solution. Canada has a lot of environment per capita, and love of the environment runs deep in our values and culture.
Over the past 20 years that concern has been reflected increasingly in Canada's development assistance program. Over those years the environment emerged as an important new dimension of development policy and the Canadian International Development Agency funded a growing number of projects supporting, for instance, the creation of environmental monitoring in teaching institutions in the developing world.

CIDA's Industrial Co-operation Program also considers these environmental concerns. For instance, a Canadian engineering company received financial assistance under this program to prepare a restoration plan for Lake Maracaibo, in Venezuela. The company now has a contract for setting up waste water treatment facilities to clean up the lake.
During the Globe 92 conference and exhibition held in Vancouver last March, thousands of our partners in development-delegates representing industry, the business community, associations and governments- engaged in a creative dialogue. They took part in a trade fair in an area expected to become one of the prime motors of our economy in the 21st century: environmental technology and services, where economic development and environmental concerns meet.
On January 30 this year, Canada reinforced its commitment to sustainable development when the Minister for External Relations, responsible for international development released CIDA's new environmental policy on sustainable development.
The Environment
Basically, it means that CIDA will ensure, through a variety of mechanisms, that environmental considerations are fully factored into all decisions and project development. Furthermore, it will set a priority on helping developing countries deal with their environmental problems through policy reform, institutional support and community development.
We are also prepared to help our partners in Canada meet the challenge of integrating environmental concerns in their development projects.

CIDA's policy for environmental sustainability represents a renewal and a step forward in CIDA's commitment to the environment. It goes beyond the 1986 policy, which was essentially responsive to a more proactive role for CIDA in promoting environmental sustainability.
The policy does this by giving CIDA a new set of rules for factoring the environment into the development equation. The government is committed to working with a whole range of partners so that Canada can play a very definitive role in helping to bridge the north-south gap.
The goal of development co-operation today is to support sustainable development. This means equitable, balanced development that is sustainable in many senses: economically, politically, socially, culturally and environmentally.
CIDA will support social and economic development in ways that improve the quality of the environment and that maintain the productive base of natural resources. The Government of Canada considers this new policy an essential step ahead on the path we are following together toward UNCED, and the new era beyond that conference. We realize that UNCED cannot succeed and the world cannot deal with the environmental challenge unless the developing countries have access to the required resources, expertise and technologies to solve their environmental problems.
We recognize that our environmental policy has to take account of the competitive position of Canadian firms on world markets. There is a lot of Canadian expertise in this field. Our development program opens many doors. The environment development sector or interface is going to be at the leading edge of growth in the global economy of the 21st century.

The Environment
We also recognize the value of our non-governmental organizations and their first-hand experience of conditions in the developing world. We look forward to working together with them to improve the integration of environmental factors into the development projects and programs financed by Canada.
We need to create a new global alliance for the environment, an alliance between south and north, between government and non-governmental organizations and institutions, and between the public and private sectors. The efforts of all of us will be essential.
Canada has been firmly committed to the earth summit concept from the beginning. Our wealth and strength has been built on the development of our rich natural resources. One in ten Canadians depends on the forests for their livelihood. Commercial fishing supports some 1,500 coastal communities. Almost two million Canadians earn their living from farming and related activities. The rivers and reserves of oil and natural gas provide the energy that heats our homes and drives our industries.
However, many of our natural resources are threatened by pollution, overfishing, misdirected urbanization, and wasteful misuse. Canadians have recognized these problems and the different levels of government have responded to these concerns. At the same time many Canadians have already taken steps in their own lives to correct the mistakes of the past and adopt environmentally friendly lifestyles.
For all of us who are committed to helping the less developed countries improve their social and economic standards of life the earth summit has special significance. It offers a unique opportunity to ensure that all development assistance is environmentally sustainable, and that developed and developing nations alike work hand and hand to build a world that will provide a healthy atmosphere for our children and grandchildren.
The Canadian International Development Agency has invested funds to help developing countries send delegations to Rio. Some of the money is being used to help them prepare national, environmental and development reports to present to the summit.
Other funding from Canada will allow non-governmental organizations from developing countries to
participate in the conference. Canada is also providing $1.3 million to help Brazil cope with the burden of organizing the conference and to support its own sustainable development efforts.
The success of the earth summit is not a foregone conclusion. Negotiations will be difficult. We know from experience how hard it is to get agreement on policies within our own nation. Getting some 150 and more nations to agree on policies will be that much more difficult. We can only hope that the seriousness of the problem and the demands for change to ensure a viable future for our planet will help us to find unity and co-operation.
A lot of issues will be on the table. Managements of land resources, forests and oceans are three big ones. What institutional arrangements will be necessary to implement the new policies that will emerge from UNCED? The transfer of technology is an important question.
Everyone knows that technology transfer is one of the most important tools of development but it has also proven one of the most difficult to use well. Poverty alleviation, population growth and consumption patterns are important areas in which change is needed; changes in attitude and changes in use of resources.
Women have an important role to play in bringing about changes. So do non-government organizations, indigenous peoples, business and other sectors
of society.
Canada's delegation, including CIDA representatives, has played an important role in all these areas in the four meetings of the preparatory committee leading up to the earth summit. Unanimous agreement is not often achieved, but a consensus has been growing on many of the key issues. Despite the difficulties, we can remain hopeful that UNCED will produce a real declaration on environment and development which will spell out mutually agreeable principles that all nations can follow in their moves toward sustainable development.
There is even hope the summit will generate a binding international convention on climate change which will recognize the need to control greenhouse gases and another on biodiversity which will help to insure the continued existence of a rich mix of plant and animal life.

The other major result hoped for in UNCED is agenda 21, a global action plan that will itemize costs, set timetables and assign responsibilities for the difficult concrete steps that have to be taken to keep the planet firmly on the road to sustainable development. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is not an end itself, but rather a beginning; a beginning of a process of global dialogue among the nations of the world so we can find new ways of working together as we tackle new priorities.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this most important debate. There is no doubt that the earth summit is an important watershed meeting, and as to how successful it will be, we had best all keep our fingers crossed and hope it really is as successful as it might be.
I lament the lack of global leadership. Issues such as population and poverty are not leading the agenda.
We have also seen in recent weeks and months the bullying by some major nations such as the United States on issues that are critical to the survival of the planet such as global warming. We have basically seen the gutting of the draft international agreement by the United States, which does not want to move on this issue. I intend to spend some time on that.
The issues that were originally called for in the UN resolution were the protection of the atmosphere by combating climate change, depletion of the ozone layer and transboundary air pollution, protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources, protection of the oceans and other seas. Protection and management of land resources, including combating deforestation, desertification and drought, conservation and biological diversity and environmentally sound management of biotechnology, environmentally sound waste management, improvement of the environment of the poor in both urban and rural areas, protection of human health and improving quality of life.
Some things have been dealt with in agenda 21. Without dealing with issues like population or what is happening in terms of the reversal of the flow of capital from the developed world to the developing world, until very recently billions were still continuing
The Environment
to flow from the major industrialized nations of the world to the Third World countries so that their economies could begin to develop to deal with issues such as poverty and population.
Every major international financial institution in the world is aware that the poorest countries in the world are now paying out those few dollars their economies earn to the wealthiest nations in the world to sustain what may well be the most unsustainable kind of society this planet has ever seen.
I want to give you a few things to think about and people who are watching should think about it and those who are still involved in preparations for Rio should think about it as well. There are three children born every second. Today, while this debate takes place 40,000 children under the age of 12 will die of starvation and preventable disease.
The population will rise from where it is right now, just over 5 billion, to 8 billion and perhaps as high as 14 billion during the next generation, which is far beyond the caring capacity of earth. Twenty thousand species will become extinct this year. The leading scientists in this field now calculate that half the species on earth will become extinct over the next 50 years.
World wide, 18 million hectares of rain forest will be cut or burned this year, 2 hectares ever second. Over the last decade, Canada's track record in this field, we lost 2 million hectares per year to forest fires and a million hectares per year to clear cuts; 5 hectares per minute, 24 hours a day. That is one acre every five seconds, much of it never regrowing at all.
Expenditures around the world have continued relentlessly; in the neighbourhood of a trillion dollars a year on military expenditures. Even Canada is spending over $12 billion this year on defence related matters.
Let me spend a moment on global warming because it is a particularly crucial issue and one that is not being effectively dealt with by this country or by the majority of the countries that have been participating in the development. Here I am speaking of the major industrial countries. Certainly most developing countries have long recognized the dangers that are presented by global warming to them and their economies.

