1992-05-04

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the member for Don Valley North, whose item is to be considered under Private Members' Business this morning, is unavoidably detained.
This came to the attention of members just as the bells started ringing. However members have made plans accordingly. As a result, I understand that it would be inappropriate to move to any other order of business at this time.
I would like to propose that the sitting be suspended until 12 noon.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is essentially correct. We on the government side learned perhaps an hour ago that the hon. member for Don Valley North would not be available.
We endeavoured to see whether the debate could be brought forward to this time on Bill C-63, and unfortunately members opposite essential to that debate could not change their plans on time. I would concur in the suggestion of the hon. member.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I normally would agree, but I am quite prepared with a speech now that would help fill in the vacuum until twelve o'clock.
I would not want to upset too many applecarts, but certainly after I made my few remarks, I am sure there
would be somebody else who could fill in the time slot until we got to twelve o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants puts forward an interesting suggestion which I think would have some sympathy in the Chamber.
However, just so that everybody understands this, we would ordinarily be going into private members' hour. The hon. member, whose motion would be before the House, has had to advise us only a little while ago that she cannot be here.
The dilemma is this. It does not give the opportunity for any other private member to bring in his or her motion. If the government desires to go ahead with Bill C-63 at this time, it creates a situation where members who wish to speak on that bill, not expecting to be debating it until after private members' hour, are not here.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has made it clear that he agrees with the hon. member for Windsor West that under the circumstances the appropriate thing is to stand the House down until twelve o'clock.
While I certainly understand the position of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, I think that is what we will have to do.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley North is not present to move the order as announced in today's Notice Paper. Accordingly, the order will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence for Private Members' Business, pursuant to Standing Order 42(2).
Thus the sitting will be suspended until twelve o'clock noon. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.19 a.m.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1992
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, pursuant to order made Friday, May 1, 1992, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazan-kowski that Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order made Friday, May, 1, 1992, the House will now proceed to consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance for second reading and reference to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in the budget it brought down on February 25, 1992, the Conservative government announced it would eliminate, consolidate, defer or privatize 46 government agencies, corporations and commissions, which supposedly would enable the government to save $22 million per year. On March 10, 1992, Bill C-63 heralded the termination of the first six.
Bill C-63 is the instrument this government will use to implement the worst proposals in its latest budget. This bill will abolish the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, with a budget of $227,000 and nine employees; the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, with a budget of $5 million and 40 employees; the Economic Council of Canada, with a budget of $10.3 million and 118 employees; the International Centre for Ocean Development, with a budget of $13.3 million, 74 employees in Halifax and additional staff elsewhere; the Law Reform Commission of Canada, with a budget of $4.8 million and 36 employees; and the Science Council of Canada, with a budget of $3.1 million and 29 employees.
It is surprising the government felt it had no alternative but to eliminate these agencies. Why this ruthless sacrifice on the altar of privatization? Let us analyse the
Conservative strategy. Consider two recent initiatives, one that will cost at least $20 million and one that is supposed to save $22 million. The first one, the prosperity initiative, has a budget of $15 million and several million dollars more for consultants and advertising.
This initiative, announced last fall with a great deal of hoopla, is intended as a response to the challenges facing Canada in its search for competitiveness. So far, it has been an excuse for the government to delay action and rehash initiatives already announced and studies already released. Canadians will also be treated to a lot of expensive advertising, meetings and discussions, but very little action will be taken to deal with pressing economic problems.
The second initiative, Bill C-63 before the House today, is a so-called austerity measure. However, the savings will be very meagre, considering the federal government's total budget of $161 billion. In the budget, the government announced it will wind down or merge 46 government agencies and in the process save $22 million. Bill C-63 deals with only six of these agencies. To eliminate some of the best sources of research in Canada at a time when they are so badly needed is a waste of precious knowledge and expertise and means abandoning major research.
Those are policies we owe to Brian Mulroney and his Conservative friends.
As we know, the Economic Council is nearly 30 years old. The Law Reform Commission is over 20 and the Science Council of Canada is over 25. These agencies have acquired great credibility and a wealth of talent over the years. They are independent, free from shortterm political priorities, able to take the long view and give sound advice and suggestions on directions for future policies.

Bill C-63 indicates that the government has lost sight of the values of these agencies. Perhaps it has become too sensitive to critical evaluations of its actions. In my view, this bill is bad for democracy. I wish to quote Arthur Drache in the Financial Post of March 5, 1992, in reference to the decision to close the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada and the Law Reform Commission:
May 4, 1992

Removing these institutions from the Canadian landscape is a method of decreasing dissent and criticism of government policies. The net result will be that those who challenge policy have been deprived of quasi-official platforms and would be marginalized. Governments were forced to respond to reports by the councils and commissions, and those reports served as a focal point for Canadians who want policy considered in a context other than solving the immediate crisis or making political brownie points.
Mr. Speaker, I want to examine what we will lose through Bill C-63.
The Economic Council of Canada: The final report under the council's name on education and training was released last Wednesday, examining the sorry situation of our educational system. This important research calls out for action, the trademark as we know of the Economic Council of Canada.
Arthur Drache described the council in the Financial Post of March 5 as follows:
The only credible challenger to the Department of Finance on economic policy issues. Finance piously killed one of its main tormentors in the name of saving money and then suggested that the same research will be handled in the private sector and in the universities. Everybody in Ottawa knows what scant attention Finance pays to those sources when it comes to economic planning and forecasting.
What does this tell us about the Tory government? Once again I would suggest that it does not like to hear criticism. The fate of the Economic Council of Canada reports in progress on health care, human resources, management, the impact of governments in competitiveness, the adaptation of firms in trading relationships with the Pacific Rim is not yet certain. Government departments or universities may attempt to complete the research but this represents a potentially damaging transfer of a project in mid-stream.
The Financial Post of April 15, 1992 reports that the Department of Finance will provide $3.4 million to finish projects still in progress when the council closes its doors on June 30. Two and a half million dollars has already been spent on these reports.
How does this fit with the savings these measures are supposed to give us? If the Economic Council of Canada was not doing a good job or relevant work, why is the government handing out millions of dollars to have its work completed by others?
Government Orders
The government pretends that the private sector and universities can take up this work but they cannot undertake, in my view, in-depth and long-term research the way the council could.
The Ottawa Citizen conducted a survey of university academics and economists with research organizations, brokerage firms and banks, and reported March 10,1992, that:
Few, if any, do the in-depth, long-term research the council did.
For example, universities and research institutes surveyed say they do
not have the resources to undertake multi-year research projects.
It seems to me ludicrous that this government would expect universities to pick up where the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada will leave off, the same government that is slowly starving universities of federal funding and that has a pitiful record in supporting research and development at these institutions.
The Science Council of Canada: Closed.
The Science Council of Canada has provided exceptional foresight and policy options. In 1971, the council recommended recycling, including separating household waste. Energy efficiency was studied in 1977. In 1967, the council recommended the establishment of the Canadian Space Agency which was finally opened in 1989.
What will happen to the projects the council has just begun on the prosperity and economic competitiveness campaign?
John Polyani, the Nobel Prize winning chemist quoted in the Ottawa Citizen of March 8, 1992, has this to say about the decision to close the Science Council of Canada: "One gets the impression that the ship of state is large and expensive and we have to do something about it so we have cut off the rudder".
How will the work of the Science Council of Canada be replaced? The budget papers suggest that other advisory bodies have emerged since the council's establishment such as the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology chaired by no one else than the Prime Minister of Canada and including some cabinet ministers. Mr. Speaker, I put it to you humbly, what kind of rudder is this?

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
How does this highly independent board intend to substitute for the in-depth and unbiased research of the Science Council of Canada? Does the board intend to take over the plans for an annual report card on the state of Canadian science?
This year the council was to publish its first report on the state of Canadian science. This ongoing annual report was to give an idea of our progress, valuable information in helping us compete. Why does the government not want a report card on the state of science in Canada? Is it concerned that such a report card will show its lack of commitment to providing more?
In part III of the estimates for 1992-93, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, looking at the science co-ordination and leadership which is in charge of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, we see that the budget has been increased by almost $4 million from $24.8 million to $28.2 million. What is this budget increase for? At the same time, the government could not find $3.1 million for the Science Council, an arms length council, a council we trusted, a council that gave us good advice.
The Law Reform Commission. The Ottawa Citizen of March 11 reports that Canada will join Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as the only Commonwealth countries without independent law reform bodies. This government is leading us proudly to Third World status.
The Law Reform Commission has published 32 reports, 64 working papers and 76 studies. These have been influential. In 1990, it was found that these papers had been cited in 211 reported Canadian court cases, including 39 Supreme Court decisions.
The commission is scrambling to publish working papers still in progress. At the beginning of May, working paper 65 will be released. If the commission does not run out of time before the boom is lowered in June, working paper 66 and the 20th annual report will be released.
One of the casualties of this commission will be a report on multiculturalism. The president of the Canadian Bar Commission has written to the Prime Minister to protest this decision. As the president, JJ. Cam notes, it may be that the government considered the commission "too independent".
Last December the commission presented its last report to Parliament: "Aboriginal Peoples and Criminal Justice".
How will the work of the Law Reform Commission be replaced? The budget papers say the Department of Justice will do part of it and the rest will be handed to researchers in universities and elsewhere.
How much money will be spent by the department to replace this work? The Department of Justice has increased its litigation budget from $59 million in 1990-91 to $89.5 million in 1992-93, an increase of $30 million in two years and civil litigation as part of that budget from $22.6 million to $34 million in two years, an increase of $11 million. But there was not enough money to cover the $4.8 million required to keep the Law Reform Commission going. I will ask the minister to explain that decision.
The Department of Justice intends to hire 70 lawyers this year. I would like to know what these people are going to do.
The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security was established in 1984 in order to provide an independent view of Canadian foreign policy and various international issues. In the Ottawa Citizen of March 7, 1992, we read that the latest annual review of the institute was critical of some of the government's decisions, including its delay in providing aid to the former Soviet Union. It is noted the institute was just reaching maturity, acquiring an international reputation, and proving itself an important source of sound information and intelligent judgment.
Thanks to this government that source will soon no longer be there. This seems ill-timed when the world has entered a time of unprecedented uncertainty as countries break up, boundaries are withdrawn, and millions of people adapt to startlingly different and new realities.
External Affairs, we are told, will take over the work of the institute. Once again it is painfully clear we will go from having an independent assessment and review to one fettered by the short-term view and political needs of the government.
It is questionable when money will actually be saved through the closing of the institute. Lulfilment of contracts and obligations, a 10-year lease, severance packages, are likely to put off savings for at least two years.
May 4, 1992

The International Centre for Ocean Development, the decision to close this centre which helped developing countries manage their ocean resources, is particularly surprising given the Tories' claim to be working to protect the environment. Is this decision in line with the government's green plan? What does this say to other countries about our commitment to taking care of fisheries, particularly in the context of the turmoil off the coast of Newfoundland? It is all very puzzling.
CIDA, we are told, is to take over the projects of the centre. Has this been budgeted for?

The only way to understand these cuts is to see them as concessions to win over the right wing and get dissatisfied Reform Party members to vote Conservative in the next election. Abolishing the agencies mentioned in this bill will cost over 300 jobs and add to unemployment in the national capital region. Cuts to the public sector in the national capital region have disastrous effects on the private sector. In a report entitled "Otta-wa-Carleton Economy: Looking Ahead", the Conference Board of Canada estimates that for every job lost in the federal government, one and a half jobs are lost in other sectors in Ottawa.
Most of the people affected by Bill C-63 are highly skilled. Their expertise will be lost just when we need it most to revive our economy and strengthen our education system so that Canada and Canadians can be better prepared to face the 21st century. .

This bill shows the Tories' distaste for democracy. They obviously do not like Canadians having information which shows the flaws of their own policies.
As David Crane of The Toronto Star notes, this government has been slowly cutting off the sources of information and independent research for years. I give Statistics Canada as an example. The reports were made self-financing by the government. This ultimately meant important studies became very expensive placing them out of the reach of many. Demand fell, not surprisingly, enabling the Tories to claim there was no longer a need to publish these reports.
Government Orders
In closing, I would like to quote Mr. Drache in the Financial Post, March 5, 1992: "Confident governments give us boards, agencies, and commissions which would act as policy counterweights. It is a feeble and fearful government which takes these away in the name of saving a pittance in terms of government spending. Depriving Canadians of information, alternative views on public issues from credible sources and the ability to clarify our rights is short-sighted in the extreme, but then as many feel about the budget its vision is targeted no further than the next election."
What will the legacy of this bill be? The irreplaceable loss of valuable research, acquired and accumulated knowledge and expertise, a more solid vision of the action that must be taken for the future in return for minimal savings, destruction for nothing more than political expediency.
I avoided speaking about the cutting of the Court Challenges Program which in my view is also a serious mistake by this government. It has cut a program which was one of the most efficient and effective programs, not very costly, less than $2 million a year. It gave minorities, all minorities, be they linguistic or others, the right to go to court and have their rights clarified. This government cut that program which cost less than 10 cents a year per Canadian. I find that absolutely unbelievable.
Bill C-63 falls within the Tory philosophy of cut, cut, cut. This bill is bad legislation. It should be withdrawn. I will not support this legislation. I will vote no when the vote is called.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the big difference today between the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party in this country is that the Liberal Party looks back and the Progressive Conservative Party looks ahead.
The philosophy which has been one of the guiding principles of this government during its eight or nine years in office is that the responsibility of the government is to look to the present and the future and not to the past. Part of that philosophy has been one of privatization.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
My hon. friend in his remarks referred to the sacrifice of these institutions on the altar of privatization.
It is our view that the purpose of government is to provide necessary services to the citizens and not to employ them. It seems that it is the policy of my hon. friends opposite that the purpose of government is to employ people.
We believe the purpose of the government is to create a climate in which the private sector can grow, develop and employ people. The economic policies of this government are targeted and, indeed, notwithstanding the current recession would appear to be working in that direction.
When we look at institutions which were created 30,40 or 50 years ago, if they continue to serve a public policy process and a public policy role and if they are providing services that are not being provided by other institutions in Canadian society, then obviously, it is part of the government's policy to maintain them.
If as in the cases of the Economic Council of Canada or the Science Council of Canada for example, since their inception other institutions have come along providing the same kind of valuable research or providing the fora in which such research can take place, then we ask the question: Why is the government at the cost of the taxpayer maintaining administrative bureaucracies to do things that can be done by private institutes or, indeed, are being done in the universities?
That is what this piece of legislation is about. This piece of legislation has absolutely nothing to do with what my hon. friend indicated, that this government is removing these institutions because of criticism of their reports.
Over the years there have been many excellent reports done by the Law Reform Commission, the Science Council, the Economic Council and other institutions whose discontinuance was announced in the budget.
Some of the reports have been very supportive of the government. For example, the Economic Council of Canada strongly endorsed the free trade agreement. Its wisdom, it seems to me was not so well recognized then by my hon. friends opposite as it seems to be today.
If there are not going to be sources of independent, effective research provided for the benefit of government in this country as a result of the removal of these institutions, then I can assure my hon. friend and his colleagues opposite that these institutions would not have been removed by the budget that was brought down last February and passed by this House.
It is very important that we understand this bill is here for two reasons. First, it is because the Canadian taxpayers have said to the government: "Streamline government and make it more efficient". That is what this is all about. Second, this type of research is, indeed, available through the excellent work being done in our universities and various other institutes across the country.
Perhaps my hon. friend might care to comment.
Mir. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we have a serious disagreement. I can tell. I always thought that, yes, we were moving forward, but one must know where one is coming from to be able to orient himself or herself in a proper manner. There is nothing wrong with looking back and saying that we had some good reports and good work done. In my view, it is very useful.
As far as the principle of privatization is concerned, the principle of this bill that is at second reading stage is to shut down, to abolish 46 agencies.
The Liberal Party of Canada is not opposed to privatization. We do not support government policies that call for the elimination of organizations which, in our view, continue to serve the public policy purpose. We see this commitment to divestiture on the part of the Conservative government as a feeble attempt to silence its many critics. I thought I had made it clear in my speech that what this government cannot stand is for somebody to oppose or to criticize it. As I said, it is a feeble attempt to silence its many critics. I really believe that. In particular, the Reform Party is threatening every one of them in their seats. That is the reality. That is the truth. They know it.
When I hear the member saying to me in this House that these cuts, these closures are to more efficiently and effectively spend public funds, I ask the member: On a budget of $161 billion, the savings will be $22 million. There are 300 jobs at hand here. Scientists, top-notch
May 4, 1992

lawyers, people who were trained, who had the expertise and the knowledge, where are they going to go?
The movement naturally will be to the United States. We may lose an awful lot of good intellectual talents that we have over the years trained to do research for us so that we would have arm's length from the government's policy, arm's length from its interference some objective reports to Canadians about certain directions we were taking, about certain policy options that were available, about very difficult problems that we are all facing on the environment.
The Science Council was the first to point out to us that we had to do a couple of things essentially to this planet to maintain it. We have to look after garbage and do it quickly, otherwise we are going to kill the planet. The Science Council did that 20 years ago. We are just starting today to take note of that very good recommendation made to us several years ago.
Yes, it is true that these things were in days gone by but there are still some things to be done today. I hope the member would reflect on it and change his opinion.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier referred in his speech to the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada, concerning education and occupational training in Canada.
Could the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier tell me whether he agrees with what many have said to the effect that there is nothing new in that report, that the Economic Council of Canada did not do exhaustive research before publishing it but only compiled data-at least those I checked-that were two or three years old and were published by the provinces, which are responsible for education, of course? Well, that is a statement and obviously I do not deny that there is a problem. But is using the Economic Council of Canada with what it costs taxpayers to produce a report that was already produced by provincial authorities not a waste of money? The Economic Council and several other organizations no longer have a reason to exist, since the provinces have within their jurisdiction organizations that can do the work very well, instead of duplicating such organizations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau reads Le Devoir. Lise Bissonnette wrote an editorial in which she criticized the Economic Council's report. It is good to have public discussion. Yes, people must talk about problems from time to time. We think that education is a national problem, but it is true that it is in provincial jurisdiction.
Government Orders
Yes, the report-and I read it-contained much that I already knew, since I spent 12 years of my life in the field of education. I know that there are problems; we all know that there are problems. We must find solutions.
As Ms. Bissonnette commented in Le Devoir last Friday, I believe that perhaps we should tiy new approaches to deal with the drop-out problem, which now affects 35 per cent of our young people. I will not argue about the value of the report with the hon. member. My point is that this report may have helped Canadians become aware of and understand an area that is so vital to a country: education. If it helps us solve the problem, it is worth the effort and the expense.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to make some comment in regard to Bill C-63, to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies. It relates to the measures that were contained in the February 1992 budget.
As members will recall, that budget announced there would be the elimination, consolidation, deferral or privatization of a total of 46 government agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and advisory bodies. The reason for that is abundantly clear to most Canadians. Over the years government has proliferated to the point where it is infiltrating virtually every area of life and is choking the ability of taxpayers to be able to respond.
In times past-perhaps we should call them Liberal times-there was a tendency to respond to every possible request, every demand from the public, every special interest group, every perceived need. Consequently over the years there was an enormous proliferation of these various organizations and bodies, in excess of 400 of them, more than 200 boards, tribunals, councils and advisory bodies.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
Over time the ability of the public to continue to support these agencies and advisory bodies has, I believe, waned. Indeed the enthusiasm has virtually disappeared. Over time public needs have evolved and changed as well. As a result of the process, the overlapping in the mandates has to be looked at and has to be dealt with, given our national debt and the obligation to find the money with which to service that debt, to pay the interest on that accumulated debt.
It is not surprising that the government in its budget undertook to reduce the number of agencies, boards, commissions and advisory bodies that it maintains. The Minister of Finance has indicated there are five basic principles that are involved in the decision-making process to that end.
First, we are eliminating waste resulting from overlap and duplication within the government. Second, we are eliminating waste that results from duplication with the private sector. Third, we are strengthening particular sectors by consolidating related organizations and their mandates. Fourth, we are simply postponing some desirable initiatives that simply cannot be afforded at this point in time. Finally, we are going to continue to privatize commercial operations that no longer serve the purposes of public policy.
This particular bill speaks of the dissolution or termination of six government organizations. They are the Science Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Economic Council of Canada, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Law Reform Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. The bill deals with these six organizations because their dissolution or termination does not require substantial amendments to other existing legislation.
The remaining organizations that were mentioned in the February budget will be dealt with through the medium of other legislation as expeditiously as possible.
I want to expand a little bit on the rationale in dealing with the decision in regard to the Science Council of Canada. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the valuable contribution that the Science Council has made to the formulation of government science and technology policies and programs. Over the years its insightful studies and reports have provided all Canadians with an important perspective on Canada's scientific and technological resources, requirements and potential. Indeed it has helped us to identify and address our weaknesses and to recognize and capitalize upon our strengths. Perhaps most significantly it has served to foster greater public awareness of science and technology and on how they truly impact upon all of our lives.
The work of the Science Council could best be described as visionary. In a number of areas it was way ahead of its time in terms of the forecasts it made and the actions it recommended. In fields such as environmental conservation, innovation in cold climates, advanced manufacturing and science teaching, the work of the Science Council gave a leg up, so to speak, in dealing with what would one day become vital issues.
It maintains its tradition of probing into a diverse range of emerging issues. For example, some of its recent projects have dealt with sustainable agriculture, science and technology for the social and economic development of northern communities, science, technology and constitutional change, and genetics and health care.
It is not a matter of the Science Council having to fulfil its mandate. The Science Council is not being punished for doing a poor job or, as some misguided individuals have suggested, for providing government with advice that government does not want to hear.
Put simply, the government's decision to wind up the Science Council is based upon a reality that cannot be ignored: changing times. These days one would be hard pressed to come up with a subject that is discussed, debated and theorized upon as often and as extensively as the subject of Canadian competitiveness.
By Canadian competitiveness I mean the ability of our industries to keep pace with rapid technological change and to compete successfully in the international marketplace.
A competitive Canada translates into a prosperous Canada, a Canada which is able to maintain and enhance its well earned reputation as the world's most caring and compassionate society. It also means opportunities especially for our young people, opportunities for world-class education and training and opportunities for exciting and rewarding careers.
May 4, 1992

Responding to the competitive challenge is a shared responsibility. Government at all levels, industry, labour, academia, all the key players in our economy have a role to play. The primary role of government is to provide the leadership, the policy and program support which will foster a climate conducive to competitiveness, to innovation and to growth.
To that end back in November 1984 this government introduced the plan for economic renewal. It is an agenda that has guided our economic policy to this day. It is comprised of a number of wide-ranging strategies that taken together help to create the environment in which business can grow and prosper.
Deficit control has been a major element. Government operations now run in the black. Only the interest on the national debt contributes to the deficit today. I think it is important in this context to revisit history briefly, because in the year 1982-83 the Government of Canada ran its operations in the red to the tune of $11 billion. That is excluding the requirement to pay interest on the national debt. It is just the day-to-day operations of government, the transfers to the provinces, and paying for the programs. The government of the day was in the hole to the tune of $11 billion.
In the year 1983-84 it was in the hole to the tune of $14 billion and in 1984-85, $16 billion. That was the peak and it is no accident that it coincided with the last year of the Trudeau government.
Since that time enormous progress has been made to the point where, excluding the requirements of the interest on the debt, the Government of Canada is today operating all of the programs, providing all of the services, and in fact has a surplus of $12 billion left over at the end of the day.
Obviously that $12 billion unfortunately is not enough to pay the interest on the accumulated debt, but we are indeed light years ahead of where we would have been had the free-spending regime of the past continued.
The deficit back in 1984-85 consumed over 8 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product of Canada. Today it has been cut in half to the point where it is slightly over 4 per cent.
How was this done? It is hardly any magic and there is no secret about it. It has been done the only way possible: by reducing expenditures and by increasing revenues. It means tax increases and it means spending
Government Orders
and program cuts. There are no other ways. There is no magic out there.
The opposition parties within this Chamber continue to refuse to recognize that reality. It is interesting because provincial counterparts certainly in Saskatchewan and Ontario, now that they are in charge, have come to realize that there is a reality out there, that governments have no money other than that which they get from the people of the country, from the taxpayer, that there is no other source, and that every program that comes forward has to be paid for.
The reason we have the problems we have today in terms of debt and the requirement to pay interest on that debt is because of past overspending, the failure of successive governments back in the 1970s and early 1980s to present taxpayers with a bill for the programs at the time.
Instead they pursued what I may refer to as the Liberal way, which was to say: "We will have all these programs and institutions, no problem. We will have them but we will not pay for them. We will just have our kids pay for them in the future some time. Perhaps the grandchildren will pay for them, but we will not bother people today so that we can continue to get re-elected".
There has been a sea of change in the attitudes of Canadians. Most Canadians now understand loud and clear the source of the funds which governments use to operate. The source of the funds is the pocketbooks of Canadians. Canadians are saying that they are tired of the tax burden. They want to see some action on the part of governments in terms of downsizing, in terms of eliminating waste, duplication and so on. This budget and this bill do respond to those concerns.
Those management initiatives announced back in the fall of 1984 include the privatization of over 20 Crown corporations and the downsizing of the Public Service. There is something in the order of 90,000 fewer employees in the Public Service at this point in time.
We have introduced regulatory reform and major changes to regulations governing transportation, energy and communications industries. Our intellectual property laws have been modernized and strengthened. We established Investment Canada which encourages foreign investment and will be of net benefit to Canada. We brought forward tax reform including the elimination of

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
the federal sales tax on manufacturing. Every step of the way these measures were opposed by members opposite, opposed for the sake of opposition. There was never an alternative, simply criticism.
When the goods and services tax came forward, was there any suggestion of an alternative other than to continue to borrow, borrow, borrow? The answer was none. There was no alternative put forward by opposition parties, and to this day there is no alternative out there because there are no alternatives.
The path forward to the 21st century has also included the free trade agreement with the United States. It has included the ongoing GATT negotiations. It now expands its horizons to include a North American free trade agreement.
Taken together the measures of the government's plan for economic renewal have provided for an environment in which the private sector can be the engine of growth for the Canadian economy. We have come a long way in building a more prosperous and competitive Canada, but there is still a lot more to do.
On February 25 the Minister of Finance outlined the government's fiscal priorities, the next step in our long-term plan for sustained growth. At the root of this budget as has consistently been the case with the government was the commitment to streamlining government and improving the service provided to Canadians, in other words to ensure that our own house is in order. This has involved taking a long, hard look at the departments and agencies of the federal government in order to save overhead and to focus resources.
In the case of the Science Council of Canada it became apparent that the changing times dictated that the council be wound up. As I said at the outset the council has played a useful role since its creation back in 1966 in providing advice to government and in stimulating research and debate on issues of science policy.
However recent years have seen changes both inside and outside government. Today numerous sources of independent advice on science and technology exist. We have the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, for example. The NABST is a broadly representative body of prominent Canadians chaired by the Prime Minister. Since its inception in 1986 the board has provided valuable advice which has had a significant
impact on government policies and programs. The national network of centres of excellence and the Canada scholarships Program are concrete examples of government decisions based on any of the ST advice.
Not only does the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology provide scientific and technological policy advice at the national level, but many of the provinces have created science advisory bodies that provide advice on a regional and provincial basis that relates to their specific situations.
In addition to the NABST, some other sources of independent scientific and technological advice include the National Research Council, the Council of Science and Technology Ministers, the National Forum of Science and Technology Advisory Councils, the National Biotechnology Advisory Committee and the National Advisory Panel on Advanced Industrial Materials.
At the same time, many private groups also provide independent advice, including the C. D. Howe Research Institute, the Business Council on National Issues, the Royal Society of Canada, and the university community through such groups as the Canadian Federation of Biological Sciences.
The federal government believes that science and technology policy advice should come from as diverse a group as possible. That is why it is encouraging science and technology policy analysis in the higher education sector and in the private sector, as well as in governmental and quasi-govemmental institutions.
Finally, with respect to the role of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, like the Science Council of Canada the NABST is an independent advisory board. The government does not direct the issues the board examines, nor does it determine the conclusion the board reaches.
The government, therefore, has a combination of many sources of advice with discretion to determine which sources may be appropriate on particular issues. The government is committed to ensuring that the current work of the Science Council of Canada will be phased out in an orderly manner. Ongoing work will be transferred to the responsible federal departments or agencies. In the next few months before the closure date, the council will publish a number of final reports, including the studies undertaken through its extensive R
May 4, 1992

and D strategy project. That project examined a number of vital industry sectors, reviewed the R and D challenges it faced, and presented a number of strategies and recommendations for enhancing competitiveness.
It is appropriate, I believe, that we salute the many dedicated men and women who have contributed to the high quality work of the Science Council of Canada over the past number of years and recognize the talent and commitment of these individuals because they have done a great deal to advance science policy in Canada. But at the end of the day the fact remains that there are, as indicated, other agencies, other departments, private sector, universities, and so on.
There is also the compelling problem of finances. This particular bill speaks to some six of 46 government agencies, boards, commissions and advisory bodies that will be dissolved or eliminated as a result of the February 25 budget. The result will be some 500 fewer people on the government payroll, 160 fewer appointments, a saving of $22 million for this year, up to $71 million five years from now, something in the order of $300 million over five years.
There is no question that the agencies involved here have done good work, and there is no question that other agencies do good work. It is never easy to do away with certain agencies, commissions and so on. If they had no raison d'etre, no purpose, hopefully they never would have been created in the first place. However, I do believe that it is instructive to note a proliferation of these various agencies and Crown corporations and various governmental bodies over the past 25 or 30 years, to note that government has tripled and quadrupled in size, that the bureaucracy has grown to such incredibly large proportions, to note the burden on Canadians in terms of taxation to the point where Canadians in the middle income area of $50,000 are seeing more than half of their earnings taxed back between federal and provincial governments. Of course, there is a third level of government out there as well, municipal. All levels, municipal, provincial and federal, I believe have to bear in mind at this point in time that there is only one source of funding and that is the tax revenues that are gathered
Government Orders
from those same people, those same Canadians. Whether it is their municipal government presenting them with a tax bill, whether it is their provincial government presenting them with a bill or indeed whether it is this federal level of government, the fact remains that there is a crushing burden out there.
I believe firmly that the steps that have been instituted over the past seven and a half years have stabilized the situation. We see that the deficit this year in fact is half of what it was in 1984-85 relative to the economy. Indeed, by the latter years in the 1990s we will through hard work, through eliminating various programs, have reached the point where there will be no further requirement to borrow. That will be a happy day for all Canadians.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, referring back to the budget speech that the hon. member discussed, he made reference to the 46 agencies that are being wound up or merged, consolidated, privatized, eliminated. He has referred to the figure of $22 million for the 46 agencies.
In this bill we are dealing with only six of those agencies, six of the 46. I am assuming the members opposite will agree that the $22 million figure is not the saving figure for the six agencies. The $22 million is the saving figure for 46 agencies.
I know members opposite do not want to mislead the public about the cost saving. I am asking the member to be more specific about the actual cost saving for the six agencies in question. Obviously, it is a lot less than $22 million, if $22 million is the saving for 46. Could the hon. member be more specific for us and for the taxpayer?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the budget papers handy. I do recall the questioner's colleague from Ottawa-Vanier quoting a number of figures in the text of his speech some half hour ago. I believe he mentioned a minuscule $3.2 million for a certain agency, I forget which one, and a minuscule $4.8 million for another one.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
In answer, I cannot tell the hon. member exactly the total for the six agencies in question, although to my mind it is certainly substantial. I heard his colleague from Ottawa-Vanier refer to those numbers as if there were literally chicken feed, nickels and dimes. That to my way of thinking is the problem, that for 20 years the Liberal Party operated in that fashion: $3 million here, $4 million there. It did not really matter.
The hon. member reminds one of C. D. Howe back in the 1950s. Perhaps that is where it all began and there was just no end to it: "What's a million?" Today I think it is: What's a billion?
The hon. member I assume is coming at this thing from the point of view of science and technology. I recall a contribution that was made by the previous government to science and technology, the scientific research tax credit, the largest single boondoggle in Canadian history. Somewhere between $3 billion and $5 billion was tossed out the window for a dubious program, moneys that were lost to the public purse. What did Canadian taxpayers receive in response for it? What did they get in return for somewhere between $3 billion and $5 billion worth of tax write-offs? The answer I suggest is absolutely zero. It was a splendid example of the Liberal way, the meddling that went into the private sector, a typical ill-thought, open-ended boondoggle.
It is interesting that hon. members opposite want to have their full time and yet they are not prepared to accept a response from this side. It is not enough to have their full time but they want our time as well.
I want to refer to a remark that was made by my hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, when he commenced this debate on second reading on April 30.1 thought that it was instructive. What he referred to was a common denominator of these various organizations, referring to the boards, commissions and so on, that they were all created to respond to what was perceived at one time or another as a particular public need in more expansive times. He might also have said in more expensive times because he is talking about those Liberal times of the 1970s and the early 1980s.
He said: "In more expansive times, the tendency was sometimes to create a new public body to meet new requirements without necessarily examining whether these could be served within existing structures. Of course, over time public needs have evolved and changed. As a result of this process, some overlapping of functions and mandates has clearly occurred. But given our heavy national debt and the high taxes this brings
with it, this is something that Canada can no longer afford".
That is the raison d'etre behind this. Whether it is $22 million, $6 million, $3 billion or whether it is $1, that is the principle behind this. I believe it is a worthy principle.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would change his position on this bill, at least certain agencies included in this bill, if it was demonstrated to him that the Minister of Finance has no intention of saving a single dollar by the termination of that agency. I wonder if he would change his position on that.
I wish to point out to him that the estimates for 1992-93 provide in respect of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security the same $5 million that was in last year's estimates, the year before that, and the year before that. It is provided in this year's estimates again, $5 million. There is not one cent reduced from this budget as a result of the application of Bill C-63, at least to the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
Will the member agree that at least six should be removed from this bill because his whole rationale for supporting this bill was based on the alleged cost savings. There is not $1 in cost going to be saved, according to the estimates tabled in this House by the Minister of Finance. Either that, or will the member agree that his argument is intellectually dishonest?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, during my discourse I believe I referred to two fundamental reasons over and over again. In fairness, perhaps, the hon. member was not around for my speech. I believe I spoke in terms of overlap, in terms of duplication, in terms of the fact that there was a private sector out there, and the university. There are any number of programs which do tend to duplicate, do tend to overlap and do result, undoubtedly, in some waste and some additional cost to the public purse and ultimately to the taxpayers of Canada. That is a reality.
I also, of course, referred to the cost factor, yes. I believe the two are inextricably intertwined. There are alternatives out there. There are, as I indicated in my speech, a number of agencies. I spoke specifically about the Science Council of Canada. With regard to other agencies as well, there are alternatives. There are numerous bodies which do research, give advice, some
May 4, 1992