The Environment
The all-party committee of this House a year ago produced a document called No Time to Lose-The Challenge of Global Warming. Our opening quotation was:
"By the time scientists have all the answers to these questions, global climate change may have been driven by human society to the point where the answers are largely academic".
What did we adopt? All parties in this House spent more than a year and close to a million dollars collecting scientific, internationally recognized evidence upon which all members from all parties, from all sides, could decide and report to this House. What did we recommend? We unanimously recommended a 20 per cent reduction in human source carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005, compared to the 1988 level of emissions be adopted by the federal government as its minimum, interim objective in reducing Canadian carbon dioxide emissions.
That is what an all-party committee of the House had to say. We then issued a subsequent report because this government, leading the delegation to Rio, apparently alone, without any members of the opposition, then adopted what it described as the stabilization proposal, 1990 levels by the year 2000, something which has still not been implemented two years later.
Our report, called Out of Balance, the Risks of Irreversible Climate Change, was again unanimous, all-party. It said:
"Our report is based on three main premises. Global warming has been proved scientifically. It is an inevitable and continuing consequence of past and present patterns of human activity and it represents a severe threat to both Canada and the planet as a whole".
We went on to say, and I quote from page 4, which is referring to the United Nations environment program, a world meteorological organization group of scientists which eventually came to be known as the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the IPCC: "We are certain of the following: the greenhouse affect is real. Man-made emissions are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, the chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide and tropospheric
ozone. These increases will lead to a warming of the earth's surface. We calculate with confidence that atmospheric concentrations of the long lived gases adjust only slowly to changes and emissions. Present day emissions of these gases are committing us to increased concentrations for decades to centuries. The long lived gases would require reductions in man-made emissions of 60 to 80 per cent to stabilize their concentrations at today's levels. Methane would require a 15 to 20 per cent reduction". That is agreed to by the scientific community across the world. Across the world there is unanimity.
I have heard senior scientists at meetings I have attended here, in the United States, in Europe, everywhere I have gone, who state with absolute confidence that there has not before in their experience been a global issue studied as carefully by as many scientists with as high a degree of reliable confidence as global warming.
What does our government do? Our government refuses to accept what a parliamentary committee has found. It refuses to accept what the international scientific community has found. It flails around and suggests that perhaps stabilization at 1990 levels, but we have three different figures being used by this government as to what 1990 levels are. The National Energy Board says 517 megatons. Energy, Mines and Resources says 508 megatons. The Canadian Council of Environment Ministers says 467 megatons. Not a single minister of the Crown to this point, less than a month before we go to Rio, is prepared to stand in this House or to put in writing what Canada's 1990 emissions are.
This is tantamount to going to a doctor who tells you you have a broken leg and you go back and your government tells you to put on a band-aid and carry on as usual and everything will be fine. It is the business as usual phenomenon. There is a blatant refusal to accept even the premises that scientists reached a decade ago which was that there were real limits to growth, whether of urban sprawl, of agriculture, of industrial activity. Everyone was agreeing that there were limits to that kind of growth. That was a decade ago.
This particular government, I regret to say, never even got out of business as usual to get to that understanding.

This is not just the cutting edge, but the majority of the scientific community studying the ozone problem and studying the problem of global warming has realized now that it is the growth of limits. It is moving in on us very, very quickly.
Let me give you some examples of that because they are truly shocking when you realize what they are in terms of the loss of entire nations beneath the sea. Even the United States has calculated these. William Cline, an economist with the Institute for International Economics and the author of a major American study on this, says: "If nothing is done, average temperatures are likely to rise an average of 10 Celsius degrees in Canada and much of the United States over the next 250 to 300 years and this will cost the U.S. economy $355 billion a year in 1990 dollars."
People say we must not talk in tranches of 10 years, 20 years, 50 years and centuries. Look at this continent on which a mere five centuries ago there was the first white contact. For more than 10,000 years the aboriginal people on this continent operated and made no measurable impact on any of the watersheds, on any of the ecosystems, on any of the major biological systems of plant or animal on an entire continent. In fact it can be said they made no impact on either of the major continents in this hemisphere, North or South America.
Yet in this tiny fraction of time, particularly since the time we began to massively expand the use of fossil fuels, the impact we have had, and subsequently major industrial nations like Japan and Europe have had a dramatic and potentially final impact on this ecosystem.
I am no longer one who is prepared to just sit by and watch it all happen because I know there are answers. There are many people around the planet who know there are answers but it seems to be a deeply hidden secret that we can get off this treadmill.
I am going to spend only a few more moments on global warming but I think it is critical that people know at least that reports like the DPA report exist in Canada. It came to a conclusion that the former minister of finance, Michael Wilson could stand in this House on any given day and give every man, woman and child in this country a $5,000 gift by simply moving to renewable energy systems in Canada. The DPA report concluded that a net benefit of $150 billion in 1988 dollars would ensue simply by taking simple measures to get only three-quarters of the way to a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Environment
By protecting the environment, we could have a $150 billion net saving. Well someone might say: "Oh, well, pooh-pooh ta-ta, that is only one report".
Here is a report that came out yesterday, America's Energy Choices by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defence Council, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and the Alliance to Save Energy. What does their summary conclude? It concludes that national energy requirements in 2030 would be cut nearly in half from the reference case with renewable energy sources providing more than half our energy supply.
Our nation's petroleum consumption would steadily decrease to just one-third of current levels by 2030. Carbon dioxide emissions would be cut by more than 25 per cent from 1988 levels by 2005 and by more than 70 per cent by 2030.
Consumers would save $5 trillion-not million, not billion-in fuel and electricity costs over the next 40 years. By subtracting the $2.7 trillion additional investment needed to achieve this, we estimate a net savings of $2.3 trillion.
To reduce the effect of greenhouse gases you reduce greenhouse gases. How do you do that? You opt for a different energy future. You save money doing that and you improve the environment.
We should not be naive. The reason that George Bush is going to Rio but will not allow a global warming draft treaty to move forward with targets and timetables is because he is a captive, he is a hostage, of the fossil fuel sector, the same way the entire front bench of this government is captive and hostage to the fossil fuel sector of this country. You cannot tell me it is not so. There are 700,000 children living in poverty in Canada and there is money for a heavy oil upgrader from the taxpayers of Canada for Lloydminster, and there is money from the taxpayers of Canada for Hibernia. Where is the private sector? Where is the free market? It is a lot of hogwash.
Let me spend a moment on nuclear and a few of these other phenomenally wasteful systems that we continue to subsidize at our own peril. Let me quote from Dr. Amory Lovins who appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and told Canadians what we should be doing. This is quite aside from the $150 billion in savings so that Canada could go to it. The committee of this House unanimously found out what we could, should, and must do if just our children are to live normal lives, to say nothing of the havoc that would be wreaked on future genera-

The Environment
tions with entire nations becoming submerged under the oceans of the world.
The Pacific Ocean has already risen. No one talks about it in this House. People talk about interest rates and the dollar, and what are we going to do. It is a lot of crap. They just do not seem to be living in the real world. The limits of growth are moving in and moving in. The growth of limits are moving in and moving in. Yet no one seems to want to wake up.
Dr. Lovins very carefully analysed the energy economy of Canada. He gave us some very clear, concise, easily understandable suggestions of what a society with intelligence, a society that opted for intelligent government, instead of greedy government might want to do. He pointed out that more than one-sixth of the electricity in Canada is used directly and indirectly for light. Almost half of that is incandescent lights.
He points out how we can go on to save energy. I quote from the next page: "When you add up all of the lighting improvements and fully install them, you will save upwards of 90 per cent of the lighting energy". You get the same amount of light as right now, but it looks better and you see better. The average cost of doing that will be somewhat less than zero because of the saved maintenance costs. Across Canada it would save on the order of 8,000 or 9,000 megawatts at a rough estimate. On motors, which use more than half the electricity in the world, including in North America, again you can have massive savings on everything in your home; fridges, freezers, electric motors in your car. All of these things add up and most of them bring about a reduction in the amount of fossil fuels we use.
Let me give you, Madam Speaker, an example on nuclear and electricity in this province of Ontario. By the time you get up to here, you are saving about three-quarters of the electricity in the country. He has already shown us how to reduce electrical production at coal thermal in Alberta, at nuclear in Ontario, at major water hydro, James Bay I and major hydro in British Columbia, the W. A. C. Bennett dam. You are saving about three-quarters of the electricity in the country at a marginal cost of somewhat over three cents a kilowatt hour; in other words, comparable to what Ontario Hydro says is its avoided cost or long-run marginal cost.
However, the average cost of quadrupling electric efficiency is only about .7 Canadian cents per kilowatt hour. That is probably cheaper than just running a coal or nuclear plant even if building it were free. Indeed you can get up to this point and save roughly half the electricity in the country at zero net cost because this area equals this area. This is very good news for global warming and acid gas emissions.
I use this as an example of what the inherent problem is. There are certain vested interests in this society and in most of the industrial economies of the world. They have become fossil entrenched. The infrastructure is fossil, the investments, the loans and the debt are fossil related. They do not want to get off of it.
Global warming will cause us to perish, perhaps not these withering bodies that are in this Chamber, but future generations which would love dearly to live in a world where they can walk outside, hear birds, sniff flowers and maybe go for a swim in a lake, where they are not either poisoned by the water or have their bodies stripped clean by the acid in the water.
I plead for a success in Rio but it is going to require a much more potent form of leadership from this country and from others on population, poverty, technology transfer, maintaining the biodiversity of this planet, doing something serious on targets and timetables to protect the ozone and to protect the atmosphere of the planet. I have left many other things out but there are serious, real solutions to every single one of them if we apply our intelligence and our scientific ability just once on behalf of this planet.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this important debate about the survival of our planet, the survival of our small, fragile, unique and lovable planet, our one and only home in this vast universe.
I do not want to appear or seem over-dramatic, but that is exactly what the nations of the world will be discussing at Rio next month. They will be discussing the very survival of our planet, the survival of our atmosphere, the survival of our oceans, the survival of our fish and animals, the survival of our forests and our arable land.

Some might say that I am being overdramatic, that I am exaggerating and that these things we see around us day and night, month after month are not really at risk. They are.
We are polluting our land, our air and our water at an alarming rate. We are pouring C02 into the atmosphere and destroying our ozone layer, building a greenhouse and developing a global warming system which will raise our waters and destroy our lands. We are destroying our forests by deforestation and getting rid of our good arable land by which we feed ourselves and grow our crops. We are overfishing in many parts of the world.
It appears to be exaggerated because it is not visible to us at all times. We do not see it happening from day to day. This makes it all the more scary. It is happening but we do not notice it happening. It is like an individual who gets cancer. In the early stages they do not know they have cancer but it is developing inside of them. Finally one day they do not feel very well and they go to the doctor. The doctor has them examined and he says: "You have three months to live" and he is right. They are dead in three months.
In the early stages, it was not noticed. Unfortunately it is the same with many people when they look at what is happening to our environment, the risks to our environment, the threats to the survival of our great planet.
It is only after it is well advanced that it becomes noticeable and people want to do something. It will be too late then. It will be too late to do something unless it is done right now. The purpose of the earth summit, the UNCED conference, the UN Conference on Environment and Development which is to take place in Brazil next month, is to stop the degradation of our planet and to reverse the initiatives which are moving the planet in that direction. Their main goal is to implement many programs for sustainable development that will help the real and necessary development of the world, but will do it in a way in which we do not destroy those things that we need for centuries and centuries to come.
Obviously this approach cannot be achieved without cost. We mislead ourselves, we delude ourselves, we totally fool ourselves if we think we can make great statements with respect to sustainable development,
The Environment
with respect to the protection of our waters, our arable land and our forests without any cost to ourselves, without some sacrifice, without some change in our consumption habits and without some change in our development.
The principle challenge at this conference will be to resolve the needs and goals of the southern hemisphere with the needs and goals of the northern hemisphere.
In the northern hemisphere we have for the most part developed nations, rich nations, rich in comparative terms which are heavy consumers. In the south we have little development, people that are extremely poor and who have very low levels of consumption. The challenge is how do you achieve a world agreement to stop destructive development and at the same time initiate sustainable development so that the southern hemisphere can catch up and get those things that are necessary and that we have in the north, so that they can get proper housing, proper food, proper health care, proper education, proper care for their children and so on. They need that development, while at the same time, those of us in the north who for the most part have exploited, colonized and have been imperialistic toward the south for many centuries, have to contribute and co-operate to control and change the destructive development that has taken place for a long time.
Problems are developing as a result of these two situations in the world. The north is asking the south for environmental commitments which seem too heavy to the south unless it gets some help. The south is saying that if it was to curtail its development in the way that we are asking it would be condemned forever to permanent underdevelopment.
Those in the south are saying: "You are hypocrites in the north. You have already destroyed your forests, you have deforested many of your lands. Now you are asking us not to develop our own forests".
The south is demanding transfers of modern technology from the north to help it develop its lands, forests and waters in a way which would be sustainable but the north is not willing to contribute or pay to the extent that is necessary.

The Environment
Sometimes the north puts conditions on its contributions to the south which appear to the north to be politically necessary. For example, the north will say: "Yes, we will help you but we want you to be democracies like we are", "We will help you but we want you to straighten out your human rights records", or: "We will help you but we want your contribution in combating world terrorism". They all seem to be reasonable requests.
They can be achieved but only if the north is also willing to make some sacrifices to help the south to do the things that are necessary.
Exactly what is UNCED? It is the UN Conference on Environment and Development scheduled for June 1 to June 12 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, better known as the earth summit. It will be the largest international conference ever to take place in the world. It is expected that about 30,000 people will participate in the major inter-government conference and the parallel conference that will take place at the same time.
The conference delegations will not only be made up of heads of government, heads of state and national delegations but there will also be participation from non-governmental organizations, industry, science, business, youth and women. The goal, the stated purpose as set out in the United Nations General Assembly resolution is the following, and I will read it exactly as it is written in the resolution:
The purpose is to elaborate strategies and measures to halt and
reverse effects of environmental degradation in the context of
strengthened national and international efforts to promote
sustainable and sound development in all countries.
It says in all countries, not just in the rich countries, not just in the north, not just in the white countries.
This conference in Rio is a follow-up to a process that began in 1972 in Stockholm with the UN Conference on the Human Environment. It was followed up with the UN Commission on the Environment and Development in 1983 which published the Brundtland report on sustainable development.
There are some very real problems with respect to this conference, and if they are not solved and solved soon the conference will be a failure. Unfortunately the biggest, strongest, and richest nation in the world, the United States, is resisting change on almost every item before the conference.
The President of the United States is the only head of government in the world who has said that he will
not participate in the conference, at least thus far. There is still hope that he will go and support the conference. HoweveT, so far the president of the richest and most developed country in the world-the country that has expended the most energy and produced the most waste and pollution-is not attending the conference.
Unfortunately, the United States has tried to dilute the proposed earth charter, which is the proposed declaration of earth rights. It is a declaration which would set out new norms for international behaviour with respect to the planet. The United States has sought to dilute that earth charter so that it becomes just a declaration of principles with very little teeth.
As well, the United States has rejected the proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions. It is supported to a certain extent by certain OPEC countries and the Soviet republics. However Germany has committed itself to a reduction which goes beyond that set out in the earth charter, and many countries in Europe, as well as Japan, support the binding agreement as proposed.
Some major industrial nations are supporting it but the United States is dragging its feet and is trying to dilute it. The United States has resisted commitment to Third World aid and technology transfer, and the President of the United States is the only world leader who has said he will not attend the meetings.
UNCED, or the earth summit, has three major goals. One is the earth charter, which is to be a declaration of earth rights, new norms for international behaviour with respect to the world.
The second goal is what is called agenda 21. It is an international work program to achieve the goals set out in the earth charter. How do we achieve the goals in the earth charter? That is what agenda 21 is about. It defends the principles of the charter, sets targets for each issue, and sets out the costs.
I talked about costs. It is estimated that the measures set out in agenda 21 would cost $600 billion. That seems like a lot of money, and it is a lot of money. It is a cost that would be carried by the whole world. However, when we realize that today the world is spending $1 trillion, if you can imagine that figure, on armaments $600 billion is by comparison a small figure.
May 7, 1992