governmental and some non-governmental, the private sector, the universities and so on.
I see no inconsistency in that at all. In regard to the specific item about the estimates, all I can tell the hon. member is that this particular bill calls for the dissolution of the agency in question. Once the bill is passed, indeed, that dissolution will take place. I do not know the time frame. It may be that it will take time to dissolve it, in which case that might well explain the item in the estimates. For more detail, obviously, he is free to consult with the appropriate minister and department involved.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to oppose Bill C-63 strongly. It has the purpose of dissolving or ending six extremely valuable organizations: the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law Reform Commission, and the Science Council of Canada.
The government has said that it is necessary to eliminate these six organizations and in fact another 40 as well because it is necessary to save money and also because the purpose for which the organizations have been set up is either no longer required or is more effectively carried out in other hands.
Liberals certainly do not oppose examining the usefulness or the necessity for government bodies and organizations like those mentioned in this bill, in fact the entire group of 46, but we say that the government has not made a case for the elimination of the six organizations listed in this Bill C-63. On the contrary, the more it struggles to try to justify what it is doing in this bill, the less convincing and the less credible it is.
First the government says that it is necessary to eliminate these organizations in order to save money. We are talking about some $22 million out of a total government expenditure of $160 billion. There are those who would argue, and I can see this point of view, that if expenditure is not justified even if it is a relatively small amount then it should not be carried out. But is this the
Government Orders
case with respect to the six organizations listed in this bill?
It is interesting that after this measure was first announced there was a unanimous view outside government that this was a mistake. All those people who were aware of the work of these organizations or who became aware of them rose, almost with one voice, to say that these bodies were carrying out useful and necessary work and that it was a serious error to eliminate them.
It is interesting that the government is supposedly concerned with the private sector but when it comes to the future of these six organizations it is refusing to listen to the private sector. It says that the six councils listed in this bill are performing valuable work and that there is no solid alternative in the private sector where this work can be carried out if these organizations are ended.
It may well be there are organizations in the private sector that would carry on some of this work, but to do so they would require funds. If that is the case then I ask: Where is the saving? In other cases when the government has been pressed to explain who would carry out projects under way of great value like the project on competitiveness that is being carried out by the Economic Council of Canada at the request of the Prime Minister himself, or the study into the economics of health care also being carried out by the Economic Council of Canada, the government has said: "We will have this work carried out inside other government departments". Again I ask: Where is the saving?
In other cases the government has said: "We will have to provide funding to allow these agencies to complete this work or have it contracted out". Again I ask: Where is the saving? When it comes to saving money the government has not made a case at all as to why, if the government wanted to save $20 million, the elimination of these six organizations, these six agencies, is the place to get this saving.
What about the so-called prosperity initiative? This travelling road show is going around seeking people's views on how to make the country more competitive, an exercise which all those concerned, even those participating in the meetings, say is unnecessary. We already have the answers. What we need is not more talk but action.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
There is $20 million right there to be saved by not carrying out this so-called prosperity initiative which will not even have a final report for close to another two years. What we need is action now on improving our competitiveness as a nation. We have many of the answers already from reports of bodies like the Economic Council and the Science Council which this government wants to eliminate.
If the government wants to save money in the area of $20 million, why not eliminate $20 million and more from this government's bloated advertising budget? Instead of doing that, this government is getting involved in other useless advertising campaigns like the one that will be under way soon to try and explain the unexplainable, to try and make a case which cannot be made that the free trade deal has been helping Canada. There is an area of saving.
I want to mention another one which I already raised in this House. In the estimates for last year this government has provided $2.5 million to pay for the construction and operation of a museum of humour in Montreal and there is another $3.5 million in this year's estimates to go to the same project. Is this a worthwhile expense?
When I raised this in the House during Question Period, I said perhaps there is a case for the museum of humour because it could be a place to display the whole array of this government's broken promises and the whole array of this government's failures. But would such a display cause people to laugh or to cry? Either way this is an area of questionable expenditure in the minds of many.
If the government wanted to save money in the amount it claims it will save from cancelling the six organizations in this bill and the other 40, I might say in passing there are a number in the group of 40 that may well be justified in being eliminated. However, if the government wanted to save money I think it would be easier to find better alternatives than the six worthwhile, proven organizations listed in Bill C-63.
As I have said, if the government carries on the work in house it will still spend the money that way, just as if it has had the work carried on in universities or private think-tanks. The money will have to be provided in any event.
If that is the case somebody may ask as to why we need these particular organizations. The answer is simple. It is because the government has not made a case that we no longer need the kind of arm's length, independent, complete, wide-ranging, in-depth work that these organizations, particularly the Science Council and the Economic Council, have proven they can do in the interests of the well-being of the Canadian economy and Canadian society as a whole.
I challenge them to show any modem developed country that does not have the equivalent of these organizations operating under public auspices today. I include governments like the Republican Government of the United States or the Conservative Government of Britain.
We are eliminating the kinds of bodies that governments of even more right-wing persuasion than the current Conservative government, if that is possible, have decided they need. There is a lot to be said for the kind of work-arm's length from government, independent, in-depth and wide-ranging carried out by the Science Council and the Economic Council of Canada.
This does not mean that their work is beyond criticism or questioning. That is something that will always happen in a modem democratic society. That does not mean that their work is not of value and necessity.
Proof of what I am saying is the fact that one of the current major projects of the Economic Council of Canada is the study on competitiveness which the council was asked to do by the Prime Minister. He did not say he wants to have this done but there are already other bodies in government that can do it. He did not say there are think-tanks out there in the private sector that can do it. He turned to the Economic Council.
In cancelling the life of the Economic Council of Canada, he could well be saying that he really did not have the commitment to improve competitiveness that he claimed to have when he made that assignment. Perhaps it is clear that in cancelling the Economic Council in the current budget, the government operated in a foolish, mindless way, typical of so much else it does under the guise of governing this country.
May 4, 1992

The troubling thing here, in addition to the concerns I have raised, is a concern raised by many, not just in this House but in the private sector, that the real reason for cancelling the six organizations listed in this bill is that the government does not want to have the sources of potential criticism these organizations represent. If that is the case, what does this government have to fear? If it has a commitment to its own ideas, if it has a conviction that these ideas are correct, what does it have to fear?
If it has support for its ideas and policies on the part of the public, the people of this country, what does it have to fear? The cancellation of these organizations says a lot about the lack of inner belief and commitment that many in this government must have. It says a lot about the closed-mindedness and narrowness that all too many in this government must have. If this were not the case, this bill would not be before us today.
On the one hand, in its budget and in speeches of ministers, this government talks about the need to make this economy more competitive and about the need to advance the technological level of our country, to build on the best of science and technology. On the other hand, and at the same time through this bill it strikes down the very agencies with a proven record of research, information and advice needed in the past and no less needed today and in the future to help us all achieve the progress and development we need when it comes to the level of the economy, technology, science and development.
Surely this bill indicates how this government cannot possibly have the commitment it should on behalf of Canadians to improving the level of the Canadian economy and of our basic level of science and research and development.
We have this bill before us. I could also talk about what this measure shows about the lack of concern about Canada's place in a safe and peaceful world when it wants to cancel the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
This bill shows the lack of commitment of this government to updating the legal system when, in this bill, it wants to cancel the Law Reform Commission. We will be one of the few countries in the Commonwealth, perhaps one of the few developed countries in the world, without an independent law reform body. It does not say much for what this government really believes in when it comes to law reform.
Government Orders
To sum up, this government has not made a case on either financial or public policy grounds for the elimination of the six organizations mentioned in this bill. All it has done is bring about an almost unanimous response from the private sector, in which this government is supposed to believe, that these organizations continue to have a necessary role and they should be continued and supported by this government.
In view of the failure of this government to make a case for what it wants to do in this bill, I have to conclude by calling on this House to reject this bill, and instead enable the six organizations listed in it to continue to have an effective and useful life in the interests of all Canadians.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor West indicates that there is a unanimous view that these bodies should continue to exist and that their work should continue.
It is my understanding that there is a unanimous view on the part of Canadians that they do not want any more tax increases and they do not want any new taxes. This government has listened to that view as expressed by Canadians from coast to coast in the pre-budget consultation.
It is also my understanding that it is the view of Canadians from coast to coast-obviously not unanimous because I suspect that my hon. friend opposite and some of his colleagues do not agree-that governments should be streamlined, that governments should be pared down to be as efficient as possible in providing the services that Canadians want and need.
I would suggest to the member, when he asks what saving would result from the dissolution of some of these agencies, that the valuable work will continue through other agencies that have developed or that have grown such as institutes in universities, for example.
He refers to the issue of law reform. I would point out that Canada, unlike Zimbabwe to which he refers, has many excellent law schools. It benefits from excellent research commissioned by the Canadian Bar Association. It benefits from some of the excellent work done in the Department of Justice, under the leadership of a very excellent Minister of Justice, which this country enjoys today.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
My hon. friend, along with his colleagues, has decried the prosperity initiative. I am a little bit taken aback because, on the one hand, he says that the government does not listen to Canadians. On the other hand, he and his colleagues object vigorously to one of the most ambitious public consultations ever taken out in this country in the prosperity initiative.
It is extremely important that people in this country understand the changes that are going on in the world, that they have an opportunity to counsel and advise government about how governments should respond to the problem of global competitiveness.
He says that Canadians want action and not consultation. I suggest that Canadians want both. I further suggest that this government is both listening to Canadians and acting at the same time. When this government brought in one of the measures that will enhance Canadian competitiveness like sales tax reform, he and his party opposed it.
They also seem to oppose fiscal restraint and the establishment of price stability, bringing inflation under control for the first time in many, many years. I do not understand why my hon. friend and his colleagues so decry the prosperity initiative which is designed to give Canadians an opportunity to consult directly with their government.
What is my hon. friend's formula for the achievement of competitiveness? Does he simply want to have a lower dollar so that we can fuel inflation? We hear a great deal of disagreement with the action of this government to deal with competitiveness, with the efforts of this government to consult with Canadians, but we hear very little of their formula for bringing Canada into the age of competitiveness.
That is my question to my hon. friend.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's questions and comments confirm what I said about the government's problem with this legislation in general. He says in effect that the government knows what it wants to do. It has known it for some time, it has been doing it and people on the other side of the House have been objecting.
If the government has known what it wants to do, knows what it wants to do and is doing it, why is it carrying out this two-year consultation into the future to find out what Canadians think it should do? I know what Canadians think it should do. They think it should resign and have an election.
If this government wants to consult people, why does it not have the ultimate consultation right now and call an election? Instead, it goes along with measures like this bill which it says come from consultations before the budget.
I challenge the hon. member to show me in how many instances people at these consultations asked the Minister of Finance to get rid of the Canada Employment and Immigration Council, get rid of the Economic Council, get rid of the Science Council.
I challenge him to get up and show me documented evidence in which anybody called specifically for the elimination of the six institutions listed in this bill as a way of saving money. If they were mentioned, what were the alternatives? Did the government say it could do this or this or that?
If it did that, I challenge the hon. member to get up and say that people proposed or preferred that these institutions be eliminated. I doubt if he can do that.
With respect to some of the other comments of my hon. friend, he said that the work of the Law Reform Commission can be carried out in law schools, that it can be handled by the Canadian Bar Association. Is that not interesting? If that is the case, why is the Canadian Bar Association objecting so strongly to the elimination of the Law Reform Commission? Where are the law schools that will be able to carry out this work without the expenditure of the same kind of money from this government, and perhaps more money than it is spending now on the Law Reform Commission?
Is the real reason for the government's elimination of the Law Reform Commission that people in the Department of Justice did not like the advice and implied criticism in that advice which so many of the reports of the Law Reform Commission put forward?
The question is not why we are objecting to the prosperity initiative. The question to be asked of my hon. friend should be why, when they had since 1984 to consult and get answers and act on them on the matter of prosperity and competitiveness, are they only carrying out this so-called initiative now in a way that will end two years hence when action needs to be taken today.
May 4, 1992


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, these agencies that are being dissolved are part of a larger practice of privatization in general involving several dozen agencies and Crown corporations, all of which have had multimillion dollar budgets which are now being used to the deficit.
They also had many dozens of patronage appointments. I would like my friend to rise and indicate whether it is the Liberal policy that if they are re-elected they will reinstate all of these Crown corporations and the six agencies that are involved in this bill today, together with the several dozens of patronage appointments.
I will be very happy to meet him on the doorsteps of the nation, where the Liberal Party is proposing policies to increase the deficit and patronage appointments, whereas we have reduced both.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This government has been in office since 1984. It would seem to me that at least 90 per cent of the people appointed to these bodies were appointed by his government. If there are any complaints about the people on these bodies, they should be directed to the Conservative government.
Furthermore, from my understanding of these agencies, the appointments he is talking about are largely people of substance in the community who are appointed part-time, who give their time basically for the cost of having to travel to Ottawa and so on. As I say, this government has appointed them, so I do not think that is the problem.
Also, the government is trying to lump these organizations with all the other 40. Included among them are three separate museum advisory committees set up by none other than my hon. friend, the then Minister of Communications, the current Minister of Defence.
I am not here making a case for the continued life of each and every one of the 46 institutions that were mentioned in the budget. That is not my point. My point is that there is no case made for the elimination of these six bodies. I must say as to their future, I hope there will be a place for them.
Government Orders
I would be happy to defend the utility of these six bodies and I could make a much better case for it than my hon. friend could make a case for the three museum advisory committees that were set up by my hon. friend's Minister of Communications. I do not remember my hon. friend saying boo about it. He did not make a peep. I do not know why he is getting up now and making this very silly observation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The first five hours of debate are now expired. The length of speeches will now be 10 minutes maximum without questions or comments period.

In other words, speeches will now be limited to 10 minutes, without period for questions and comments.

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, I will recognize the hon. member for Victoria for 10 minutes.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in the strongest possible terms against Bill C-63.
I want to focus my remarks on the provisions that would cause the elimination of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. The bill also proposes the elimination of the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, the Law Reform Commission of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development and the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council.
There is a common thread through each of these institutions and the elimination of each of these institutions. The common thread is that they each provide independent advice and research work to the Canadian government and to the Canadian public. This government is terminating all six of them.
The CUPS decision, as we will call it for short, is a particularly outrageous decision by the government. I would like to trace for the House the history of its birth and the impact that this decision will have on the Canadian people and on the Canadian reputation abroad.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
CUPS was bom in 1984 as a result of a very significant and unique all-party consultation. Let me refer the House to some remarks made in 1985.
Let me quote the present Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the former Prime Minister and former Secretary of State for External Affairs. In introducing amendments to the bill in 1985 the process of creation, and this is recorded on page 6510 of Hansard of September 11, 1985, he said:
The creation of this institute was a stellar and an outstanding example of co-operation among all the parties of the House, respected and supported by public opinion in the country, to establish in Canada along the lines of institutes established and operating effectively elsewhere in the world a Canadian institute for international peace and security.
The bill that set up CUPS and has continued until this day, and which will effectively be eliminated by Bill C-63 that is before the House today, set out as the purposes of the institute: "To increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective with a particular emphasis on arms control, disarmament, defence and conflict resolution; and to: (a) to foster, fund and direct and conduct research on matters relating to international peace and security; (b) promote scholarship in matters relating to international peace and security; (c) study and propose ideas and policies for the enhancement of international peace and security; (d) collect and disseminate information on and encourage public discussion of issues of international peace and security.
The institute that was established has had an enviable record under the leadership first of Geoffrey Pearson and later of Bernard Wood. The institute did not always please everyone. It often entered into areas of public debate and discussion which irritated or frustrated one side or another in the debate. No one ever challenged the integrity or quality of the work done by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security throughout its years of existence. That was because its founding board, the leadership and its successive boards carefully and patiently built up a team of which Canada can be justly proud. That team, over a period of time, has served this country remarkably well.
What is intriguing is that in making the decision to eliminate CUPS, the government left the announcement, not to the Prime Minister and not to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is responsible for it, but to the Minister of Finance in a budget. When the leadership of CHPS came before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade it became clear that the Minister of Finance made not one effort to discover what it was that CUPS was doing or had done for Canada. No one in the senior leadership of CUPS had ever talked to the Minister of Finance about what it was doing. There was no consultation with CUPS from the Secretary of State for External Affairs about its future, and none, of course, from the Prime Minister of Canada who, in my view, given the particular terms of the legislation, had a special responsibility to this House and to the Canadian people for CUPS.
CUPS was set up by this Parliament in a veiy special way. In order to preserve its independence, the act provided that the executive director and the board were not simply to be appointed by the Prime Minister or the Governor in Council on the advice of the Prime Minister, but rather through a process of consultation with the leaders of the opposition parties in the House and, in respect of the board, with a long list of Canadian organizations.
CnPS, in other words, was a unique product of a kind of parliamentary consultation which the Canadian people would dearly love to see on a whole range of public issues. It came at the end of the tenure of the former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, and represented a consultation both in committee and in the House that led to this remarkable institution and thus to the quality of the work that it did.
Its demise came about without consultation with any other members of the House and certainly not with the parties in opposition that helped create it. It was done without consultation with the institute itself. It was done without consultation with the people of Canada. Its demise is a travesty on the trust which this Parliament had placed in the Prime Minister and in the cabinet of this country.
Let there be no mistake, this move to terminate the Canadian Institute of International Peace and Security will have a very negative effect on Canada's capacity to deal with the complex issues that now face the world and face Canada with the end of the cold war. It will also do damage to Canada's prestige overseas.
May 4, 1992

I have here copies of letters that were sent in many cases to the Standing Committee on National Defence or to external affairs from around the world expressing shock and dismay at this decision. The Thomas J. Watson Junior Institute of International Studies calls it "an ill-considered and myopic decision"; Time magazine: "I would urge you to reconsider plans to cut off the institute's funding at a time when Canada's foreign policy is not only an important phase of transition but also too often overshadowed by domestic concern". That was from Time magazine, which says it found CUPS to be one of the most important and useful agencies in the world.
The Naval Officers Association of Canada and many Canadian groups, including Project Ploughshares and others, have spoken about this. Harvard University and Peter Jennings of ABC News have written saying, that this is a tragic decision. The Guardian has written, the National Institute of Research and Advancement in Japan has written.
To close, let me quote from a particularly important letter in the sense of its representation of other letters. It is addressed to the clerk and members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, March 8 from Michael C. Hudson, of Georgetown University:
I am writing to express my astonishment and dismay at the Government's announced intention to close the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
As a specialist on Middle Eastern affairs, I have been privileged to be associated with the CUPS project on Lebanon. I follow Lebanon very carefully, and I can say without reservation that the CUPS project was the most thorough and fruitful collective study of this divided country that has been undertaken since the Lebanese crisis began in 1979.
This decision is a travesty. I call on the government to withdraw it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules we now have for this debate on C-63, 10 minutes can go by very quickly. I am very glad I have some notes to try to get to the two points and the two agencies in Bill C-63 which give me the most concern.
Other members, including the member for Victoria, talked about the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security which is being dissolved by this bill. It struck me rather passing strange that no one has ever mentioned the International Institute for Human Rights
Government Orders
of which the former leader of the NDP is the head. I guess in the cost cutting procedures of the government, it decided to leave that alone.
Frankly, most of the arguments made for the human rights institute perhaps should have been made for the peace institute.
Before I come to the two main agencies that give me the most concern, the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada, I want to comment briefly on another agency in Bill C-63 that is being cancelled, namely, ICOD, the International Centre for Ocean Development.
From Atlantic Canada, it is absolutely passing strange that ICOD, the international ocean agency for developing expertise and knowledge of our oceans and to help the Third World in developing its oceans, with all the problems that we have in oceans and with pollution, in a cost-cutting measure in which the dollars saved are minuscule, we are cutting out and gutting the heart, soul and the very body of the ICOD agency which was centred in Halifax and was doing good work around the world.
I am going to zero in on the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council. It is a rather interesting coincidence that the Economic Council of Canada last week released a report on education and training in Canada, "A Lot to Learn". It is a scathing objective indictment of the educational system in Canada and how it prepares students for the employment market. It suggested certain recommendations.
While the government on the one hand claims that it is supporting standards of education and wants more students and better on-the-job training, on the other hand it is slicing and cutting out the Economic Council which in effect gave a valuable critique.
I would suggest in a humble way that if anyone has a lot to learn about education, it really is the government for what it has done to the Economic Council which in its last report gave very good advice as to the sorry state of the whole educational system here in Canada.
Bill C-63 is an attack on think-tanks as represented by the Economic Council and the Science Council of Canada. Basically, I cannot support this bill. I am glad I can stand here as an independent member and not follow any party line in supporting this bill, admitting full well that there are many of the agencies mentioned in