The Environment
The nations of the world are spending $1 trillion-I cannot even imagine that figure but that is what we are told in the document-on tanks, bombs, guns, flame-throwers, napalm, rockets, and nuclear weapons to destroy humanity, to destroy the planet, to destroy our forests, and to destroy our fisheries and our oceans.
If we could agree, if we understood, if we moved to a higher level of civilization, a new way of thinking, we could easily transfer the money that we spend on arms to the sustainable development of our planet, to the development and protection of our waters, fisheries, forests, arable land and air; we could clean up our air and waters and provide the mechanisms necessary to do that; we could provide for the transfer of technology to the south so it can achieve the same standard of living that we have, but in a way that will not destroy the environment.
It is also the goal of the UNCED conference to come up with some binding conventions, some international treaties. One is to be on climate change. However that is at risk because of the attitude of the United States and certain countries. It is to be a treaty on climate change in which all countries of the world would commit themselves to reductions in CO emissions by the year 2005. It is hoped that a second convention would be on biodiversity. A third treaty, which is important to Canada, is to be an international convention on the management of fish stocks and marine resources.
We know what has been happening off the coast of Newfoundland and the east coast of Canada. Our cod stocks are being severely depleted by overfishing, principally by the European nations.
That is why it is necessary. Some people may ask why it is necessary that we do this internationally in Brazil. Why do we need these conventions? It should be obvious.
Let us look at Canada. If Canada did everything under the sun to protect its environment, its waters, its forests and so on and so on but its neighbour-let us say the United States or France or Portugal or Spain-did nothing the air that was polluted in the United States would drift over us, as it did with acid rain, and destroy our maple trees, our lakes, our fish and our crops. We need international agreements.
Canada could very strongly protect its fishery resources and its domestic waters up to the 200-mile limit, but if there is no international agreement about what is done on the high seas then nations that do not care about tomorrow, the next century or 50 years from now will just deplete the resource. We have no way of dealing with them. Therefore, we must get serious about this and come up with international conventions. That is what they are trying to do at the UNCED conference in Rio.
What about the Canadian position? The Canadian position is a bit ambivalent. It looks very good on paper and there is some very good rhetoric here. Canada is supporting the earth charter. It has opposed the watered down version proposed by the United States.
Canada is committed to the transfer of technology to the southern hemisphere. Canada has committed itself to the required reductions in C02 by the year 2000, but it is waiting for the treaty to be agreed to. It has not said that it will do it here at home whether the treaty is passed or not. It is saying: "We will support it at the conference in Brazil", but it is not doing it at home. Despite our great green plan we have been very slow to implement some of the measures on the domestic scene.
Worse still, and I am told this by those who attended the preparatory conferences, while Canada has supported the right things at the conferences it has not taken issue with the United States when the U.S. has tried to, and in many cases done the job, weaken the earth charter, agenda 21 and so on. Canada has said what its position is, but when its friend to the south has taken measures to weaken the regime, to weaken the proposals Canada has not really played the role expected of it in international conventions. It has not taken issue with the United States strongly enough in trying to get the United States on side.
That is what is required. We require leadership in the world. Canada is standing for some of the right things. That is why we are sort of in the middle on this. We are certainly not a destructive element in the debate but we are not doing enough to push it over the top.

The Environment
There is a lot of concern in Canada among ordinary Canadians about their environment. However, many of the things we are talking about in this debate are difficult for them to understand. Ordinary people deal with the world around them, with their farm, their neighbourhood, their parks and playgrounds, their lakes and rivers and they do not often see the pollution happening. They do not know until one day they find out that there are no more fish in that lake where they used to go when they were young and all of a sudden there is no more grass in that field where they used to play ball. They see the green disappearing and the brown getting bigger and bigger and more sand and less good earth. When they find that out they get pretty upset.
In this country there is a lot of grassroots support for doing something to protect this planet and this nation, and to protect the resources of this nation for centuries to come.
In this House we often talk about not leaving our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren with a great deficit and debt. That is important, but we do not want to leave our grandchildren and great-grandchildren with a planet that is barren and cannot grow things, that does not have the ability to produce food, beauty, clean air and so on. We would be betraying our race and our people to forget about that and not do what is required of us.
In conclusion, I want to urge the government-unfortunately I do not see too many government members here at the present time, but I know they will be taking note of this debate. They are in a much better position than we are on the opposition benches to make another great effort to push this conference over the top and make it a success.
If we, the nations of the world, fail next month at the UNCED conference in Brazil, it will be a disaster not only for the environment, not only for the planet, not only for north-south relations because it has very serious implications for north-south relations but it will also have a very serious effect on the political stability of the whole world. I would like the government to think about that.
If people are starving, if people are dying, if there is drought and they cannot grow crops, and all the resources are drying up, that is when you have war,
that is when you have a revolution, that is when you have massive movements of refugees, a world in conflict and commotion. We can turn that around if we do the right things in Brazil next month at the UNCED conference.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I have had the advantage of being in the Chamber most of the evening. Indeed, I had the honour and privilege of occupying your chair for a very short time. I will say from your vantage point it does focus attention on the diversity of opinions that are heard in the House. I may say it gave me even more respect for the Chair.
There were a number of things I thought about as I listened to the debate. It is difficult to get up at 9.30 p.m. to say something that is very much different from the excellent presentations that have been made by all the speakers here this evening. They were making good points. Some I agree with, some I disagree with.
By and large, the tenor of the presentations have been that there is a conference coming up in the first couple of weeks in June. It is the biggest conference the world has ever held. In most people's minds who have spoken on this it is probably the most important subject that we have ever seen at least as far as I am concerned.
I would have to tell you in trying to approach how I was going to put forward my point this evening, I want to relate to a subject that is very near and dear to your heart, I am sure. I do not want it to appear to the House that it is purely from a narrow viewpoint. I am using it to relate to the over-all environmental problem and the problems that will be discussed at this conference.
I also want to say by way of introduction before I get into the main presentation that until 1972 when the Stockholm conference was held and the report that came from that and the Brundtland commission, I had never heard the expression "sustainable development". I did not know what it meant.
Speaking personally, my conscience and my consciousness of the environment, of those things that put a perspective on the world and a perspective on the time that my grandchildren are growing up, the 2050s, causes me a lot more concern than it ever did before.

When I look at the agenda for this conference, in order for me to put it in perspective I want to go back and look at an area that has been of essential importance to me. I am talking about the fishing situation in Newfoundland and indeed the whole attitude and the development of the fishing industry in our province.
I want to go back to times that we remember from our history books. In 1497 John Cabot came over and the message he sent back to England was that it was teeming with fish. Baskets were put over the sides of the vessels, 400 ton vessels in those days, and after waiting the baskets would be brought in. The baskets would be filled with fish. That was 500 years ago.
Let me go to the time when I was a little boy growing up in Bonavista. It was not that long ago when there were the great companies, S. W. Mifflin, C. R. Tilley, and J. T. Swyers. That last company was formed by a man who in the early 1920s took $20 and borrowed another $100 and set up a business that is 100 years old today. This year it celebrates its 100th anniversary.
To give some indication of the lack of concern about the future of the fisheries, perhaps a little bit before my time in the good years, one of those companies, the J.T. Swyers Company that celebrates its 100th anniversary, in a good year would export 7,000 tons of dried cod to the West Indies and the Mediterranean. That is about 7 per cent in one town of all the cod that were caught last year.
That will give some perspective of what has happened to the resource of fish, groundfish, in this particular case, cod. Again, when I was a young boy the season was cyclical. There were good years and bad years, but there was never ever a concern that the fish would go away and never come back. That was never thought about.
Even when I came to this House in November 1988 which is less than four years ago, the very mention that the stocks of cod were in trouble, that they were on the verge of extinction was not a very believable subject to discuss.
It was not until almost two years later that there was an in-depth study done by credible people, mostly scientists headed by Dr. Leslie Harris, an eminent,
The Environment
renowned and most credible scientist who at the time was the president of Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland.
One of the concerns that he and his board members raised was that the stocks may be on the verge of extinction now. People read it and pondered and they said: "We really don't know, so we will continue to catch fish. We will continue with the high technology. We will continue."
Members on this side of the house did raise many times the concern about foreign overfishing and other kinds of overfishing, but even with that report with such credibility, it was not until this year that the reality of the extinction of those stocks became very stark. It was at about the same time as the Hibernia disaster, with the reduction of 50 per cent activity and money spent and a concern for the future, that has been the subject of other debates here, and I am sure will continue to be so. Those stocks have formed the way of life and have done so from the time that John Cabot came to discover Newfoundland 500 years ago.
It hit people like a ton of bricks, including me. I had always been concerned about it, certainly since I read the report of Dr. Harris, but the concern and the reality sometimes are not as parallel as we would like them to be. There has not been very much since, I am talking about early February, that has changed the minds of the people who are concerned about it.
I am not going to indulge the House this evening with a diatribe on the problem with foreign overfishing. Suffice it to say, as a quick reminder, that last year the foreigners illegally caught on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland 40 per cent of what Atlantic Canadians caught legally. They had their best year in 15 years; Atlantic Canadians had their worst year in 15 years.
This has become the subject of great debate in this House and it is related to the Rio conference for two very simple reasons. One is that we cannot seem to convince the government to have the political will to make a declaration which gives Canada functional jurisdiction over the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks, to rid us of this plague and plunder of illegal and despicable foreign overfishing by Spain, Portugal and to a certain extent, Germany and other European Community countries.

The Environment
We are told by the government that the panacea for this, in addition to all the diplomatic work that has gone on in the last four years, is we are going to take it to the Rio conference. We are going to talk about this at the Rio conference. Everything is going to be fine. People are going to listen to us at the Rio conference.
Well, we have heard tonight about the Rio conference. I am not going to repeat what was said, but what is being discussed at the Rio conference?
I have 78 schools in my riding. I do not get to them all in a short timeframe but at one time or another I have been to most of them. In the last two months I guess I have been to 10.
One of the questions that the school population, both teachers and students who are familiar and are aware of this conference, ask me is: Why is this conference such a big deal? Well it is not hard to answer that. It is the same reason that foreign overfishing is such a big deal. Why is there such discussion in this House, the highest court in Canada, about the northern cod, a very specific item? Well, there is discussion about it because we think they may disappear. Equally, this conference at Rio is so important because we are concerned about the earth.
I take you from the town of Bonavista to the riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, to our province, to our country, to our alliance within NATO and all the rest of things, and now we are looking at the planet.
What is the concern? It is a very simple concern. We cannot manage what we have now on this planet. We have technology. We have the results of the industrial revolution. We have never had so many scientists living in the world and every second they are inventing something new. That is is great. It is progress but is it sustainable?
I really did not think when I was elected to this House that I would be here at this time of the night speaking about sustainable development. But I am concerned about it, if for no other reason than the example of the possible extinction of the northern cod and other groundfish species. It is a jump-start for me to be concerned about the Rio conference and what is going to happen there.
The idea is that if we cannot control the world and the planet right now with our population of 5.5 billion almost at the turn of the century, how in the name of heaven and everything holy will we be able to control it 40 years from now when it is said the population will be at least double and perhaps even 13 to 14 billion. We have to stop and take stock.
Can I believe the government when it says that when the Rio conference takes place it will have some answers? Well I am not sure. We have 12 days. It is the largest conference the world has ever seen. There are 100 heads of state, there are 6,000 direct participants and another 24,000 observers and semi-participants. That is a big system. What is Canada's agenda for this conference?
I heard an excellent presentation being given by a couple of members here this evening. The member for Rosedale spoke with great knowledge on the subject and he mentioned that our agenda would be focused on a number of things such as climate change, the loss of biological diversity in the tropics, deforestation and the health of the ocean.
All these agenda items bring in concern for the Third World. They bring in the concern of the southern agenda and we know from our knowledge of the system, and I know from what I have heard this evening and what I have read, that the biological diversity may work. It has some chance. A climate change is certainly going to be the focal point of much discussion. Deforestation does not seem to be getting very far because of the concern of some of the tropical countries led by Malaysia. They are concerned that their tropical forestry industries cannot cope with some of the suggestions that are being made.
On the very cost of implementing some of the measures, just a few moments ago my hon. colleague from Notre - Dame-de-Grace talked about $160 billion to $600 billion. While I seldom disagree with any of my colleagues, particularly my esteemed friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace, irrespective of how much money we spend on defence, I am not sure how we are going to conjure up among the 100 nations that will be attending this anywhere in the vicinity of $600 billion; $100 billion, $50 billion, perhaps.

I am not a pessimist but we are broke in Canada. We are broke. The United States is broke. Everybody seems to be broke. Where is the money going to come from?
Perhaps in the future it may come from the moneys that are spent on armaments, on defence expenditures today, but that is not going to happen over night.
Perhaps what we can hope for in this conference is a little bit more than an awakening. Perhaps we can hope for internal chastisement. Perhaps the Canadian delegation, whoever that is going to be, will come away from this conference with some indications of where we should we headed.
The Canadian delegation is lead by Mr. John Bell, whom I met a few years ago in South America when he was the consul general in Sao Paulo. We stayed in contact through the years. Mr. Arthur Campeau with Environment Canada, I understand, is also the personal representative of the Prime Minister at this conference.
Certainly from what I have heard they have lead one of the best delegations in the preparatory process.
However, and certainly from some of the things I heard here this evening, now that the conference is entering its penultimate phase or its penultimate stages, it is becoming clear that Canada does not have that much to offer on many of the key questions.
These kinds of questions require the kind of cabinet involvement and high level political leadership that may be taking place. I do not mean this as a political statement. It has not been apparent to the House.
The Minister of the Environment made a presentation this evening and in trying to read between the lines, I was not really sure what commitments had been made. We do not know exactly, precisely, who will be attending the conference.
Again, I do not mean that as a slur, but we are less than a month away from the conference. We should have our act together now. If we were rehearsing for a play, we would not be starting the first round coaching and the first round of having our little spills. We would be into almost a dress rehearsal.
I have been to a considerable number of conferences or committee meetings and caucus meetings that impinge around this very important conference. I have not seen anything that makes me feel confident that we are going there with a full deck of cards and with a honed position.
The Environment
Canadians have been known to get their act together quickly when the pressure is on and I am hoping this will happen in this particular instance.
We have a lot of leadership to offer.
I am hoping for some commitments from this conference. The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is from my province, he is my Newfoundland minister. We never use the words great things, but he is expecting that progress will be made in the foreign overfishing so that the government does not have to use a political will to extend beyond the 200-mile limit, Canada's jurisdiction.
I believe he is hoping that we will come out of there with at least a commitment from some countries that there will be a castigation of the European Community. I am not so sure that is going to happen. In some ways I am an idealist, but you learn to be a realist in politics very quickly.
In some ways, if the conference is not going to make a commitment, I would prefer to come out and say, "this is what we achieved" in stark terms and not to see a cleverly worded communique backed up with a couple of good photo opportunities.
I see my time is up. I want to say in conclusion, please play this well and make our preparations. As a Newfoundland member, I am making a special pitch to highlight the subject of foreign overfishing and ocean management. I am hoping for some results in mid - June.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to participate in this debate which literally deals with the survival of this planet.
The debate is taking place in the context of the up-coming earth summit in Rio in less than a month, on June 3. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those many Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have been involved in the preparations for this landmark summit about the survival and the future of the planet.
Particularly, I want to pay tribute to my colleagues, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and the member for Skeena, who have put in tremendous energy and dedication on behalf of New Democrats across this land in speaking out eloquently on the challenges that face us on the environment both here in Canada and globally.