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
the budget which had to be streamlined or cut down and some eliminated, but not the Economic Council of Canada and certainly, I do not believe the Science Council of Canada.
I am against Bill C-63 for three fundamental reasons. First, the government says it is going to save a lot of money. Other members have already dramatized that of the total $22 million in the 46 agencies that are going to be cut, $11 million would have gone to the Economic Council of Canada. I would suggest that was money well spent to give objective, independent advice to any government, not just this government. This is what I want to come to because I know time is very short. I cannot repeat all the ways the government has wasted money and spent money. Other members have touched upon that.
Certainly, I cannot accept the fact that $11 million for the Economic Council with all the other millions this government has spent, be it on the Spicer commission, the royal commission on electoral reform, the royal commission on reproductive technology which has already spent over $20 million, et cetera, et cetera, that there was not enough money for an objective economic think-tank to help Canada on its road.
As other members have said, every other western country in the world has an economic, independent think-tank, independent of private enterprise, independent of government, independent of labour and trying to combine them both to give some advice to government to lead it into the new world. That is certainly not a backward step to try to maintain something that had a proven track record.
I am going to skip very quickly over my notes in view of the short time. I have the most interesting quote of all that I want to give before we wind up and give some of the history of the Economic Council of Canada.
The second point I am against Bill C-63 is that independent think-tanks, as far as I am concerned, have a very constructive role to play in a liberal democracy. I call this a liberal democracy. Sometimes I used to be very, very nervous to call this a liberal democracy. But it is a liberal democracy or a social democratic democracy
and a conservative democracy, but it is a democracy and it is very important.
An interesting thing, at this time when every essence of national unity is under stress and strain and is being frayed, is that one of the fundamental national institutions that has been an experience of this country and has helped this country for some 30 years, the Economic Council of Canada, is being gutted and dissolved.
I advise my former colleagues on the other side that the public feels uncomfortable when the government on one hand says some good rhetoric, does some good things, and on the other hand gives a negative zap and contradicts it by what it does. It thinks the left hand does not see what the right hand is doing.
We have national institutions which have done well for Canada, the Economic Council and the Science Council, and they are being gutted at a time when we need every type of strength in our national institutions that we can have. We do not have it in this bill.
Other members have mentioned this. I guess sometimes the think-tanks bring in advice that governments do not like. That happened under the Liberal government, it happened under the Conservative government, and it will happen under any government if the think-tanks stay. I cannot dwell too long on that because time is of the essence with a 10-minute moratorium in this procedural rule we have here today.
The third reason I am against Bill C-63 is something I wish government members would pay attention to because this recognition of the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council, but especially the Economic Council, is part of the former history of the party that is presently in power, the Conservative Party.
I go back many years but there is someone before me who goes even further. It was interesting in preparing for these brief moments here in this is very fundamental debate. I am glad we got rid of the procedural fracas the other day.
The member from Scarborough brought up the point so that we can have more members participate in this debate. It is good to have some discussion which we cannot have now because there are some differences among the parties. In another election people cannot say
May 4, 1992

because there is not a Tory member that could have run in the last election and got elected if he or she had come out and said they were going to slice the Economic Council or the Science Council of Canada or some of the other agencies.
In conclusion, I want to go back to some real history which means some very poignant memories for me. As far back as 1962 the then Minister of Finance in the Diefenbaker government, a man called George Nowlan, foresaw the necessity of independent think-tanks to provide government with advice on the economy. On November 27, 1962, he introduced a resolution for the creation of a national economic development board which was the predecessor of the Economic Council of Canada.
I want to quote Hansard of that day at page 2075 when he justified a board that in effect became the Economic Council. He said:
I am sure my hon. friends opposite who have had experience in government recognize this fact -ministers and their advisers within the government service are very often not able to find the time in which to take an over-all look at our economic prospects and possibilities. They are responsible for departmental administration and for the problems of their departments. Fortunately we have many well qualified and expert economic advisers, economists and civil servants generally in the government employ. I know of no country which is more fortunately blessed than we are in that connection. But in almost every case, these people, these men, these women, are responsible for administrative problems, for day to day decisions within their own departments and looking after those matters, and looking after them adequately as well as they do, they do not have the time in which to look over the whole broad horizon of the national problems which even of today, let alone those which might arise tomorrow or five years or ten years from now.
That they have to decide on.
I cannot do anything better than to conclude my remarks on this short abbreviated 10-minute interjection that the House rules allow to try and get some sense of history to the present government party who in effect were responsible for the initial inception and creation of the Economic Council by the debate in the 1960s and to recant and not support this part of the bill and vote against it.


John F. Brewin: I wonder if you would test the view of the House to see whether in light of the seniority of the member, in light of the fact we will be going more or less along with an open-ended debate, whether the House would be prepared to give the member an additional five minutes to complete his remarks.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give more time to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Just because we are close physically, there was no collusion or conspiracy here. I appreciate the thoughts of the hon. member for Victoria. It is appropriate that he ask for the extension because I do go back a few years.
I had the opportunity and privilege of sitting in the House when his father was a very constructive member of the House of Commons from British Columbia. Between the two of us, with an aisle between us and also a little ideology, is the sea to sea that makes Canada the great country it is. I do not want to trespass in the extension of time. I have sat here all morning and I am glad to have finally had a chance to speak because I was afraid I was going to get lost in the post-Question Period sweepstakes and have to sit here until 10 p.m. or even later tonight.
I appreciate that the member for South Shore has been running this for the government. He is a good friend of mine and an ex-teacher. The trouble with the parliamentary system and the party vote line is that I know what some members think about parts of this bill. There are a couple of parts of this bill that I am not too upset with. Some of those agencies had to go by the boards.
In conclusion, I do not wish to repeat myself completely and there are other quotes I could give. There is much I have left out of the notes. I was blessed with a speech that had more notes today in a constrained way. It helped me get closer to the time limit than I usually do. Perhaps I must follow that precedent even at my late stage in life to try and have a more refined speech. I really like to speak off the cuff. It gets you into trouble but also makes you speak from the heart. You do not need notes for the head if you speak from the heart.
Without getting too heavy, I know the government has problems with money. We all know we have to cut deficits. This debate is not going to change a thing. The government has the majority and undoubtedly, Bill C-63 will become law in time, depending on the legislative committee and what it does with it.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
You can talk about the institute for peace. Yes, we need peace. You can talk about the institute for human relations of which Ed Broadbent presently is president and chairman. We need human relations. Someone has to make decisions and there were some decisions to cut it.
This country is under stress and strain and national institutions are really becoming rare. This bill comes in and because of budget papers eliminates the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada. The government admits full well that the science advisory board, chaired by the Prime Minister, has some very able participants and people. This is no replacement and substitute for an institution of some 20 years. The Economic Council of Canada has some 30 years and has given good objective advice to all governments.
I wish the debate could change some of the honest individual opinions that members have regardless of party line because the government is trying so hard. Many people honoured Joe Clark, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, on Saturday night for his 20 years of very constructive public service. He is now trying his greatest challenge to bring together a constitutional package. That is very commendable and very positive.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, you are a very thoughtful person in that chair. You grace it with dignity and you grace it with common sense. You and I know that you cannot have rhetorical homilies about national unity on one side and by other specific bills chop up some of the national institutions. It just does not wash. That is part of the problem confronting the present government.
I wish and hope the Prime Minister keeps getting out into the hinterland and going to those parts of the country that are very compatible to visiting heads of state and prime ministers because they do not see them all the time. They are naturally warm, pleasant and polite, as they should be. I hope that he keeps going and gets buoyed up by a positive reception because in conclusion,
I do not think there would be anything better than when we get our constitutional package put together in some form. It is going to be a changed Canada and I am prepared to admit that.
The greatest present Canadians could have on this 125th birthday, after we get that constitutional package together, is to let us make sure we have an election to separate the wheat from the chaff and find out who is really in touch with the people.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the serious matter raised in Bill C-63.
I would like to commend my colleague from Annapolis Valley on his very interesting remarks.
When the member spoke about what his father said in 1962,1 am sure that he was struck by the fact, as I was, that it was exactly 30 years ago. What did we try to do in the 1960s, the 1970s and 1980s? We tried, as a society, to respond to the information age. We tried to make sure that we were educated and that there was competition of different ideas being circulated in our country.
I can tell you, as a former university teacher, that one of the most difficult things to do in this country is teach Canadians about Canada. There are not enough sources of information. The book publishing industry is contrary to having a healthy market for books about Canadian topics.
The major research publications, the monthlies, the quarterlies and the annuals are all run in a North American context. For these reasons it is not always easy to find out in a current way, in a well-researched way, what issues are facing our society.
One would search through libraries for government documents, and more often than not, would come across the Science Council of Canada, the Economic Council of Canada. One would see their annual reports, their special reports, and would realize that here is not just a sole researcher working in isolation, but here is a research team that has had access to good budgets, to colleagues, and has been able to travel around and talk with people and communicate. There is a product of some very, very good research.
The Canadian scientific community and the social science community are marked by individual researchers working on their own. This is in part caused by the nature of our country and it is also caused by the infrastructure of the research community. It is very difficult for people to collaborate with the seriousness that the Economic
May 4, 1992

Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada provided.
In a democratic society we worry about many different fronts. We worry about, particularly in the economy, the issue of monopolies and oligarchies. We also worry in the world of ideas, the competition of ideas. How do we find out what is happening, and how do we communicate our ideas to other people?
The Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada provided us with non-governmental information. We were not dependent upon the department which has, by definition, an organizational and political agenda, which is totally legitimate but nevertheless is their own. We were not dependent upon a research facility paid for by a particular group, which is healthy but limited.
We depended upon these arm's length organizations providing good information. We have asked them to criticize the most fundamental institutions in our country. One speaker referred to the fact that last week we heard from the Economic Council-unfortunately it was its last gasp-talking about the education system.
As politicians federally, provincially and municipally, we have to come to grips with the fact that by almost every international dimension we are failing our young people.
You will never find a department standing up and saying it failed. You would never find a minister of the Crown standing up and saying he failed. You will have politicians blaming each other, the province blaming the school-board, the school-board blaming the province, the province turning to the feds.
We all know the scenarios but it takes an independent voice to say: "Listen all you men and women in public life. These young people are illiterate. They are not able to learn math and science. They do not know the history of the country. We are not able to compete internationally. Do something".
By pulling that voice out of the country's politics, you are in turn saying that it was not important to be told that. How can any politician, after talking to constituents in the last few weeks, not think it is important to talk about education and not have some objective measurements out there? He does not have somebody he can trust through the funding process to do good work. He
tells you something and then you turn around and say: "We do not want to hear from you any more. That information is too hard".
Science policy, again since the 1960s, is supposed to be front and centre to our economic development strategy. We are supposed to use science to create wealth, to apply knowledge to industries, to find the most recent and current research, to generate support for individual researchers working in isolated situations across this country, to point out to the general public where new and exciting activities are taking place, whether they be in space policy, health policy or in the abstract work of mathematicians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to statements by members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a new federal program announced by Forestry Canada as part of the green plan. I am referring to Tree Plant Canada, a major initiative to promote the greening of our environment and combat the greenhouse effect that is threatening our planet. The program will encourage tree planting by community groups across the country.
We are talking about a real partnership that will bring together municipalities, the public and private sectors and private citizens, to plant over 325 million trees over the next six years. Tree Plant Canada is a joint effort that concerns us all. It is also a program that will have a positive impact on future generations.


EDUCATION
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning 75 students lined up at the student employment centre in Mississauga to find that only eight job opportunities were posted.
That is one job for every nine students.

May 4, 1992
A summer of frustration and unemployment now awaits many of these students who will also have to struggle through yet another hike in tuition this September.
In recent years, this government has compounded the hardships facing students by slashing transfers for postsecondary education and by slapping a surtax on student loans.
I call upon the government to reverse its repressive policies and begin supporting students by restoring post-secondary transfers to levels where Canada's youth will not have to mortgage the future to get a modem education.


BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday hundreds of people in Windsor marched on behalf of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Like other Canadians they have been devastated by the destruction and killing taking place there. But for these people in Windsor there was the searing extra pain of knowing that their relatives and friends were the victims of the continuing violence.
I marched with these men and women in Windsor and I want to bring their message to the House of Commons. The killing must stop in Bosnia-Hercegovina. There must be peace.
Canada has recognized the new republic. We must do more. We must work for justice and peace there. We must provide emergency supplies. Canada must pressure Yugoslavia as strongly as possible to stop the violence. We must pressure both the United Nations and the United States to safeguard this new democratic country that is now suffering so sadly.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the worst fears of our city and region were confirmed on Friday with the news of the death of Kristen Dawn French.
Kristen was a bright outgoing student at Holy Cross High in St. Catharines whose death has brought a very
dark cloud over the entire region. Feelings ranging from sorrow and fear to outrage have enveloped the area. Young women are angered and frightened because they feel they cannot walk anywhere by themselves for fear they could be the next victim.
Kristen's death has brought into focus yet again that all our energies must continue to be directed toward ensuring a safe society for our citizens.
Violence and particularly violence against women cannot continue. We must deal with the causes and effects of this violence.
I join with the other members of the House, Mr. Speaker, in sending our sympathy and that of my family to the French family at this most difficult time.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment in Canada has reached critical proportions. The unemployment rate today for our country is 11.1 per cent. In my province of Nova Scotia the unemployment rate is 13.3 per cent. Unacceptable.
But the unemployment rate among youth in our country is at the alarming rate of 18.7 per cent.
Things have never been this bleak since the depression. The unwillingness of this government to tackle the problem of unemployment is due to its single-minded war on inflation and it will cost us dearly in the future.
A whole generation of youth, future academics, scientists, and labourers will have been denied the opportunity to contribute to the productivity of our country.
As I stand here there are hundreds of students, recent graduates and summer students of our universities, who are lining up at the student employment centre on Dalhousie campus in Halifax. Do they not deserve something better than a one in ten chance at a job that, at best, pays minimum wage and is completely career-unrelated?
The brain-drain in Nova Scotia will spread to a brain-drain across Canada. Those out beating the pavement for jobs this summer are almost certain to be engaging in a futile search and their government is doing nothing to help them.
May 4, 1992


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest barriers to getting people off the cycle of dependency created by our country's present social welfare system is that most people's earning potential is not sufficient to meet the needs of themselves or their families.
Under a plan to be announced later this month approximately 5,000 people from New Brunswick and British Columbia currently on social assistance will be encouraged to find jobs.
The goal of this program is to bring long-term unemployed people back into the work force where they will develop skills and attitudes that enable them to upgrade their income making meaningful employment more attractive than social assistance.
This program will mark the first step in better addressing the needs of people on social assistance who want the dignity associated with holding a full-time job.
I applaud the Minister of Employment and Immigration for his vision in bringing this program forward.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario has traditionally provided about 40 per cent of the tax base for national programs such as medicare, post-secondary education and pensions.
The combination of the free trade agreement, exceedingly high taxation and the recession have taken a disastrous toll on the industrial and small business base in Ontario where hundreds of thousands are unemployed. This is not only devastating to families in Ontario, but because of its effect on federal government income, it is also devastating the rest of Canada which has already been severely hurt by the policies of the Conservative government.
We then have the NDP in Ontario. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the NDP are now being questioned about their odd accounting manoeuvres in the Ontario budget just last week.
It is no wonder that Ontario's new Liberal premier-inwaiting, Lyn McLeod, called for a real job strategy and sound policies that would create confidence in the Ontario economy.
Meanwhile, the Canadian public cannot wait until they can get rid of the Tory government in Ottawa and the NDP in Ontario. They want to get back to common sense and responsible management of Canada's affairs.
Good leadership and integrity in public office are the keys to Canada's future.


LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the office of the leader of the Liberal Party announced that the leader of the party would make a major speech on Montreal's economy this weekend in Montreal. The inference was that we would hear a description of the kind of economic initiatives his party would like to implement in the area.
Those familiar with the Liberal leader's ideas must have expected to hear about major public works projects, probably costing billions of borrowed dollars, something we had come to expect when the Liberal Party was in power.
Surprise. The Liberal leader forgot his speech and merely expressed his own understanding of Montreal's problems, while of course putting all the blame on the present government.
I think a leader of a political party, who happens to be the Leader of the Opposition in this country, should have made the kind of speech he had led us to expect. He ought to know Canadians will not elect him for what he did or for what he did not do. What are his policies for the future?


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister agreed with my colleague, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, that our environment is "beyond partisan politics". However, when asked if he has been in contact with President Bush about attending

May 4, 1992
the earth summit in Brazil, the Prime Minister offered only insults.
As many Canadians have long suspected, the Prime Minister is part of the environmental crisis we face. One need look no further than global warming to find a federal energy policy promoting an increase, or a redfaced environment minister calling for stabilization despite a unanimous report by this Parliament calling for a 20 per cent reduction.
Sadly, over the past week, the U.S. has used its influence to blast a hole in the draft international treaty on global warming. It will stall emission caps, targets and timetables.
A report just completed found net savings of $2.7 trillion if the U.S. adopts an energy policy to fight global warming. Savings in Canada would run to hundreds of billions of dollars, the sort of money needed to save our world. Instead, Bush and Mulroney are choosing global warming, the politics of global suicide.


SARNIA-LAMBTON
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, good things do not always come in small packages. On Friday, I had the pleasure of announcing the relocation of an entire regional headquarters.
Yes, the Canadian Coast Guard's Great Lakes regional headquarters is coming to my riding of Sarnia-Lambton. Through Transport Canada, the Coast Guard is the second federal department to discover all that our community has to offer: the people, the quality of life, the community spirit, its location, its established transportation links, and on and on.
Over and over in this House I have been saying how great our community of Sarnia-Lambton is. Next year the Canadian Coast Guard's Great Lakes regional headquarters personnel will learn first hand. We welcome them with open arms.
To others out there, big or small, you do not know what you are missing. Come on down to Sarnia-Lambton and discover what the commotion is about.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the serious impact of cross-border shopping on retailers in Canada's border communities continues. In spite of this on-going increase in cross-border shopping, the government continues to ignore the problem.
All reports from all communities affected have made it very clear that the number one attraction to lure shoppers to the U.S. is the price of gasoline.
Why does the government not give the serious problem caused by cross-border shopping the attention it deserves and drop the 8.5 cents a litre federal excise tax on gasoline?
That would have the immediate effect of encouraging thousands of Canadians to shop at home once again, as well as encouraging U.S. tourists to visit Canada in the 1992 tourist season.


TREE PLANT CANADA
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, across Canada we are now celebrating National Forest Week.
Last week in Chetwynd, the current forestry capital of Canada, Prime Minister Mulroney, accompanied by the Minister of Forestry, Frank Oberle, launched a major new green plan initiative known as Tree Plant Canada.
Hufidreds of other cities and towns across the country will soon be involved in community tree planting programs aimed at encouraging and fostering the planting of over 325 million trees over the next six years.
Tree Plant Canada exemplifies Canada's commitment to sustainable forest management and maintaining the diversity of forest values, social, economic and environmental, for future generations.


VIOLENCE
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, last week's events in Los Angeles should serve as a lesson to all of us in Canada. The combination of unemployment, poverty, lack of health care and education, as well as systemic discrimination and racism is deadly.
May 4, 1992

While we in Canada like to think that such violence could never occur here, many of the problems that led to the situation in L.A. are present on our own city streets. Police minority relations are strained, employment equity for visible minorities is still but a dream, and poverty is a reality for many in our cities.

The events in Los Angeles demonstrate that Canada should not follow the U.S. example with respect to race relations. Canada should continue to build a system that treats each individual with dignity and respect, and we must work hard to make ours a fair and equitable society.


SPINAL HEALTH WEEK
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the members of this House and to all Canadians that Spinal Health Week started on May 1. This date marks the beginning of that time of the year when many Canadians engage in the kind of seasonal activities often associated with back injuries. Such injuries are painful and may prevent people from going about their usual activities.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute to those Canadians who provide care for people who have suffered spinal trauma, whether slight or serious, and to the families of these patients.
A healthy spine helps us take full advantage of our Canadian way of life. That is why the people who promote spinal health and those who protect it deserve our support.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of the Aksmit family of Coquitlam, B.C. They have been told that they will be sent back to their native Czechoslovakia in a few days. Mr. and Mrs. Aksmit and their two young children left that country early in 1989 because they were being persecuted for their political beliefs, for refusing to join the Communist Party. This was before the velvet revolution changed that system.
The Aksmits gave up everything they had in Czechoslovakia in order to escape this persecution and offer their children a safe environment to grow up in. Arriving
Oral Questions
in Canada, both quickly found jobs, jobs they could continue to hold if they were allowed to stay. Their children entered Canadian schools and have excelled over the past three years.
In one day my office received over 60 calls from teachers and others in the community who want the Aksmits to stay in Canada. People are saying it would be cruel to force this family to be once more tom from their home because of political forces beyond their control and insensitive to their plight.
I hope the minister is listening and will respond with compassion in this matter and allow the Aksmits to remain here in Canada where they belong.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians will know that over the last five years this government has taken $5 billion out of programs for children.
Children are at risk because the government in the next five years will take another $5 billion away from health and education programs. Children are at risk because the government is cutting social housing by almost $500 million over the next five years. Children are at risk because the government has deindexed the child benefit system to the tune of $3.5 billion. Children are at risk because the Prime Minister has reneged on his national child care program.
How could the government have the nerve to launch a PR program on children at risk today when it has done nothing to help the plight of a million children living in poverty?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is an opportunity to remind the hon. member that according to the United Nations and its human development index wherein it assessed 160 nations of the world, it was indicated that Canada was number one when it came to the whole issue of our educational system, our health care system, our environmental practices, all things that improve the quality of life. I think that is certainly a very

May 4, 1992
Oral Questions
clear indication that we are doing some things right in this country.
Today the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced further initiatives to those that have been taken in the last few weeks and months by the federal government. For example, I remind the hon. member that on December 11 the Prime Minister signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In my budget in February we brought out a new child benefit package that provides an additional $2.1 billion over a five-year period.
Today the Minister of National Health and Welfare outlined a very comprehensive program, a children's action plan and a child development initiative which provide a framework program for children at risk. They are all very important and I am sure important enough for the hon. member to support. I hope she does, along with her colleagues.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we are sitting on a powder keg: poverty among our young people. What we need is a real program to fight poverty. In the last five years under this government, the Conservatives have taken $5 billion from funds that directly affect children. We need real programs for the 60 per cent of single mothers who live in poverty.
Can the Prime Minister tell us today whether this program provides one cent to feed hungry children?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the child benefit package that was unveiled in the budget is part of a comprehensive plan.
It will, as I indicated, increase the support for lower income people to the tune of about $2.1 billion over a five-year period. It will provide assistance to the working poor and particularly help those families who find themselves in a situation where they have jobs but they are low paying jobs. We want to encourage the support for them.
The overhaul of the family allowance program is certainly an initiative which is finding favour with many
Canadians. What we are attempting to do here is to direct those resources in a more effective way and to direct those resources to those people in need, those families in need, and those children in need.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister how he can justify a $5 billion cutback in direct assistance to children at the same time as he asks us to congratulate him for a program that represents $100 million a year.
What is the intelligence of sending out food guidelines to families who have nothing in their refrigerators? What is putting our kids at risk is poverty.
The Prime Minister in the last federal election used child care and children as election fodder. He is not going to get away with it again.
I want to ask the Prime Minister veiy directly: What is there in this program, the program with the big C that actually deals with the little c, the children of this country?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think all children are a national priority for each and every one of us here. The best way for us to tackle poverty has to do with getting our financial structure in order. Following through on the Minister of Finance's budget that he brought down last February, the new child benefit plan will indeed put $2.1 billion into the hands of parents over the next five years.
Also, the program that the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced today is the third and fourth layer of our action plan for youngsters and the development of the child initiative that will be dealing with children at risk. We cannot do this alone and we have never said we could.
What we are doing is working with all levels of government, with agencies and with individuals in order to prevent, to promote, to protect and to join these partnerships. I do hope that the hon. member will join us.


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth.
May 4, 1992

Last week the federal government suddenly abandoned a very successful and popular inner city project after 10 years of support. This surprise announcement means that over 2,000 students will be left on the street, put at risk by the very government that today announced its great interest in children and poverty.
Earlier I delivered to the minister dozens of letters asking Ottawa to support this program. For only $65,000 Challenge '92 could be providing 35 jobs in nine of Winnipeg's poorest neighbourhoods.
Will the minister not have his government reconsider this decision and support these very deserving people?


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, I did receive a communication today from the hon. member dated April 27 and I will indeed look into the situation.
In the meantime I want to remind my hon. colleague that the program was increased. Some of the funds were increased in Manitoba in particular. I understand the particular program to which he is referring did not meet certain criteria, but I will look into it.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of employment.
Yesterday morning, Sunday morning in Winnipeg, students began to line up at 10 a.m. looking for work. They stood there all night waiting for the office to open, and this morning they were joined by several hundred more. They are all looking for jobs. They all want to continue their education, which this government claims to be a priority.
Will the minister now admit that there is a crisis in student employment and approach his colleagues for more money to help us through the crisis this summer?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that we have to spend taxpayers' money responsibly, we have managed through a serious exercise toward deficit reduction to increase the amount of dollars that go into the Challenge program for this fiscal year so that these students can be provided with jobs.
Oral Questions
The hon. member should realize that the responsibility to help students in Canada rests with everyone, every stakeholder in the economy. That is why we have these programs in place to encourage the private sector to do its part and help those students attain gainful employment in the summer so that they may pursue their studies. Of course it is an issue of money. If we had all the money in the world we could do more, but we have to spend responsibly.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am sure that everyone in this House, as well as all other Canadians, share the horror of what happened last week in Los Angeles. I suppose it reminds us all of what happens when any country ignores the devastating effects of racism.
One year ago in this House legislation was passed for the establishment of a race relations foundation. That legislation has never been proclaimed. When will the legislation be proclaimed so that we can begin establishing this foundation to show those Canadians who are often the targets of racism that this country and this Parliament are serious about combating racism in this country?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, we made fighting racism a very important priority of this government. We recognized very early in our mandate the evil that it is. We implemented significant programs to help Canadians in their awareness and actually to do something to eradicate this disease from our system.
We have implemented a very important series of programs and policies in partnership with many different institutions of the society. I can point with pride to the contribution that was made by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters that last year brought forward a program of some $10 million in public awareness and information. One might examine the effect of that year in that attitudes have improved across Canada and we do feel better about ourselves.

May 4, 1992
Oral Questions
That being said, though, I do recognize that even one act of racism is too many. All of us have to do more and more to help remove this sinful disease from our system.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister.
Why did the government bring forward legislation for the establishment of a race relations foundation if it did not intend to implement it? Why did the government have this House vote on the race relations foundation if the government did not intend to act on it?
Racism cannot be a public relations exercise. Is this government or is not this government committed to the establishment of a race relations foundation and when, if it is?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a race relations foundation is a very important priority of this government and is now awaiting proclamation. There was a delay in terms of the actual date as was announced by the Minister of Finance.
However, one must recognize the fact that we have diverted substantial parts of the budget of my ministry to fight racism and discrimination and to bring forward programs of integration and equality. In fact when we first began this was the department of fancy food and festivals, and today we are more and more the department that promotes equality and making sure that our citizenship is one level of citizenship for all Canadians.
I might point with pride to the partnership that we have developed with government, police as an institution and the community-


Mr. Speaker:: We may have to move on.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is clear on this particular issue of the race relations foundation that this is the government of fancy footwork because we still have no answer about what this government is going to do.
My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. There is no doubt that questions of racism in this country are also related to social programs, to health programs, and certainly to unemployment.
As we look across this country, we see levels of youth unemployment up to approximately 17 per cent, high unemployment in aboriginal communities reaching 80 per cent in some communities, and the same in many communities across the country for black youth.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister and his government prepared to look seriously at initiating employment programs in these particularly hard hit sectors of youth, of visible minorities, and of aboriginal people?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that $3.4 billion will be spent on training, on different employment programs, and on Community Futures programs.
Throughout our programming, these groups that the hon. member mentioned are targeted as priority groups that receive assistance on employment in the vein that she referred to.
Notwithstanding the fact that we have had to streamline certain programs, these minority groups will not suffer from these cuts because we have maintained the same level of financing for these employment programs.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The recession continues to wreak havoc in the Montreal area, where unemployment is at an unacceptable level of 12.7 per cent. Among young people, the severity of the recession is even more obvious and unemployment is nearly 20 per cent.
When will the minister answer Montrealers' cries of alarm and finally give young people hope by offering them a real job creation program?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since 1987 our action in the Montreal area has been based on a plan drawn up with the community and emphasizing high technology as a means of development. That is why we invested a lot of money in Canadair, which developed the regional jet, and we also invested heavily in establishing the space agency. We were the first government in Canada to invest in the Quebec Federation of Labour's solidarity fund and thus
May 4, 1992

helped set up that fund. We continue to work to create high-tech jobs, the jobs of the future.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem to understand the seriousness of the problem.
Today's youth are both frustrated and demoralized. What does the minister have to say to young people who are unable to pay for their education because there is no work? How can he expect our youth to have confidence in this country and in the future when one in five cannot find a job in Montreal?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think that the people of Montreal can again see the hypocrisy of the opposition party, which in this House fought a bill that we put forward to give the required funding to young people and everyone who did not have what was necessary to hold the new jobs. This opposition party not only fought this bill in the House but had the Senate oppose it and prevent it from passing, even though it provided $800 million for new jobs.


JOSEPH FAULDER
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in less than 40 hours, a Canadian citizen, Mr. Joseph Faulder, is to be executed in the state of Texas.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has launched a diplomatic protest to the United States government and has also sent a letter to the governor of the state of Texas. I am asking the minister today if, on behalf of the Canadian government, she will file for an injunction for a stay of this execution or, as an alternative, file an amicus brief advising the court of the lack of due process in this entire matter.
I am asking the minister today, on behalf of the House and the people of Canada, to protect the rights of this Canadian citizen.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, just for the edification of the House, the U.S. authorities appear to have breached the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing in their duty to inform Faulder of his right to consult with a representative of the Canadian government.
Oral Questions
Those are the grounds on which I wrote the letter. We protested strongly through our embassy in Washington to the U.S. government. The U.S. government has undertaken to present this point of view to the governor of Texas. The process is still going through appeal. We will take whatever action we think is appropriate to see that clemency is exercised.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister, less than an hour ago. I spoke to Mr. Faulder's lawyer, Miss Babcock. She advises me that with the exception of the letter and the appeal to the governor of the state of Texas that nothing else has been done. They are appearing some time later on this afternoon in a court.
I am prepared to assist and I am sure our side is prepared to assist in whatever way we can in order to seek this injunction or to assist in this application for an amicus order. I ask the minister if she would consider that and take that under advisement.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take it under advisement. I do not want to comment on the case itself. I have looked at it fairly thoroughly. As the hon. member knows, we have not had much time to work on this because the convention was breached. My legal people as well as people in my office are examining all aspects of it with a view to anything that we might do.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the social and racial context in the United States is quite different from that in Canada. Nevertheless, there is increasing concern in Canada among visible minority groups about the kinds of relationships that are being manifested across this country between them and the judicial system, the police and government.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Will the government consider responding positively to the plea of a variety of visible minority groups that there be launched some kind of inquiry into racism and the judicial system in law enforcement and the Public Service? More immediately, will this government examine the conditions in the Criminal Code which regulate the use of deadly force in the pursuit and apprehension of suspects?

May 4, 1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question because it raises a very important concern.
One of the main priorities of this government is what we would call inclusive justice and that is making the justice system more reflective of the reality of all Canadians. We have launched two major initiatives in this area with respect to women and the law and aboriginal justice, but there remain a number of concerns particularly with respect to immigrant groups and their feelings of alienation particularly in our large urban centres.
I have been consulting over the past few weeks with the mayors of the big cities of Canada to talk about the possibility of drawing together some kind of strategy related to urban crime and urban safety that would address some of the considerations that he has raised. I think they relate not simply to the judicial system and to the activities of the police, but also to broader social problems that we have to look at in a comprehensive way.
With respect to the use of deadly force, I can say to the hon. member, as he well knows there is a provision in the Criminal Code, the fleeing felon rule which does authorize the use of force by a law enforcement officer in conducting an arrest where his or her own safety or the safety of others under his or her control may be at risk.
There is some concern that the rule is broad and I am hoping to bring forward legislation within the next few months into this House to deal with the concern that people have about the breadth of that rule.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer. I hope that the minister would also reconsider the question of the Court Challenges Program as it applies to racial minorities.
My second question, addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister, is that the visible minority communities are very concerned about the rejection by his government and by the Official Opposition of a proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would have provided for a commitment on the part of governments to preserve and promote racial and ethnic equality-
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister: My God, will this government not reconsider?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is not quite clear how that question should be addressed because it addresses the question of conformity of laws with the charter and the principles of the charter, but a change such as the hon. member mentions would in fact involve a constitutional amendment. This would of course add to the agenda that is already before the Government of Canada in trying to resolve our constitutional problems.
I do think that we have within the hands of responsible authorities at all three levels of government in this country enough legal devices to do the job.
What we need is political commitment, will and creativity. That is what we should address ourselves to.
 * *


MENINGITIS RESEARCH
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a contract between Global Tek of Vancouver and the National Research Council. The contract is for the development of a meningitis test. Under this contract, the research clearly belongs to the company. However, the government is claiming ownership of that research.
I brought this matter to the attention of the minister for science last week. Will he tell us why the government has misappropriated this invention in clear violation of this contract and the government's published policies?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question, which he did last week.
I have looked into this in a very preliminary way. As far as the National Research Council is concerned, there is nothing in the IRAP contract which has anything to do with the intellectual property rights being held by NRC. NRC does not want the intellectual property rights. When you have an IRAP contract, we make no claim to the intellectual property rights.
May 4, 1992

The issue here is that some of the work was done in government laboratories and it is a distinction that has to be drawn between the NRC labs and other department laboratories. The issue is another department and Global Tek itself. That is under debate.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it cannot be under debate to any reasonable person because the contract with the National Research Council specified that the work would be done in the Health and Welfare laboratories here in Ottawa.
The contract insists in paragraph 6 of schedule B that the property belongs to the company. By misappropriating Global Tek's invention, this government is saying to Canadian companies: "If we see what we like, we will steal it".
Will the minister immediately denounce this misappropriation of Global Tek's property? Will he restore it immediately to Global Tek and will he ensure that the government never again abuses its power and authority in this way?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, let me say once again that this is not a dispute between the National Research Council and Global Tek.
This is really a dispute between Health and Welfare Canada and Global Tek. There is nothing in the contract with IRAP that says that Global Tek has a claim to whatever work is done in National Health and Welfare laboratories. I will offer to use my good offices to see if we can resolve this dispute as quickly as possible.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
It is now just a matter of time before Canadian Airlines announces the detailed results of its negotiations with American Airlines, a deal which could fundamentally change the nature of the transportation industry in Canada. Meanwhile, the government is maintaining a total silence on this and other developments in the airline industry. Why is the government burying its head in the sand on this issue? Does it have no opinion at all on the number of airlines that we should have in Canada, the value of a flag carrier or the feasibility of an airline merger? What does the government propose to do?
Oral Questions


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, our position was made known publicly quite some time ago. There are existing laws concerning the ownership of airlines, restricting it to 25 per cent.
The airlines have been made aware that if they have any intentions of changing that or if they have any plan that would be of some help to them if we change that, they should come forward. To date, I have received no application to that effect.


John Paul Manley: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, and this is the problem that we are having with the government not giving any indication to the industry where it hopes that industry is going to go.
Every day we have airline analysts getting up and saying that very important fundamental changes are happening in that industry. Yet, we have no idea where the Government of Canada stands on any of the issues that are being raised or where it hopes to see the airlines end up in the future.
Why is the government not doing or saying anything that gives an indication of what its policy is? Is the government simply content to wait until the industry is lost to Canadians?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, those who are the most concerned about the survival of the airline industry are the airline companies themselves. They certainly know what is best for them in the future, and if they have any plans to ask for changes in the present laws they will certainly apply to us.


CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I want to begin by congratulating the Minister of National Health and Welfare for finally admitting that his government's social and economic policies have completely failed Canada's children. The band-aid public relations approach, announced today, offers only $2 a day for a poor child in Canada. So much for the government's commitment to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.