The Environment
I very much regret that in the preparations for this historic conference, those colleagues and other members of Parliament from all parties were not involved far more in the process of arriving at a common position on behalf of the people of Canada. They were not involved in the preparatory conferences, for example, as we had hoped they would be.
Nevertheless, I know that they will be participating actively. I know that colleagues from a number of different parliamentary groups will be participating actively and hopefully will be able to help to shape the response of the Government of Canada.
I also want to pay tribute to the many Canadian NGOs working in the environmental field, in particular to young people. It is groups such as the Environmental Youth Alliance, young people, high school students, college students, unemployed young people, young working men and women who have said that the old ways are not longer acceptable.
The economy, which is driven solely by the pursuit of profit and corporate greed, both in Canada and increasingly internationally as we are drawn into the horrible vortex of trade deals with the United States and now with Mexico, is not accepted by our young people any longer. It is time for fundamental, structural changes. It is their future, after all, that this debate is all about and whether they are going to have a future at the rate at which the destruction is occurring.
I said that this is a debate and a dialogue from coast to coast to coast. My leader, who has been particularly outspoken on issues of the environment and our environmental protection in the north, whether it be low-level flights over her constituency of Yukon, the proposal for drilling in the north, which fortunately seems to have been shelved, or other proposals, certainly has reminded all of us as parliamentarians of the importance of protecting the north, the pristine north, from the ravages of environmental destruction.
I would hope that we would look as well at the proposals for demilitarization of the Arctic, of the north. I am sure that my colleague from Nunavut, who will be following me, will speak to this.
When we talk of challenges in the area of the environment, when we speak of de-militarization, it is particularly important that we recognize that unless we as a planet stop spending the obscene amounts of money that we spend each year on weapons of destructions, over a trillion dollars a year, the planet is doomed. We must redefine our understanding of what we mean by security and recognize that security does not come out of the barrel of a gun or from nuclear weapons, God help us. True security comes from ending the scourge of poverty and from ending the threats to the global environment. That is the true measure of security.
Recently, the citizens' inquiry on peace and security, which travelled across Canada and held public hearings, issued a landmark report in which it emphasized how fundamentally important it is that we redefine security, as Gro Brundtland also advocated in her report and the report of her Brundtland commission.
In a world in which 40,000 children are dying each and every day from hunger and preventable disease, if we are to speak seriously of protection of the environment, we must recognize that resources must go to ending the scourge of this kind of poverty and to making the links directly.
We must recognize that those wealthy nations in the north which are involved in multilateral and international financial institutions, the world bank, the IMF, party to programs of structural adjustment that strangle the poorest and the most vulnerable countries and within those countries which crush the poorest of the poor, that Canada and other wealthy countries can no longer impose those kinds of structural adjustment programs on countries which are already suffering under terrible and tragic debt burdens and expect that those countries will be able to play an effective role in protection of the environment.
It is time that we ended our hypocrisy of, on the one hand, urging these countries to do what they can to end environmental destruction and then in the next breath imposing upon them structural adjustment programs through the IFIs, the international financial institutions, which too often make it impossible for them to implement those policies.

There are a number of challenges that my colleagues have spoken of very clearly before me. My colleague from Saanich and the Islands has spoken of the particular importance of confronting the second-class status of women globally. A recent report of the United Nations documented very powerfully this lack of fundamental equality of women globally. Here in Canada, the United Nations Development Program pointed out that while we may be number one over all, the status of women in Canada still leaves a great deal to be desired. As long as women globally continue to be victims of violence, to be disproportionately poor, to be denied the fundamental freedom of reproductive choice, to be denied the basic means of ensuring that they are able to feed and clothe and house their children and as long as that second-class status continues, there will be no true respect for the environment. As long as we fail to make the fundamental links between poverty and destruction of the environment, there will be no true respect for the environment. As long as we continue to refuse to listen to the voices of indigenous peoples, there will be no true respect for the environment.
I regret to say that Canada has been silent for too long, both here at home in terms of the national shame of the treatment of our aboriginal peoples, which we are only beginning to come to grips with, but also globally.
A declaration was made by the indigenous peoples who attend the prep-com in New York in March of this year, just a couple of months ago. In that declaration they state their profound disappointment and anger that the statement which was forwarded to the secretariat of the earth summit by Norway and Denmark, which represented a consensus of indigenous peoples present at the prep-com was watered down.
They point out that indigenous peoples cannot, in fact, contribute to sustainable development, that they do not have control over their own territories. They point out that the struggle of indigenous peoples to have control over their own territories has been consistently undermined by governments, transnational corporations and international financial institutions.
The Environment
They had hoped that the process leading to the earth summit would involve a respect and understanding of the priorities of indigenous peoples, would involve an understanding that we have much to learn from them in terms of the sharing of their knowledge and experiences in protecting the environment. As they said, they are the original environmentalists on this planet. But no, Canada remained silent when this declaration was watered down.
I want to take a moment to speak about one particular group of indigenous peoples on this planet whose very survival is being threatened with genocide, that is the indigenous peoples of Sarawak and, in particular, the Penan people.
As David Suzuki has stated: "If we cannot save even a tiny remnant of the world's most ancient rain forests as a homeland for one of the world's only remaining hunter-gatherer tribes, there is not much hope for the rain forests elsewhere or for any of us. Whatever we let happen to Sarawak's forests will be symbolic of our values and actions for the next millennium".
The Penan people, numbering some 9,500, only 32 remaining families of hunter-gatherers are living on the edge of extinction.
I had the privilege of being able to meet with them myself in the heart of the rain forest in Sarawak in January of this year, where they have erected a blockade to stop the last road from going in to destroy their ancestral home. I could do no better than to quote the words of one of the leaders of the Penan people who said: "You must help us before it is too late. You all talk about the greenhouse effect and climatic change. The rain forest offers solutions to these problems. Our forest is your life support system. If we can preserve it, this is not only a victory for the Penan, it is a victory for the whole world".
It is time we listened. It is time we listened to the voices of indigenous peoples. It is time we listened to the voices of the Penan.
I very much regret that the government of Malaysia has been one of the governments that has been most vocal in resisting an international convention on the rain forests, on tropical forests and on forests generally-

The Environment
As a member of Parliament from British Columbia I recognize that we have much work to do at home as well in terms of our forests, whether it be old growth forests or other forests. The legacy is not one of which I am proud. This is a global problem and we must recognize that the rapid disappearance of the world's forests, the deforestation which is taking place, contributes to global warming. It accelerates the loss of biodiversity, it speeds soil erosion and flooding and it depletes an economic resource that could be sustainably managed, that could be creating jobs for generations to come. It is essential we recognize that the challenge is there, as a planet we must respond to it and our government should be showing leadership.
Finally, we are reminded to think globally and act locally. I want take just a couple of minutes in closing to talk about a global environmental challenge which is being dealt with at the local level. In my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway, some 600,000 people are now being sprayed from the air by a bacterial insecticide BT Foray 48B against the Asian gypsy moth.
I want to voice on behalf of my constituents in North Burnaby my profound concern about the way in which this has been carried out. There was no opportunity for the people affected by this spraying to state their case, to voice their concerns, to put forward their arguments, to have a hearing and to listen, for example, to the study done by a group of Japanese scientists which demonstrated that there are some very serious concerns with respect to the relationship between BT and another type of protein, a toxigenic organism, which is not safe for human beings.
They were denied an opportunity to hear from eminent scientists who have expressed deep concerns about this, including Dr. Donald Dahlsten, professor of biological control and the chair of the division of biological control at the University of California. He pointed out that based on the trapping of a very small number of adult males of the Asian gypsy moth that a large scale eradication program is not warranted. There are other methods available to try to respond to this.
We all recognize the very serious concern about this infestation. After all, in this debate on the environment, I have to speak on behalf of my constituents, particularly those in North Burnaby who have voiced
their concern not just about this short-circuiting of the process, but their sense of anger and betrayal at the way in which the decision had been communicated. Some areas have been sprayed on more than one occasion. Notification is not adequate.
I want to take the opportunity of this debate, Madam Speaker, to appeal through you to the federal Minister of Agriculture to reconsider his approval even at this late date of this project and to give these constituents and these residents of the lower mainland an opportunity to be heard. The B.C. Medical Association, the B.C. Association of Allergists, ordinary residents, for example Fred and Alice Court and others, want an opportunity to have their voices heard on this program.
In conclusion, I want to say how fundamentally important it is that the outcome of this earth summit not merely be more words, more profound declarations, but that there be action, action in a global and collective commitment with Canada leading the way, demonstrating not just in Rio, but demonstrating here at home by concrete action that we are prepared to be world leaders on the environment. We should be prepared to live by the words of the Haida elders who reminded us that we did not inherit this globe from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. We owe it to our children to make the earth summit a success.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
Madam Speaker, it is a very good opportunity to speak on the issue of the environment as a member of Parliament for Nunatsiaq and also as an Inuk member of Parliament. Whenever we talk about the environment, whenever anybody talks about the environment, we always think of ourselves as one of the two environmentalists as a group of people, the Inuit.
This conference that is going to be held in Brazil is going to focus on the environment. I would like to quote from my president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Mary Simon, who said in March 1991 in Geneva: "It is widely known throughout the world that indigenous people spiritually believe all living and non-living things on earth are connected. These values and beliefs are integrated to ensure sustainable development of all renewable natural resources for the protection of the environmental habitat and natural resources".