Oral Questions
Does the minister seriously think that two loonies a day will even begin to solve the many problems Canada's poor children face every single day?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could start with the importance that this government places on children with the summit that was held at the United Nations in September, which the Prime Minister co-hosted. There was the ratification of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in December, 1991 and then we moved forward with the Minister of Finance's child benefit package, which is $2.1 billion over a period of five years. The Minister of National Health and Welfare announced Brighter Futures this morning.
We are targeting the funds that we have specifically to an area, and it is the area of children at risk. We would like to do more but we know we have hit exactly where the people of Canada want us to put their dollars, and it is to help the children at risk.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this government has taken billions and billions of dollars from programs to help Canada's children and this action plan announced today challenges individual Canadians to solve the problems of Canada's children. It does not address the responsibility of the Canadian government to Canada's children.
Two loonies a day per poor child is an insult to Canadian children. When will this government change its policies which have hurt Canadian children so much, and why does the Canadian government refuse to accept its responsibilities?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is important for all hon. members to know, and the Canadian public to realize, that this government spends some $15 billion annually on social services directed to families and children. That is a lot of money.
The initiatives I announced in the budget and the initiatives announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare will add, over time, an additional $3 billion worth of support for families and children.
The hon. member should recognize that. The money is not coming from this Parliament; it is coming from the taxpayers of Canada and we should be grateful for that.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the Montreal region.
Last week, the office of the leader of the Liberal Party announced that he would make a major speech in Montreal on the economic base of the Montreal region, but it seems that he forgot to make his speech. Nevertheless, I think that Montrealers must be expecting some information about their economic base.
I would ask the minister responsible for the Montreal region to make up for the lack of information provided by the Liberal Party.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has rightly understood that, just as when they formed the government, the Liberals still forget about Montreal. The Leader of the Liberal Party certainly did not want to run the risk of being reminded that, unlike his party, this government has done some very specific things for the economic future of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. gentlemen went a little beyond the purpose of Question Period. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
The C.D. Howe Institute expressed some rather controversial opinions in a study released last week. Some writers advocate transferring the powers and obligations
May 4, 1992

for promoting and protecting both of Canada's official languages to the provinces.
Can the Secretary of State tell us if his government approves of this proposal that only the provinces should be responsible for language issues?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this issue was debated at several constitutional meetings in recent months. The position of the federal government is that there should be a clear and precise clause in the Constitution asking every level of government to promote and help develop linguistic minorities throughout the country. This is the position that we supported. It is the position demanded by organizations representing linguistic minorities, and it is also the position that the government will continue to defend.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The 1988 Official Languages Act gives the federal government the responsibility to work with the provinces to enrich services for linguistic minorities, including the right to minority language education and schooling as guaranteed in the Constitution.
The Economic Council of Canada reported last week that there are shortages of teachers in all disciplines in French language schools outside Quebec. What will the federal government do to address the situation and possibly correct it now?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are in very active negotiations at the moment with the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
As a matter of fact, I am meeting the minister of education for Ontario tomorrow or Wednesday. That is very much on the front burner. We are trying with each of the provinces to sign bilateral agreements to address exactly the issue that my hon. colleague has raised.
Oral Questions


FRENCH COLLEGES
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State. It has already been two years since an agreement in principle was concluded between the federal government and the provincial government for the construction of a French college in northern Ontario. When the process got under way, it gave hope to the residents of that region, but then it went nowhere. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to revive this promise and keep this initiative alive after it has been stalled for two years?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the main issue on the agenda that will be discussed tomorrow or Wednesday with Mr. Allen from Ontario, as I was saying earlier today to the member for Ottawa-Vanier, in order to try to resolve the issue of French language colleges. There is not only the college in the north, there is also the college in the south and the one in Ottawa. I must tell you that we are moving on the project. We meet regularly. We have to discuss questions of cost, definition and location. We may not make progress as quickly as some would like, but I must tell you that a great deal has been done in recent months. And I would hope that following this week's meeting, we will be able to come to a definite arrangement.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Secretary of State just mentioned that this matter has dragged on for nearly two years. He must realize that young francophones in northern Ontario have also been waiting for two years and that northern Ontario residents are sick and tired of listening to both governments blame each other for failing to act.
Could the Secretary of State announce today how much money he intends to make available to the province, so it will at least appoint a board of governors by the end of June?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's premise is that both levels of government are blaming each other. I beg to differ. I never blamed Ontario. Negotiations are being

May 4, 1992
Oral Questions
conducted, and I believe they are going well. Views differ on some points, especially on the amounts to be contributed by both parties. These matters are being dealt with. There is no question of blaming anyone.


MERCHANT MARINERS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, my question is for the government House leader.
As some of us know and perhaps all of us remember, yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic. There were certain ceremonies held in the national capital, also in Halifax and other parts of Canada to recognize the contribution of the unsung heroes of that war a long time ago, that is, the merchant marines.
I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs has said rhetorically that legislation will be brought in to give pension benefits on the same basis as other veterans who fought in that war.
Can the government House leader tell us when we can expect that legislation?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I am pleased to respond on his behalf.
Legislation is being worked on at the present time. We hope to have it in the House at the earliest possible opportunity.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the answer as far as it goes. Of course it does not go as far as one would like. The only time we have this exchange is on Remembrance Day and perhaps on the 50th anniversary.
Could the minister direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to check with the government House leader so that on Thursday, which is the normal time for the question on House business, the government House leader can tell this House when we may expect that legislation?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question is essentially procedural in nature, but as I indicated, the legislation is being drafted at the present time. We have to wait until it has been drafted before we are able to introduce it in the House.
Suffice it to say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a commitment on behalf of the government. We take very seriously the contribution that was made by Canada's merchant mariners. It is a commitment we intend to keep.


THREE GORGES DAM
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The Canadian government has already sunk $14 million into a flawed feasibility study on the controversial Three Gorges dam project in China. Last week, CIDA announced that it will allocate no additional funds for this potential environmental disaster. This is good news for Canadians. However, there is concern that the funds that CIDA will not commit will now come through the Export Development Corporation.
Will the minister tell the House if the government will further finance the Three Gorges dam through the EDC?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard for me to give a response to that since we have not had any recommendations, proposals or requests for such financing. If and when proposals come forward, we can make a decision at that time.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada want their tax dollars utilized in environmentally stable projects that recognize human rights.
Will the minister assure the House that this government will not provide concessional financing, grants or loan guarantees to companies such as Lavalin Inc., companies that will aggressively compete for the lucrative construction projects associated with this dam?
May 4, 1992

Routine Proceedings


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous response, I cannot make that statement until we see what kind of proposals might be forthcoming from the private sector.
As my hon. friend has indicated, we have ceased financing from CIDA. I think it was 1988 when the last funds went forward on this proposal from CIDA. Canadian companies have been involved in this project on another basis. We will have to wait and see what sort of stance they might take with regard to requests from government for normal EDC financing.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment. He will know that the unemployment rate among young Canadians is over 16 per cent, an alarming rate.
Will the minister cause a meeting of provincial ministers of youth and employment to put in place an enhanced student summer employment program across this country?
Will he also instruct senior officials of the various Crown corporations of the Government of Canada and all other agencies of the Government of Canada to seek meaningful ways to put Canadian youth to work on a most urgent basis?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, we do have a program in place to address the difficulties of student employment during the summer called the Challenge program, which has been in place for a number of years.
With the co-operation of provincial colleagues, et cetera, the program has been increased again this year, as it was last year. It will address as many possibilities as we can afford. As my colleague, the minister of employment indicated earlier, every stakeholder has to make an effort in this particular task. Also there are all the other programs under the employment program available for those students who may not be returning to school as they are available to all other Canadians.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know the Challenge '92 program is totally inadequate for the large number of Canadian youth who are going to find themselves without meaningful work this summer. I ask the minister responsible or the Deputy Prime Minister this question.
Will they at least consider the prospect of trying to seek additional funding from other government sources in order to put in place an enhanced student summer employment program this summer?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a few minutes ago, notwithstanding the difficult situation the government faces with respect to expenditure constraints and the general economic situation, which is a world crisis, the budget of this particular program was increased again this year.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of a fellow Commonwealth Speaker, the Hon. Fatu Vaili Afamasaga, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Western Samoa.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Kozo Watanabe, Minister of International Trade and Industry of Japan.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 27 petitions.

Routine Proceedings
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
May 4, 1992



ACTION PLAN FOR CHILDREN


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, it is my great pleasure to present to the House the Government of Canada's action plan for children.
The action plan represents the government's response to the declaration issued by world leaders at the 1990 world summit for children which the Prime Minister co-chaired. The world declaration made an urgent appeal to give every child a better future. It called on member nations to develop plans of action to improve the situation of children in all countries.
Canada has responded with a plan to create brighter futures for our children and those in developing countries.

According to international standards, children in Canada live healthy, secure lives and receive all the help they need from their families and communities. However, we must not let ourselves be lulled into complacency.
Our plan includes an assessment of the challenges faced by all who are concerned about child care-parents, governments, business, workers, native groups and all our communities-and stresses the federal government's commitment to deal with the risks to which, unfortunately, too many of our children are exposed.

My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced this morning a program entitled Brighter Futures.

This program is based on measures that have already been taken by the Government of Canada: the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the government proposal for a new child benefit that will provide increased assistance to the families that need it most.

This action plan forms an important part of Brighter Futures as does the child development initiative for children at risk.
This action plan can enable all of us to work together to ensure that no child is at risk. Ultimately, our strength as a nation is reflected in our care for those who are most vulnerable.
It is up to all of us to create brighter futures for our children.


David Charles Dingwall: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has just made a ministerial statement with regard to an announcement made earlier this day.
I know the hon. member is not a long-standing member of this House but he has served in a cabinet position for quite some time. It is the tradition of this House, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, that members of the Official Opposition and other duly recognized parties within this House are given notice of interventions that ministers of the Crown will make during ministerial statements.
That was not done today. My office was not informed nor were the critics of my party informed that a ministerial statement would be made and I believe my colleagues from the New Democratic Party have found the same thing.
I appreciate the intervention of the minister but I want to tell him and the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary that if that is the kind of co-operation we on this side of the House are to get from the government concerning certain initiatives, it is certainly not appreciated. It breaches a long-standing tradition of this House that simple courtesies are extended. They have not been given in this instance and I suggest they have not come forward as quickly as one would have liked in other instances.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague will respond to this particular statement by the minister, but I find it totally inappropriate that a tradition of this House has been broken.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to echo the comments of the opposition House leader with
May 4, 1992

Routine Proceedings
regard to the normal courtesy provided by ministers when making ministerial statements.
I would also like to comment briefly on the implications of ministerial statements being made outside the House on matters of some importance with regard to policy when again the normal courtesy would be to make them inside the House.
The minister is not available for comments or available for questions during Question Period. It would make the discussions of the issues much more relevant, much more constructive, if ministers would make statements here in the House rather than elsewhere at a press conference.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I meant no ill by my statement and do indeed regret this.
I have been advised by officials of the responsible department that such advice was given and that notice of the statement had been advanced but I will immediately seek rectification and clarification of what took place.
You appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I am doing this on behalf of my colleague who is away in Montreal or Toronto where the statement was made by the minister. I do apologize on my own behalf but I myself am merely doing it on behalf of my colleague who is not here today.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Secretary of State for his apology and I accept it in its entirety. However, whatever notification was given to opposition parties probably centred around the fact that a news release was made earlier this day but there was no notification that there would be a parliamentary statement.
I want to say this through you, Mr. Speaker, to other members of the government, particularly senior ministers of the cabinet. We hope that this practice, although the minister apologized today on behalf of the government, will not continue in subsequent announcements that come forward from the government because it breaches a fundamental tradition of this House, one of courtesy, one of information and one of extreme importance to all Canadians and in particular parliamentarians. I accept the apology of the Secretary of State, as stated on the floor of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must say that the Chair was taken a little by surprise, since we were at tabling of documents and without noticing it, that came in under Statements by ministers.
That said, on the suggestion of the opposition spokesmen, the Chair is quite prepared to give equal time to the two opposition party critics of programs for children. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are made on very short notice as explained through the intervention of our House leader.
As a critic I find it reprehensible that an initiative, which this government has repeated is its highest priority, has to be watched on Newsworld at noon for us to have any idea what it is talking about. It has been reduced to a four-second clip and to some coloured material sent around to us at the last minute.
The issue of children and whether or not the government is actually providing new moneys or reworking old programs are essential issues for all Canadians.
The government used expensive press releases and press conferences to simply announce what the RCMP already intended to do, what the Department of National Health and Welfare intended to do and what all these other federal departments are already doing. It announced new research programs in the guise of helping children immediately. It announced a number of these initiatives without giving the opposition an opportunity to speak about them properly. It did not give us a chance to ask the minister questions and give the minister a chance to speak in this House honestly and at length about what he is intending to do. This shows total disrespect for this House.
For poor children of this country to take seriously the initiatives of this government which, after eight years of governing, is claiming that this is a central focus of what it wants to see happening in the future is absolutely discouraging.

May 4, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Politicians like myself have to stand up, not to speak about the substance of the motion but to speak about questions of process. It is indeed discouraging for everyone.
I would like to remind the House that this public relations fiasco happened once before in December when the Prime Minister was asked: Are you concerned about children, or about public relations? He had a temper tantrum. This time, neither the minister, the Prime Minister nor anybody senior in his cabinet was here except for a minister stepping in for another minister when the government announced once again that this is a so-called priority.
We look forward to having a better working relationship with this government and wider discussion of the so-called children's initiative so that we can all work together to help the children of this country at last.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to respond to the government's action plan for children-Brighter Futures is the name of it-even without very much notice because of the implications of this government's policy over the last eight years.
The policy has put more and more Canadian children at risk. It has made more and more Canadian children poor and it has made more and more Canadian children hungry when they go to bed at night and when they go to school in the morning.
It is time that instead of responding with a program of $500 million, $2 a day per poor child in Canada, we attempt to address some of the issues that Canadian poor children face, that Canadian children who are abused face.
Instead of doing that, it is necessary to respond to the causes of poverty in this country, to the causes of child abuse in this country and to the causes of the problems that Canadian children face. This government needs to first accept its responsibility for policies which have generated poverty, which have made poverty worse and which have made poverty deeper.
The government, in this document, quite clearly does not accept any responsibility for any of those phenomena which Canadian children feel all day, every day of their lives. What this document does-it is a bit like Partici-paction-is say that Canadians are all supposed to get
involved in this effort to respond to the problems of Canadian children. Of course, Canadians want to get involved with that effort. Of course, Canadians are offended by the fact that one million Canadian children live in poverty in one of the seven richest countries in the world. Of course, Canadians feel for those poor children, but this government refuses to accept its responsibility for the poverty that its social and economic policies have created.
Throughout this document, in the action part of the action plan, it is called: "Challenges for Canadians". It calls upon Canadians to do all sorts of things. It goes on and on, saying that Canadians are challenged to do this, Canadians are challenged to do that.
This government has taken over $318 million out of Saskatchewan's economy alone in terms of cuts to health care and post-secondary education, millions of dollars from the Canada Assistance Plan and billions of dollars from programs which are designed to assist Canadian children who live in poverty.
This document is not enough. It is not an action plan. It is a further indication that this government has derogated from its responsibility and is not taking the problems of Canadian children seriously.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
12TH REPORT OF CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
12TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-48, an act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
May 4, 1992

Routine Proceedings



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


Hon. Mary Collins (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mrs. Collins for the Minister of National Defence moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, today as well, I have some petitions to table. These petitioners ask Parliament to put pressure on the Conservative government to reinstate the Court Challenges Program which, as we know, enabled minority Canadians throughout the country to assert their rights in court and to have their constitutional, language and equality rights clarified.
Mr. Speaker, these petitions are among those of thousands of other Canadians who eloquently show that Canadians want to restore this program that is essential for any democracy. At 10 cents per Canadian per year, this program was not so costly, Mr. Speaker.
These petitioners therefore ask Parliament to put pressure on the government to reinstate the program.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present a petition from about 50 citizens of the New Dundee-Petersburg area in Ontario requesting that the Government of Canada conduct a binding referendum on any constitutional amendments.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions to you, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

These petitioners, from various locations of my riding of Carleton-Gloucester, would like to see Valentine's Day declared a national holiday. They point out the lack of a national holiday between New Year's Day and Easter.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by more than 50 residents of the capital region who are concerned about the constitutional process.

These petitioners request the enactment of legislation which would provide for a referendum of the people with respect to constitutional amendments. They also request that Parliament be bound to the outcome of any such referendum.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to you a petition from Quebecers who deplore the fact that for over 50 years an illegal trade in Haitian workers has gone on between Haiti and the Dominican Republic and that human beings are sold like cattle, confined and forced to cut sugar cane in conditions that violate human rights.
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners ask the House of Commons to see what can be done to impose diplomatic, political and economic sanctions on the Dominican Republic until the rights of the Haitian braceros and their families under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are respected.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present to the House three petitions today.

May 4, 1992
Routine Proceedings
The signatures on these petitions represent many constituents from 100-Mile House, Canim Lake and Forest Grove. All of these are in the Cariboo-Chilcotin riding.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to present to this House in conformity with Standing Order 36 a petition concerning the Canadian Race Relations Foundation that was to be funded by an endowment of $24 million, of which $12 million was to be paid by the Japanese Canadian community in commemoration of the Japanese Canadians who suffered injustices during and after World War II.
The petitioners pray that Parliament urge the government to consider the advisability of establishing now the Canadian Race Relations Foundation in this fiscal year.
The petitions come from just about all over the greater Montreal area, as well as another one from Toronto.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present 55 petitions representing 2,531 residents of my constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap from the communities of Vernon, Salmon Arm, Enderby, Armstrong, Falkland, Lumby, Tappen, Blind Bay, Eagle Bay and a number of other communities in the north Shuswap area.
These individuals are concerned that Multinational Resources has announced its intention to dam the North Thompson River and to sell Canadian water to American interests.
They are concerned that under the provisions of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement the export of bulk water would enshrine Canada's obligation to maintain such exports, even in the event of domestic water shortages.
They ask and urge the government to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh waters to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A. and to state emphatically that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition from several people in my riding who humbly ask Parliament-I will read it-

-to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by numerous residents of the Ottawa region who object to the disparity in the price of gasoline in Ottawa and in other parts of Ontario. They recognize that the government of Ontario has eliminated vehicle licence fees for northern residents to compensate for the disparity in prices between northern Ontario and southern Ontario but it has not made any such move in respect of the Ottawa region.
In fact, the socialist government in Ontario has raised taxes on gasoline since it took office. There is a significant increase in gasoline prices and the NDP in this House talks about the unfairness of sales taxes.
This petition calls upon Parliament to get the government to correct the injustice to Ottawa area motorists.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present first a petition signed by many thousands of Winnipegers who, spurred on by the case involving the murder of one Marilyn Jensen, call on the government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being perpetrated.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition respecting the case of Christine Lamont and David Spencer. You will recall that just last week the minister of external affairs refused to request the expulsion of these two Canadians from Brazil.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, also I have a couple of petitions here which call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government and the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce a petition signed by residents in my riding of Ottawa Centre, residents of Gloucester and Rockcliffe, Ontario, as well as residents of Quebec.
These petitioners call on the government to declare the week of May 25 to 31, 1992 as National Heritage Conservation Week. These petitioners believe that Canada's national culture and heritage must be maintained and promoted.
As well, they believe that Canada must continue to be recognized internationally as a leader in heritage preservation. Also, they believe that Canada must continue to be home to one of the largest groups of respected art conservators and museum professionals in the world.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of a number of petitioners from Quebec to call upon the government to take seriously their position on human rights and
Routine Proceedings
human affairs and attempt to influence the United Nations to take action on the movement of Haitian workers to the Dominican Republic and to take some action which will correct this situation.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions with 75 signatures. These residents draw to the attention of the House that thousands of refugees to Canada are trapped in a processing backlog.
Many of the refugees are suffering from personal and economic hardships, their futures undecided as they await the slow refugee processing. They call upon Parliament to urge the government to step up action on refugee cases exercising compassion.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition from many constituents in my riding of Vancouver East, who are very concerned about the situation of post offices.
They say that Postal Station C, 1111 East 10th Avenue, Vancouver has provided a much-needed and appreciated service to local residents and such postal services cannot be duplicated by having franchise postal services at inconvenient locations with untrained staff. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to make Canada Post maintain Postal Station C and all the remaining postal stations in Vancouver where the changes have been drastic and services are deteriorating.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have over 300 petitions here with many thousands of signatures. These petitioners are in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers. They feel that there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system in Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and ask the government to further amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.

May 4, 1992
Routine Proceedings


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 252, 269 and 292.


Mr. Fisher: Did Bonnie Robichaud receive any assistance from the Canadian
Human Rights Commission in her sexual harassment grievance against
the Department of National Defence, and, (a) if so, what type of
assistance (b) if not, for what reasons?


Mr. Robert D. Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mrs. Robichaud filed a complaint of discrimination against the Department of National Defence in January, 1980. On December 15, 1980, following conciliation, the Canadian Human Rights Commission requested the appointment of a Human Rights Tribunal.
In addition to supporting the complaint through investigation and attempting conciliation, the commission:
Paid for outside counsel to act both on its behalf and on behalf of Mrs. Robichaud during the proceedings before the tribunal. All expenses involved with the Tribunal proceedings were borne by the commission;
Did not appeal the tribunal decision as the general counsel advised the commission there was little chance of success;
Offered to argue the case on behalf of Mrs. Robichaud when the case proceeded to review tribunal, but the offer was declined. Commission counsel appeared at the review tribunal and made submissions supporting Mrs. Robichaud and submitted legal argument on all points of law;
Appeared separately through counsel at Federal Court and argued in favour of a ruling upholding the review tribunal's decision on liability;
Obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of the liability of DND for the acts of the supervisor.
In October 1985, Mrs. Robichaud and DND arrived at a confidential settlement of her complaint. The CHRC was not a party to this settlement and was not advised of its terms until the summer of 1988. The commission's counsel was present throughout the hearings of the review tribunal which took place during late 1988 and 1989.


Mr. Harvard: With respect to federal garnishing orders, are there delays of more than six weeks for the moneys garnished to reach their appropriate recipients and, if so, (a) for what reasons (b) what does the government intend to do to alleviate such delays?


Rob Nicholson: The Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act affects a variety of federal monies payable to debtor spouses by certain government departments source departments such as, Revenue Canada Taxation, Employment and Immigration Canada and Health and Welfare Canada. Since the garnishment process began in May 1988, approximately 300,000 garnishment actions, resulting from 100,000 garnishment summonses, totalling over $56.6 million have been completed.
It is difficult to precisely determine the length of time required to garnishee each of the funds from the various source departments. The garnishment process usually takes an average of six to seven weeks from the time the Department of Justice is advised of amounts available for garnishment by the source departments to the time that the funds are remitted to the provincial and territorial courts and enforcement agencies. This is in addition to the initial 35 days required to action a garnishment summons provided for in the act.
An important factor which influences the length of time it takes to transfer money to recipients is the government's interdepartmental settlement process which governs every transfer of garnisheed funds from the source departments to the Department of Justice. Once the funds have been received by the Department of Justice they are then immediately disbursed to the courts and enforcement agencies. This process requires the involvement of three departments: Justice, the source department and Supply and Services. The IS process provides for checks and balances to ensure that
May 4, 1992

Routine Proceedings
sums of money transferred are properly recorded and reconciled with appropriate audit trails. The Department of Justice must ensure that all moneys garnisheed are properly reflected in the accounts of each debtor and that notification is issued to each court and agency along with the appropriate cheque.
The volume of garnishment actions undertaken and the number of source funds subject to garnishment such as unemployment insurance benefits, Canada Pension Plan payments, income tax refunds, interest on regular Canada Savings Bonds and old age Security payments also influence the average time for the transfer of funds. As moneys may become available from more than one source department at any one time, it is not possible to simply advise each department ahead of time of the amount to garnishee. Instead, every department which has source funds blocks the benefits payable and indicates the amounts available to the Department of Justice. This method ensures that no excess moneys are garnisheed other then those required to satisfy the support order and it is unique to this garnishment process. In most other debt collection systems it is possible to advise the source of the moneys of the amount to garnishee and then proceed to collect. As a result this adds to the length of time required to garnishee.
Hiking all this into account, the Department of Justice is administering this complex process in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Nevertheless, through ongoing discussions with other government departments, the Department of Justice will continue to look for ways in which the time required to garnishee federal moneys can be reduced while continuing to ensure that shortcuts in the process are not taken which will jeopardize the ability to garnishee monies for the benefit of creditors throughout Canada.


Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est): What was the total cost to the government for answering Order
Paper Question No. 111?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Approximately $9,685.


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


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I think that you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or special order of this House, the deferred division to dispose of second reading of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, be taken at 3 p.m. on May 5, 1992, instead of at 10 a.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex

Windsor): Mr. Speaker, I wish to move under Standing Order 52 that the House do now adjourn to undertake an emergency debate on the deteriorating situation which is facing Bosnia-Hercegovina and how best Canada should respond to this very urgent matter.
This reflects the concerns of many of my constituents who feel that the situation has deteriorated very significantly in the past two or three days. The discussions have broken down under the auspices of the European Community. Canada has now recognized this new republic.
It is the belief of many people with whom I talked during a demonstration this weekend that it is crucial
[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1992
Government Orders
that we have an emergency debate, given the urgency of the situation, to make it possible for us to explore what Canada can do to respond to the destruction, devastation, and loss of life which is taking place in Bosnia-Her-cegovina.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor raises a very important issue which no doubt concerns all hon. members of this Etouse, but unfortunately his request does not meet the criteria set out in Standing Order 52. Therefore I cannot accept it at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, pursuant to order made Friday, May 1, further consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has five minutes left.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration, Bill C-63, evolves as a result of the budget announcement of this government on February 25 of this year the decision to cut some 46 Crown agencies, corporations, and commissions for a projected saving of $22 million.
This legislation deals with six of these particular agencies, including Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, Economic Council of Canada, International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law
Reform Commission, and the Science Council of Canada.
Earlier in my remarks I noted the importance of the government having non-partisan, arm's length advice in areas as important as energy, the environment, economic policy, science policy, employment, and international peace and security.
Each of these areas is very controversial, in many of which academics disagree, participants disagree, and everyone needs a forum in which to put forward their views and have an opportunity to persuade government of their views.
These councils have served as honest brokers as well as doing original research. They have brought together people in an honest and open fashion to discuss these ideas in different forums and have given them an opportunity to write dissenting views and to present their ideas to the public.
In our society where we worry about openness in government and participation among as many groups as possible, it is sad to see one of these great opportunities being put aside by the government. It will take another government months, if not years, to replace the infrastructure being tom apart without any heart by this government.
The Economic Council of Canada has served a good purpose. The Science Council has been excellent in its advice. There are no more important issues than those dealing with employment and immigration. One sees one controversial report after another as this government moves and zig-zags through its immigration and employment policies.
When leadership is lacking so clearly within the government, how can those people then turn around and say that they do not need impartial advice? They know what they are doing. In fact, just the opposite is true.
As for the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, it came into existence at a time when the world was undergoing major change in the relations among its dominant players. People began to question nuclear arms both as an aggressive first strike and as a defensive mechanism, and now we have the opportunity to open up discussions and deal with regional battles.
Instead of having one more arm, one more set of ideas out there, one more opportunity to criticize and talk to the people, we have pulled back. We say we do not need that; it is a waste of money.
May 4, 1992

At no point in our history can one marginalize peace and security and particularly right now when it takes a lot of concentration and a lot of original thinking to understand the significance of the changes going on throughout Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. What are these going to mean for us? How do we bring people together?
One does not form a group of people who are doing good intellectual work and who have contacts throughout the world. You do not disgroup them, disband them, and then regroup them. How do you rebuild the confidence of the communities involved? How do you get people who are working together to come together again after they have been forced into unemployment and dispersed because you thought their ideas were worthless?
They become political pawns, exactly the opposite of the way we set them out to be. We told them at one point to go do their work, come out with some interesting ideas, do research, go spend time in the library, get on the phone to their friends around the world, talk to them, see what is happening, bring us some ideas, help us, in the case of the Economic Council of Canada, to get us out of this education mess, help us get out of this economic malaise we are in.
Suddenly government says that no, it did not really want their ideas. It is too dangerous for it. It has its agenda.
Canadians are tired of this government's agenda. They want to hear what else is going on in the world. They do not pay governments to have propaganda machines. They pay them to present good ideas that we can work on.
Instead of having other critics out in the system, it is reducing everything to the political and lowest common denominator. We object very, very strongly to this. I can tell you from personal experience that the work done by, for example, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council which will come up under other legislation-I hope to discuss it more fully then-is fundamental to the maintenance of an independent, intellectual community in this country.
Government Orders
We owe it to these people to be there to support them. We owe it to them to oppose this legislation.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Institute International Peace and Security was established by Parliament with the agreement of all parties in August 1984.
This, you will recall, was at the height of the cold war. At that time, there was a deep and growing concern among Canadians about the possibility of nuclear war. There was a strong desire to see Canada do everything within its power to nudge states toward freer, more peaceful means of interacting.
The government of the day, indeed all the parties, agreed that there was a need for a publicly funded institute to study and promote fresh ideas in the peace and security field. Accordingly, the CUPS was established with the purpose of increasing knowledge and understanding of issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective.
Throughout the past seven years, CUPS has fulfilled its mandate quite well. The institute has undertaken and sponsored timely research, conferences and seminars on a number of topics including non-proliferation, Canadian defence policy, peacemaking and regional conflicts. It has produced a host of relevant, thoughtful publications that have enhanced the quality of debate on these issues both in Canada and abroad.
The institute has built a high calibre library collection of peace and security. It has also, through its grants and awards programs, fostered scholarship, public discussion and understanding of peace and security issues among a wide cross-section of Canadians.
There can be no doubt that CUPS has made a positive contribution to peace and security dialogue in Canada. This has been a benefit to policy makers and the public alike.
Now that the cold war is over, there is no less need for Canadian security policy to be informed by the best possible analysis of international developments. The present era is marked by uncertainty and instability in many parts of the world. In many regions, there is the danger of fragmentation into rivalry and disorder at a time when international co-operation and collaboration is most needed.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
The security challenges of the 1990s are much broader than the security challenges of the 1980s. They encompass political, economic, environmental, military, social, humanitarian and demographic issues among others.
To address these challenges effectively, the government and all Canadians will continue to require independent sources of research and analysis of international events. The need to husband resources, however, has led the government to reconsider how this function of independent research and analysis can best and most effectively be performed. In this CUPS is like the other agencies that have already been the subject of debate on this bill. The general need to husband resources is the reason for this bill. It has been the same for many others that have come before Parliament in recent years.
There is a need, which the budget recently presented to the House made very clear. Nonetheless, it is not one which we would expect hon. members opposite to understand clearly. If they were to look they would see that many sources of independent foreign policy research and analysis already exist in Canada. They exist in the universities and their associated research centres. They exist in bodies such as the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, the Canadian Centre Arms Control and Disarmament, and Le centre quebecois pour les relations intemationales.
The government itself provides support for independent scholarship, analysis, and discussion in the peace and security field through programs in External Affairs and International Trade Canada and the Department of National Defence.
In light of these numerous independent sources of activity and advice and the need to reduce costs, overlap and duplication, the government has concluded that Canada can no longer afford a separate publicly funded peace and security institute. Discussions are now under way to determine what continuing resources will be transferred to External Affairs and International Trade Canada as a result of the wind-up of CUPS.
The goal will continue the elements of work that were undertaken by CUPS without duplicating what is already being done by the private sector or elsewhere in government. Wherever possible emphasis will be placed on fostering activities among independent researchers and
organizations that will advance understanding, knowledge and public discussion in the peace and security field.
In so doing we will take into account the concept of co-operative security which the government has made a priority. The government looks forward to the time when it can announce the results of these discussions. We will continue to meet the security challenges of the 1990s with the benefit of an independent, active and knowledgeable peace and security community in Canada.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today in this House on second reading of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.
In the federal budget tabled in this House on February 25, 1992 the government announced its intention to eliminate, consolidate, defer or privatize 46 Crown agencies, corporations and commissions, all for a projected saving of $22 million per year.
This bill deals with six of the forty-six agencies that went on the chopping block on March 10 with the introduction of Bill C-63. The six are: the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council; the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security or better known as CUPS; the Economic Council of Canada; the International Centre for Ocean Development; the Law Reform Commission; and the Science Council of Canada. We agree that some on the longer list of 46 have to go. Many of them are extravagant. However many were established by this very government.
The Liberal Party is not opposed to the principle of privatization, but we do not support government policies which call for the limitation of organizations which continue to serve a useful public policy purpose.
There are several of the organizations which give the Canadian people a huge bang for their buck. The above mentioned in particular are not only useful but in the past have been proven to be invaluable.
This divestiture, this dismantling, is nothing short of a cynical attempt by this government to silence its critics. The critic to which I am specifically referring is the Reform Party. By axing these organizations they will no longer be able to present an independent perspective on
May 4, 1992

public policy, a perspective which time and time again has proven to be different from that of this government.
This act by its very nature will shift responsibilities embodied in the mandate of these various organizations to corresponding government departments. This defeats the whole purpose of why they were set up in the first place. All were set up to act in an independent fashion to advise the government and the public on the direction of public policy.
Now the government plans to advise itself. Worse still, the government will begin to rely more heavily on advice from such agencies as the Fraser Institute of Vancouver. Who does this agency represent? It is backed by and serves big business. Given this and given this government's record, the very thought of the loss of these bodies of independent thought shakes me to the core.
This government preaches that it is committed to making Canada more competitive. Yet it is proceeding with a bill that will eliminate some of the more important Canadian bodies which provide us with leading edge data, analysis and direction.
Over 300 people will be out of jobs as a result of this government's decision to wind up these agencies. The Canadian taxpayer has benefited considerably from these same agencies. Perhaps I could just briefly outline them.
The Science Council of Canada between the years of 1967 and 1992 recommended the creation of a Canadian space agency, urged Canadians to recycle, published reports on sustainable agriculture, water supply, biotechnology and technology for cold regions.
The abolition of the Science Council silences a respected independent review of this government's weak record on science and technology. The argument that the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology can step in and cover the council's functions is absolutely nuts. The Prime Minister chairs this board. Is he going to criticize himself? I would think not.
As we head into a much more competitive future, as science and technology becomes more and more important to sustaining human life on the planet and to improving quality of life, this government is going to cut back on science and technology. It is like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Government Orders
The Economic Council of Canada was established in 1963 under the Economic Council of Canada Act to provide advice on how Canada can achieve the highest possible levels of employment and efficient production in order that the country may enjoy a high and consistent rate of economic growth and that all Canadians may share in rising living standards.
It undertakes research either on its own initiative or at the request of government. It operates at arm's length from ministers to provide independent advice to the minister, primarily the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology.
Between 1963 and 1992 the Economic Council issued reports and recommendations dealing with productivity, competitiveness, education, health, retraining, and most recently a report on the economic implications of Quebec separation.
As the Leader of the Opposition expressed in this House last week, he worked for many years with the Economic Council of Canada when he was a minister. The council criticized the government of the day and that is its prerogative. It made recommendations. Some were used and some were not. As my leader says, at least it was an independent voice, providing an independent view. Canadians had access to the other side. They were able to make their own decisions based on information. In this way it has contributed to the democratization of the public policy process.
The Law Reform Commission was established in 1971 by the Law Reform Commission Act. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Justice. Its mandate is to maintain ongoing review of the statutes of Canada, to make recommendations for improvement, modernization and reform of legislation. It undertakes some research in house, contracts out other work to consultants on a full or part-time basis. It holds seminars and conferences, visits universities and schools, publishes articles in various journals.
Between 1970 and 1992 the Law Reform Commission issued 32 reports, 61 working papers, 76 studies containing recommendations covering Criminal Code reform, hate propaganda, plea bargaining, safeguarding genetic heritage, pornography, euthanasia, sexual assault, arson, mental disorder, and on and on. As of 1990 the commission's studies have been cited in 211 reported Canadian court decisions, 39 of which were Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

Government Orders
With the proposed elimination of the Law Reform Commission, Canada will be one of only three Commonwealth countries without an independent law reform body. We in Canada will now be in the company of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
The present Minister of Justice has been trying to silence the commission, her biggest critic since 1990. She left the commission without a quorum for two years, which made it impossible for the commission to approve any reports which would have included suggested changes to federal legislation.
Another one is the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. It was established in 1984 under its own act of Parliament. Its mandate was to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective, with particular emphasis on arms control, disarmament, defence and conflict resolution. It undertakes research in house and supports research projects by others in Canada and overseas. It publishes books, background papers, magazines and teaching materials. It provides grants to NGOs and individuals for public education activities. It organizes conferences and seminars and funds scholarships awards and academic exchanges. It is a very busy organization and has an annual budget of approximately $5 million, and this government has cut it out.
For the little money spent CUPS has established a research and information library, developed a school education curriculum program, supported Canadian scholars, and has become known world-wide for its development of a first-class centre for peace and security, offering a Canadian perspective in the context of a tempestuous global reality. To do away with this agency during a time of unprecedented global change is terribly short-sighted.
The government says Canadians will save $22 million by this miserly move. I have tried to provide a sketch to this House of what Canadian taxpayers will lose as a result of the government's over-zealous decision to put these agencies on the block.
Because of the axing of these agencies, Canadians will be deprived of studies such as the Economics of Health
Care and the Economics of Education and of analyses such as the ones I mentioned previously.
I have been pleased to speak in this House on this motion. I would ask the government on behalf of all Canadians to reinstate these six agencies and not pass this bill that is presently before the House.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for letting me participate in this debate. I want to focus on my disagreement again on the dropping of the six major instruments of government, not all of which I will speak on in detail. I want to repeat so that everybody understands exactly what this government is up to and what it is cutting.
First it is cutting the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. Shame. Stupid.
Second is the Law Reform Commission of Canada, article 34(4) dissolved. Shame. Stupid.
Third is the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, article 5. Shame. Stupid.
Fourth is the Economic Council of Canada. Shame. Stupid, and I will come back to that in a minute.
Fifth is the International Centre for Ocean Development. Stupid and shameful.
Sixth is the Science Council of Canada.
I agree with everything that has been said in opposition to this, even if I have not heard the remarks up to now on all of these things. I want to deal specifically with a couple of these agencies and address myself to the absolute stupidity. If I could use the word hypocrisy, I would.
I want to deal with the International Centre for Ocean Development.
Off the east coast of this country we are in a crisis over fisheries management. We have had the spectacle of the minister flying in a helicopter out on a one-day demonstration against the loss of fisheries stock off the east coast of Canada.
Did his visit do anything to help fishery produce? No. Did his visit have anything to do with genuine scientific information? No, it was a political visit designed to placate the feelings of those fishermen off the east coast of Canada who are facing hard times.
May 4, 1992