I very much agree with this statement because, as I was saying in Inuktitut earlier, as we were growing up and as has been taught to us for thousands of years, we took from the land as a hunting and gathering society the animals but we gave it back. We gave it back to the land so there was never any pollution of any kind. This has always been the case until very recently in Canada, in North America.
I would like to quote from an action plan for the 1990s that was adopted at a global NGO conference in December 1991 in Paris, No. 16 of the action plan: "We call upon all governments to acknowledge aboriginal indigenous peoples ownership of their lands prior to colonization and to include this recognition into all government constitutions. Governments must promote and legislate aboriginal indigenous people's right to self-determination. Governments must compensate aboriginal indigenous people for the dispossession of their lands.
This does not imply that governments can expropriate lands against the will of the indigenous people. They must work in partnership with aboriginal indigenous people, peoples from small development projects, especially mining, forestry, and fishing, and ensure free access to their traditional food resources. Governments must legislate to protect sacred sites and to recognize tribal traditional practices that sustain the land. Governments must ensure constitutional and legislative requirements are implemented at all levels of the governmental process".
That very clearly spells out what the aboriginal people of the world, indigenous people of the world, would like to see. I go back to my colleague the previous speaker who said you have to listen to the aboriginal indigenous people in terms of the land.
I would also remind members and Canadian people of what is happening in Canada today.
After quoting this action plan, I can tell you right now that the government is in the process. Whatever land claims negotiations are going on right now, whatever land is being claimed by the aboriginal people of Canada, the majority of that land the government is asking the aboriginal people to give up aboriginal title to so that it can have absolute title as the Government of Canada in order to free that land
The Environment
for development purposes such as mining, oil and gas, and whatever else.
I can give an example of my land, Nunavut, that we just agreed to divide in 1999. We are now in the process of being asked by this government to give up, out of a total of 770,000 square miles of land that we live in, 633,000 square miles and keep 130,000-odd square miles for surface rights and 14,000 square miles of surface and subsurface rights. There is an example of what the government would like to do after we give up title to that large piece of land.
When I talked about how we are true environmentalists, I remember my colleague from Newfoundland and I went through some rough periods back in the 1970s when people like Brigitte Bardot started saying what cute little seals they were and they should not be killed by these barbarians from Newfoundland. They are savages. It showed all these things, but we should not kill these cute little animals, the cute little things so that they grow prosperously.
I began to think of the sealskins that we use for clothing as part of commerce for the Newfoundlanders. I think about what they gained in return for destroying the Newfoundlanders' and the Inuit way of life. We were not killing as many seals any more, so we were not wearing as much sealskin. People started wearing fake fur.
I remember talking to one lady who had been pressured into buying a fake fur coat. Some supposed environmentalists who did not know any better said: "How can you wear that? How many animals had to die for that?" The lady turned around and said: "Thousands and thousands of little polyesters". Just think how much more damage making that one fake fur did to the environment than if she had just gone out and bought a sealskin coat. How much cleaner the air would be if she had bought a sealskin coat instead of buying a polyester fake fur coat that had to go through a process of manufacturing and polluting the environment.
I talk about Inuit as true environmentalists. Whenever I have been up north and I come back here, I am always asked what the temperature is up there. I always say: "I don't know. It's warm". Today in Rankin Inlet I think it was something like minus seven, which is nice and warm for us.

The Environment
To give an example, I never know what the temperature is because I never bother looking at the thermometer. I look out the window and determine what kind of a day it is going to be. I think that is a true environmentalist who does not need a mechanical gadget to tell you how cold it is out there, or what the weather is going to be like later on in the day.
Down here we listen to the weather forecast and determine whether we should bring our umbrella because the weather forecast is it is going to rain today. We do not need to do that. We can tell by looking outside.
When I say in terms of being an environmentalist I say in whatever form, however we treat the land that has sustained us for so long in the north.
We had a scare a couple of years ago because we were told that in Balkin Island there was an awful lot of PCBs in mother's milk and we thought how can that be. We then realized that it was not us who were contaminating the sea or the land or the food chain in the north. It was international pollution, whether it was from testing of the nuclear bombs or other forms of pollutants that had no regard for the boundaries of the world.
There is no such thing as "this is Canada so we should not cross over to Canada from the Soviet Union, or from the United States or the smelters". That would have been nice if it could have happened, but unfortunately it did not.
All of a sudden mothers were endangered by a pollutant to which we had made absolutely no contribution. Today, we are still telling mothers to breastfeed their babies because it is still more healthy to breastfeed than the dangers of whatever may be in that. Hopefully it will be that way or lessened in years to come.
The same thing is happening in Manitoba where there are hydroelectric dams that have destroyed hunting grounds for the Indians of Manitoba. The hydroelectric dams that are in the process of being built in Quebec will destroy thousands of square kilometres of land that the Cree people use, the Inuit people use, and probably pollute Hudson Bay which is in part of my riding. Whatever flows into Hudson Bay goes around and would therefore pollute the sea.
There are all these things that are polluting. When I talked earlier about international pollution I did not mention these other pollutants that are out there, the hydroelectric dams, the sawmills, or others that are polluting the environment and crossing over borders such as from Alberta to the Northwest Territories to the Mackenzie River or the Slave River, or any other waterways. They do not show any concern for boundaries.
We try to say that we do not need the militarization of the north, that we do not need the military in the north. The only time that we would ever think of saying yes is because of the benefits that would come with building a modern airport in various parts of the north. That is the benefit we would get. At the same time we do not necessarily think we need the military in the north to maintain sovereignty.
I guarantee the Inuit are not going to move out of the north. We have no wish to move out of the north. It is our land, Nunavut. My riding is called Nunatsiaq. Again, and I have said this before, Nunatsiaq, if I were explaining it, means the beautiful land. But if I were explaining it to another Inuk, I would say Nunatsiaq in the English language would mean the good land, because for us it is the good land which sustains our way of life as Inuit.
When I say we are not going to move out, I know the Inuit have no wish to move out by and large. Some will move to go to school, to seek jobs elsewhere, or maybe they have married into another culture and wish to move down somewhere else in Canada. But by and large the Inuit are always going to remain in the Arctic. Therefore we maintain that sovereignty through the Inuit. We are not moving.
Why the need, especially today when the cold war is gone and there is hope for peace all over the world? Why build up military sites anywhere? Hopefully it is not just a make work project for people.
If we are to have make - work projects, let us do it in peaceful terms. Let us do it in ways that people are comfortable with whatever is going on. I include the Innu in Goose Bay who have for the last number of years protested the low-level flights there. I think they have gone through a tremendous hardship because of the low-level flights in Goose Bay. Hopefully their determination will bear fruit.

I go back to Inuit being environmentalists. Inuit are the true hunters. We hunt whatever animals we have. We hunt whales, caribou, walrus, beluga whales and seals. Whatever animals we have that can be eaten, we hunt them all. Yet we have never, never decimated a species of animals to the point of extinction because we only take what we need. We only take what we want.
I just mention that because we used to have an awful lot of bowhead whales and whalers came along and totally decimated the population. Now we as Inuit cannot even hunt them when they are in our land.
I just wanted to point out these things out. Hopefully people will learn and listen to the fact that indigenous people should have a role in the Brazil summit. The traditional knowledge of indigenous people should be recognized in Brazil so that when we talk about the environment we include the people who have the most knowledge of the environment.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of comments to make, following the address of my hon. friend. I might add to the hon. gentleman's words. He referred to the real problem we had with the environmentalists back in the days when there was a considerable seal hunt in progress up north and off the northeast coast of Newfoundland, off Labrador and up into the Arctic.
Environmental groups came along, passed judgment and said that the native peoples in those areas and Newfoundlanders were barbarians, as the hon. gentleman mentioned. After those environmentalists promoted that campaign over in Europe and throughout the world, we had the ridiculous sight day after day of the hunters leaving seal pelts on the ice pans because they could not sell them.
The only thing they could sell was what they could eat, which was what they always sold. The carcass was of far greater value than the $11 they received for a seal pelt. Even today if we look at the people make a living, people who go out every day and work who have to strive for just a few dollars to make ends meet, they go out and they always get paid more for the meat if they sell it than they would for the pelt. The pelt's best price this year, last year and the year before was $11.
The Environment
They have to cure it and then ship it. How could they make any money at that? They cannot, thanks to those groups who organized the campaigns through Europe and around the world against our native peoples and against the seal hunters from Newfoundland who always made a living at that particular profession.
The hon. member made a very interesting observation at the end of his address. He talked about whales. He talked about restrictions on certain hunts. The restrictions are there not because of what the native people did, not because of what the people did who always hunted those species, but because of the actions of foreigners, foreigners who are allowed into those waters, into those areas of Canada, to do in a very big industrialized way what we have been doing for years and never hurting the resource.
Today we have the Government of Canada talking about this summit. It has put a motion on the Order Paper today which states:
That this House take note of the Canadian position at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
That is fine, but what is the Canadian position? It is fine to take note of it, but what is it? What is the main motion on the fishery at that conference? What is the motion? I do not know what it is. I do not know what the government's position is.
We do know that the Canadian government is now continuing the same practice it continued all over the years in relation to these resources that my hon. friend spoke so eloquently about a few moments ago.
In Japan over the last three months there have been demonstrations because the blue-fin tuna is in danger of extinction. Where? In the northwest Atlantic. In Japan it was on the national news that the blue-fin tuna in the northwest Atlantic is in danger of extinction. The northwest Atlantic is off the coast of Canada.
Why are they demonstrating? They are doing so because the country with the highest quota for blue-fin tuna in the northwest Atlantic Ocean is Japan.
Which country has the second highest quota? The United States. Which country has the lowest quota, at the bottom? Canada.

The Environment
While the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was away in Mexico and in Japan asking it to stop overfishing, does the House know what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did in Canada? It gave a larger quota to Japan than it gave to Canadians. This is 1992, and the Japanese have seven ship licences to fish tuna in our waters to within 12 miles of the hon. gentleman's coast and my coast out to 200 miles.
We are not talking about outside the 200-mile limit we are talking about Canadian waters.
Japan today has a higher quota in our own Newfoundland waters than all the Newfoundland fishermen put together. We have 35 tonnes and it has 180 tonnes of blue-fin. It has unlimited quotas of alba-core, big eye, yellow-fin, and all of the other different types of tuna. These unlimited quotas, in 1992, were given just four weeks ago when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in Japan talking about overfishing. Those quotas were given by agreement; they were signed, sealed and delivered by Canada.
How does that make a Canadian feel? He cannot get a licence to go out and do what the Japanese are doing. The government is saying: "If you have a Japanese flag on your boat you can pick up your licences free of charge, we will bill you in the mail". That is what Canada has done, that is what it has done over the last four weeks. It has said to Japan: "You can fish more tuna than Canadians can. We will give you seven ship licences". In Japan there are demonstrations claiming that the blue-fin tuna is an endangered species.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for the Government of Canada went down to Cuba the other day. Just last week he went down to Cuba. This year, in 1992, Cuba has been given licences for quotas of squid. An ordinary Newfoundlander, an ordinary Canadian up in the Arctic, down the Labrador coast, in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or Quebec cannot just go down and get a licence for squid. It is restricted. This is the first year that we have a restricted licence for squid in this country.
A poor person, somebody on welfare, is not allowed to get a licence for squid. A person who has lost their job, and we have many of them, cannot get a licence for squid. Even full-time fishermen in Canada, in Newfoundland-and we have many of them-are restricted to their own bays. There are restrictions on their licences, they must have a certain number of
people in their boat and it must be a certain size. Oh, no, not for Cuba. If you are flying the Cuban flag you can go out there 12 miles off our coast out to 200 miles-this is not outside 200 miles-and you can catch the squid.
Why? Is squid an endangered species? We have not seen one on the northeast coast of Newfoundland or the Labrador coast since 1979. What glorious days they were: men, women and children out catching squid, drying them. Everybody had shoes on their feet. They had recession money, it was great and marvellous.
Today in this country, in Newfoundland, not one of those women can get a licence to catch squid if they came in tomorrow. Not one of those children would be allowed in a boat to catch a squid. They would be thrown in jail by law in Canada today. It is a restricted fishery. Yet if you fly the Cuban flag you can come inside the 200-mile limit. You can come into 12 miles and fish squid because you have been given licences all along the coast of eastern Canada in every zone marked 3 and every zone marked 4.
It is not an endangered species. There are none of them around. They only live for a year. They are bom in Florida, they die in Florida. They know where to go. They come up the east coast of Canada, we call it the 401, the Trans-Canada Highway. They come up in this thin black line, they go up to Newfoundland and Labrador. They get bigger and bigger and they go back down to Florida. Just as they hit the Canadian coast, lo and behold, there are the factory freezer trawlers, this big mechanized fleet from Cuba, Russia and from every other country that wants a licence. There they are. They are catching the squid, preventing them from getting up to our northern areas, which are represented by members of this House who represent people who could not get a licence today even if the squid struck in. If you fly a Cuban flag you can do it.
There is no capelin. The government announced the other day that there is no capelin, none at all. There is another restricted fishery. You cannot go and fish capelin if you wished. None of your constituents can if they wished. Oh, no, that is a restricted licence again. There is only a select few people and they are under strict regulations on where they can fish capelin. Five foreign nations have been given capelin inside our 200-mile zone this year under this famous NAFO agreement, last November.

The Soviet Union has quotas of capelin in a zone called 3NO. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception knows that very well because a great many of his constituents have been thrown in jail for fishing in 3NO over the past year. We have seen it all on television.
Talk about an endangered species. Talk about being an environmentalist. On the quota sheet now it just says: "Russians". They have a quota for cod of 1,600 tonnes in 3NO, where the hon. member's fishermen are being arrested. They have a quote for capelin, that are not supposed to exist, in 3NO and so have five other nations under this so-called international agreement that was signed, sealed and delivered by people who claim that they are environmentalists but who place Canadians at the bottom of the list. Every other foreign nation can walk in with the compliments of Canada and stick out a net anywhere.
As for redfish, there are fish plants that have closed that processed redfish in eastern Canada. Yet there are quotas given in zone 3K, my riding and the top of the hon. member's riding over there. There are several foreign nations who are fishing redfish this year and we are closing fish plants. We are saying it is an environmental catastrophe and we have to go down to some conference and ask all these other nations to respect these quotas and we are bending over backwards just because it is a request from a foreign nation to give them quotas.
What about northern cod? We have had a disaster in Canada. They call it the biggest disaster in the fishery ever, northern cod. France just got a few extra licences for northern cod all because a document had to be translated down in New York. It did not matter to France, did it? France was given an extra 2,000 tonnes beyond the end of April until the end of June, while awaiting the translation of a document that concerns a boundary dispute off the south coast of Newfoundland.
Nine factory freezer trawlers from France are presently fishing the northern cod today. The motion before the conference that we are talking about today talks about international co-operation. You talk about it, international co-operation. You know that the best spawning grounds in the northwest Atlantic that is not within Canadian control, that is not within total Canadian control is an area called the Flemish Cap.
The Environment
It is a shallow area in the Atlantic Ocean. It comes up to 30 fathoms when the water is low, and because of that, the sun creates an environment where fish can feed. It is an internationally recognized spawning area for all different types of fish.
This year, when we are sending people to international conferences, when cabinet ministers are going all over the globe saying that we are going to conserve our fishing resource, when there is a motion at this international conference dealing with international co-operation, what happened in the last six months? Canada agreed to reopen the fishery on this internationally recognized spawning and nursery ground for fish that lies approximately in the mid-Atlantic, 320 miles southeast of the city of St. John's.
Who holds the quotas? Nine nations hold the quotas, given by Canada. What is the total quota? I will give you an example. For cod it is 13,900 tonnes. Canada has 100 tonnes. Nobody should be there. What did Canada do when the matter came up for a vote a couple of months ago in the city of Halifax at the NAFO meetings? They abstained from voting.
Every scientist in this country who passes judgment on our fishing resources recommended against the reopening of the fishery on that spawning ground. The Government of Canada advised the people who voted in that meeting to allow the reopening of the fishery in that internationally recognized spawning ground in the northwest Atlantic.
In conclusion, let me say that on behalf of the people who actually are involved in the fishery and involved in things that my hon. friend referred to in his address on the Arctic, the Government of Canada has to realize that Canadians have needs, that Canadians must come first, that in our fishery the best fish you can take out of the ocean is a fish that is caught by one man in a little boat over the side of his boat.
That fish would be a delight for a fisherman to eat, not one caught by modern technology in a ship with a control room that looks like a scene out of Star Wars, not in a control room where you have 50 television cameras and computers on each end of your nets as they do in those vessels from those foreign nations that have destroyed the resource in the north. They are in the process of destroying it on the east coast of Canada, all because Canada wants to be nice to everybody else in the world.

The Environment
The real people who run the federal department of fisheries is the Department of External Affairs.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since no more members have asked to be recognized, pursuant to order made Wednesday the motion is deemed put and adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 8,1992