The way to restore the fisheries is through scientific information and hard facts. How do we get scientific information? We set up the International Centre for Ocean Development. Does this government really want to discover what is wrong with the fisheries loss off the east coast? I do not think so. It does not give a fig, not a damn.
Why would it cut off the one instrument we have that is directly designed to deal with the offshore fisheries of this country if it is really concerned about the people of Newfoundland and the maritimes?
Mr. Speaker, explain it to me because you are the person who has to oversee this debate. If you could respond, perhaps you could explain to me why this government thinks that cutting off its nose to spite its face in terms of the research of the fisheries is actually going to save the Canadian people money.
This is stupid. How can it sit over there as a government and suggest that it is concerned about ocean problems and fisheries problems while the only instrument it has to deal with resolving those problems from a scientific and technical point of view is being cut off?
Then it goes to Europe and says: "Oh, help us. Please help us".
Do you know what its philosophy is? It is like the murderer who kills his mother and his father and then goes to court and pleads for mercy because he is an orphan. He is an orphan because of his own actions. This government is cutting off the one instrument we have.
The other area I want to talk about is the Science Council of Canada. How many of us here in moments of great reflection and sombre, sober deep thought about the future of this country have heard cabinet ministers get up and talk about global economy, productivity, competitiveness?
This government is spending $15 million sending a travelling road show around this country talking about productivity and being more competitive in the global market.
This is the outfit that spent $1 million to give a Harvard professor a task to find out what was wrong with our economy. On page 69 of the report he said one of the problems is we have lost the secondary and tertiary base of manufacturing due to the free trade agreement. After it received his report for $1 million, it spent another $15
Government Orders
million going around the country saying we have to be more productive. The government members are holding hands like at some kind of economic prayer meeting, saying: "Oh, Lord, please help us from ourselves".
The one instrument we have that allows us to move toward real competition in the international marketplace in high technology is the Science Council of Canada.
I know that politicians are allowed to fib a little bit, but this government is taking it too far. We were promised that we would have the best programs for replacement due to the free trade agreement and that this government would make every effort to move us into high technology, new areas of job creation and new areas of economic development.
Just like the oceans department, it is now cutting off the Economic Council of Canada.
Who is going to do our research for us in this new Jerusalem it talks about? Nobody. This government is fibbing about its concern for fisheries, as demonstrated by its cutting off the department of oceans.
It is fibbing about its concern about the economic development of this country by cutting off the Economic Council. I believe that this is not an accident. I believe this is part and parcel linked into the total caving in of the Canadian economy to the United States-Canada-Mexico free trade agreement.
The Science Council of Canada is the last one on my list. I said it was stupid. I do not have to prove it, the government is totally stupid. Everything it is doing is stupid. The best thing this government could do is resign before it destroys the product of the best universities that this country has in this question of the Economic Council, the Science Council of Canada.
What is the point of our young children being told to go to university, behave themselves and give something back to Canada if the one instrument we have to give something back to Canada is being cut off? I do not understand this. I try to be charitable. I give choices. I say it is either stupidity or cupidity.
If I thought the government had enough intelligence, I would say it was cupidity. I am left only with stupidity. There are three areas that we need in a highly competitive, global economy, three areas of specific problems here in Canada now, three areas in which this government runs around this country saying it is helping in the fisheries, science and economic development. At the

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
same time, the only instrument they have is being cut off by this government.
With all due respect to the various cabinet ministers and their parliamentary secretaries, who is going to write their answers for them? It is bad enough for this government's ministers to have to stand up in this House and talk inanities that have been written by bureaucrats.
Guess what is going to happen if they have to write their own inanities. They are going to be banal. I could use the word hypocrisy; it is beyond comprehension.
I challenge this government to take its Minister of Fisheries and Oceans into Newfoundland and stand up and explain to the people of Newfoundland why it is cutting off the International Centre for Ocean Development at a time when it is pleading for understanding of overfishing in Newfoundland.
Does the Government of Newfoundland know that it is doing this? Does the Government of Newfoundland approve of this? Not on your life. It is, again, a word that I cannot use: hypocrisy. The International Centre for Ocean Development, the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada are the three instruments that are absolutely essential in terms of this government's own stated-policies being cut off.
The last comment I am going to make is on the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. We have developed a consensus in this country, under the former leadership of the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson and other great leaders of political parties in this House including: M. J. Caldwell, David Lewis and T. C. Douglas, a non-party consensus about Canada's role in international peace and security.
That consensus has never been broken. When people say they are sick and tired of political fighting in this House, the one area in which the political fighting never took place, under Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Caldwell, was a consensus around international peace and security. Why are we destroying that consensus now?
The one thing that makes us international is being destroyed. It is all stupid. I could have started by saying it is stupid, but I will end by saying it is stupid, stupid, stupid.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this bill axing six Crown bodies at a time when Canada needs the direction they provide in terms of leading edge, data analysis and objective input on public policy processes, is nothing short of budgetary vandalism.
The government's motivation for these cuts is purely political, not economic, as it is trying to suggest. I challenge it to do as I have asked of the minister, namely, to justify the cancellation of the Canadian Patents and Development Corporation and the costs that have accrued because of that and the extra staff that had to be hired to allow that work to be carried on within departments.
This is not a surprising move from a government that clearly does not believe in public policy. I have a hard time believing in this government at all. It thinks Parliament is rather irrelevant and is quite prepared to leave everything to the private sector, as the minister said in his budget speech and in his speech introducing the estimates.
By cutting the Science Council, the Economic Council, the Law Reform Commission, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council and the International Centre for Ocean Development, the government is trying to stifle not only the criticisms of its policies by some of the best minds in this country, but what it is really trying to do is stifle criticism from the Reform Party in hopes of gaining back some of the ground it is losing to that new entrant on the political scene.
The Liberal Party, as has been said by a number of our speakers, is not opposed to privatization in principle, but it is certainly opposed to the elimination of valuable bodies that serve a genuine, vital and critical national public policy purpose. It is irresponsible at this time and does not serve the best interests of the country to get rid of bodies that are able to help us as a nation anticipate change, deal with change, see new and emerging opportunities in every area of public policy.
May 4, 1992

Comment and analysis can be seen, as it tends to be seen by this government, as criticism, negative, unproductive, unhelpful to the political position of the party in power. But comment and analysis can be seen as good advice that governments had better pay attention to in developing their new policies and developing their budgetary priorities.
This bill sets up the abolition of bodies that have been capable of bringing together the best minds in Canada to work together on the challenges confronting us; to look at what we are doing, what future directions are globally and where Canada is falling short in achieving the opportunities that are there for us to achieve, whether it is in trade, protection of the environment, greater social justice internally in Canada or wiser use of the resources we have.
What will happen if these works are, as the government says they can be, absorbed into government departments, absorbed into universities? Whether this work gets done will become dependent on whether the government wants it to get done. There is a need for every government to have bodies free to comment, free to analyze, free to advise, regardless of whether the government of the day wants to hear that advice. That is the useful role these bodies have provided.
In a changing world in which the rate of change is increasing so dramatically, we need the ability of people who can stand back from the day-to-day issues and take a longer term view and can predict and help anticipate what is coming next and what are the responses that Canada needs to take to be in the best possible position.
We do not need independent advice that is not "independent". We need to remember, as well, that many of the people who provide services to these bodies do so on an entirely voluntary basis with only their expenses paid. They contribute willingly to the betterment of their nation because they feel the work of these bodies is important. What we do not need is research that is done only because it is research the government wants done. Canadians deserve better than that. They deserve an independent view. Heaven knows, anybody who sits in this House, who sits in committees and who serves his or her constituents knows that we as parliamentarians do not have the time, do not have the expertise, do not have the resources to stand back from our day-to-day work and look longer term at what is
Government Orders
really in the best interests of Canada and its role in the world. We need others to do that for us. We need to benefit from their advice, not to destroy them and cut them off. Nor do we need to cut off and waste the work that is already in progress by many of these agencies.
Can we really expect universities to pick up this kind of research when we know the cutbacks in funding that have occurred to the universities and that continue to occur? What we can really expect is that this valuable work will gradually fall quietly by the wayside.
I want to speak about a couple of particular areas that are of concern to me. I have spoken in this House numerous times on the precarious position in which the sciences and research and technology development in this country find themselves. The government is abolishing the Science Council at a time when the world knows that knowledge is the new commodity for nations in the world. The Science Council can help us plan how to develop that knowledge, how to become the best in the world and how to identify areas in which Canada can have a particular expertise. The cancellation of a body like this at this point in time is nothing short of sheer stupidity.
How can one possibly think that we can compete in the world of the future if we do not look at all areas of development of new knowledge that will allow Canada to establish specialized niches in the international economy?
I will give you a few examples of where the Science Council has spoken: areas of water supply, a key issue for Canada and a key issue for the world; areas of technology for cold regions. What better country than Canada to focus on technology for cold regions and all the economic opportunities that offers.
I want to speak on one other agency and that is the International Centre for Ocean Development. One of the major environmental issues in the very near future will be the availability of water and the availability of food. The International Centre for Ocean Development is doing a number of things. It is cutting the research and the transmission of knowledge to developing countries as to how they can better use ocean resources for food at a time when the scarcity of food is a major international crisis, as well as the potential scarcity and damage to water. Not only that, this centre offers the opportunity to be the base for regional development in Atlantic Canada by focusing on the strengths of that region. That is the

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
kind of regional development that is going to help all parts of our country share fully in the wealth of Canada.
These cuts are arbitrary and irresponsible. These organizations are crucial to Canada as we plan our future and plan to take full advantage of the potential that is there for us both nationally and internationally.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad
day for this House and for Canadians when the government axes so many programs without public debate, without bringing before Canadians the reasons why each one of those agencies or bodies, which has served Canada in the past, is no longer appropriate to meet the needs of Canadians.
We on this side of the House are not against cost cutting, cost cutting that makes sense, cost cutting where an agency or board or tribunal no longer serves a purpose, where it is outdated. We are not against sunsets i.e., that would mean that the life of a board or group would terminate automatically after say, five or ten years subject to debate, debate by the representatives of the people of Canada as to whether that board or agency is fulfilling its function or purpose.
We can achieve effective cost cutting if we as parliamentarians have the opportunity to scrutinize in detail what is being done. This is not the case with this Draconian bill that has been brought before Parliament.
I cite just one example for the time being, the Science Council of Canada. Here is a body that has served Canada extremely well in the past. It has run a lean operation. The total cost was just slightly over $3 million a year. What is more important, this is an independent agency reporting not to the bureaucracy, not to the Prime Minister, but to Parliament. Its obligation is to the people of Canada at large through their elected representatives.
Have we heard one good reason put forward why the Science Council of Canada is no longer serving the needs of Canada? Surely it cannot be the stack of reports that it has published. Surely it cannot be the work which it has on an ongoing continuum, dealing with competitiveness, dealing with training, dealing with some of the most important issues in our society: economic issues, issues which strike at the ability of young Canadians to have
jobs in the future, of Canadians to keep their jobs. Some $3 million was the council's budget.
I have a serious disagreement with the minister of science and technology who approved the axing of this agency. I say with respect to the hon. gentleman, I know that it was not his decision to cut the Science Council because his whole past record speaks of his commitment to science and technology in Canada.
What is unfortunate is that he lost out at the cabinet table. When I talked to him about this in committee, I know he was embarrassed. I asked him: "Minister, would you rather have one prosperity agenda costing over $20 million or would you rather have six science councils of Canada for the same cost?" He could not answer that question satisfactorily. It was an embarrassing question for him.
What do we have to replace the Science Council to give independent advice to Parliament? There is nothing. We have perhaps another body called NAB ST whose members are chosen by the Prime Minister, which reports directly to the Prime Minister and which is not going to be particularly critical of government policies. How are Canadians better served by having a body that reports to the Prime Minister as opposed to Parliament?
The beauty of the Science Council of Canada was that it served as an independent voice for science and technology in Canada. It was universally supported by the scientific community of Canada. What this body dared to do was criticize the government for its cutbacks to science and technology, for its cutbacks to the Science Council itself, for its cutbacks to the National Research Council.
I compare what the chairperson of the Science Council did to what the chairperson for the National Research Council did when they came before our committees. When I asked the head of the NRC if he felt that his role as the head of the most important publicly funded research body in Canada was to speak as an independent voice for science and technology in Canada, he refused to answer that question. I said: "Do you consider your role to be that of a toady for the government?" He said he was insulted. I said: "Let me put the question in another way. Do you feel that you will criticize openly cutbacks to your own body, the National Research Council?" He said: "No, I will not do that". I said: "Mr. Chairman, the head of the NRC has just answered my
May 4, 1992

question as to what he considers his role to be: a toady for the government".
This is not the case with the Science Council of Canada. The chairperson came before us and talked about the importance of a decent level of funding for science and technology in Canada. The over-all level of research and development has continually fallen since the Conservative government took office eight years ago. We all remember the promise of the Prime Minister when he said: "This government in four years will double Canada's research and development. We will take it from 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product to over 2.5 per cent".
Why did he promise that? Because he knew that unless Canada did that we would not keep up with the competitive nature of the world community. All of our major economic competitors have levels of R and D which exceed 2 per cent, more than double ours.
Since that commitment, that promise was made to Canadians, the Prime Minister has presided over a government that has seen R and D in Canada actually fall as a percentage of our gross domestic product. No wonder we are facing very severe economic times in this country, more severe than in most of our OECD competitors.
Where is the long-term strategic thinking? Where are we going to get the innovation, the technology, the inventions that are going to provide our young Canadians with the stimulating jobs and the platform from which they can launch the new industries, the biotechnologies, the aerospaces, the computer software and everything else.
We need bodies like the Science Council of Canada. If you asked any of the ministers of industry from any country in the west what are the keys to the economic future of their country, they would say training, research, development, education. Research and development, science and technology, are right at the forefront of every type of remedy for a sagging economy. Even this government pays lip-service to it, but what does it do? It cuts the one body which has provided that type of independent voice in Canada, a voice which in the past has dared to criticize this government, a voice which has
Government Orders
dared to be strong, to be non-political and to give us the prescriptions we need.
I see across the House from me the former chairperson of the industry, science and technology committee. That chairperson knew at the time that the Science Council of Canada was one of the most credible bodies that appeared before us. She was the chairperson when our committee issued a unanimous report calling for increases in research and development in Canada, a commitment to double it by the year 2000. We expressed our support unanimously for the Science Council of Canada. Where is her voice now saying: "Minister, you cannot allow this to be cut; it was a unanimous committee report that I chaired, that I authored". Have we heard her speak up against this?
I asked the minister if he would go back to cabinet and help us.
Mr. Speaker, I know my time has run out. This is a sad day for Canada's future. We must oppose this bill.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with a number of agencies that will be either wound up or deferred, merged or privatized. But I want to spend a few minutes talking about one of the agencies which will be deferred.
That is the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the regrettable incidents in Los Angeles of a few days back remind us of how fortunate we are to live in such a magnificent society. I, for one, am very fortunate to have in my riding the head office of the Ottawa police force. Thanks to the leadership of Chief Tom Flanagan and the efforts of his highly qualified officers, the Ottawa police force has established excellent relations with the community. The Ottawa police force has established community liaison offices, developed school education outreach programs, supported community initiatives, and developed a first-class reputation in the protection of life and the law.
Legislation dealing with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was introduced last year and approved with the hope that the government would proceed. Unfortunately, it was deferred. It is my hope that in light of all of those unfortunate events taking place around the globe that at least in Canada we see the positive things that

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
could come out as a result of such a foundation and that the government will not at this point in time defer it but will proceed.
While not every agency in existence performs the duties and responsibilities that the Ottawa police force does, I wanted to mention it while I talk about the deferral of the foundation. I believe it is very important for my community , which is extremely diverse, to know how fortunate we are to have a police force that is sensible and sensitive to our needs and wishes.
The legislation before us deals in particular with the winding down of a number of agencies, commissions, and councils.
I begin with the Science Council that the government is planning to wind down. As you know, since 1967 until recently, this council has recommended a number of initiatives and has helped in the creation of many agencies such as the Canadian Space Agency. It has done many things in the community when it comes to the well-being of Canadians. For example, it has urged Canadians to recycle. It has been on top of many of the issues when it comes to sustainable development, in particular, when we talk about sustainable agriculture as well as water supply.
More than anything, the world is moving ahead. The Science Council has seen an opportunity in the biotechnology industiy. It has done a tremendous amount of work in advising both the government as well as the community as a whole on the importance of biotechnology to the well-being of Canada.
The Science Council has played a leadership role on every front providing unbiased advice to both governments and agencies in the community. We are seeing this council being wound up. For the life of me, I cannot see how the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology can allow such a thing to go down without a fight.
I want to say publicly if the minister sees there is any possibility whatsoever between now and the time this legislation goes to the Senate that the opposition could be of any help, he should call on us and we will be on with this.
Another initiative deals with the Economic Council. We just recently saw a tremendous report come out of the Economic Council that deals with the question of
education and illiteracy in Canada. I cannot tell you how dead-on the Economic Council was in its report.
I would suggest the government rather than winding up this council should do the opposite. It should enhance the council's viability. It should support the council with more manpower and resources so it can continue the tremendous good work it has been doing from 1963 until now.
The Law Reform Commission is another commission the government is planning to close down. This commission was introduced in 1970. In over 22 years it has produced in excess of 32 reports and 61 working papers. It has also produced 76 studies containing recommendations covering Criminal Code reform, hate propaganda, plea bargaining, safeguarding genetic heritage, pornography, arson, sexual assault, mental disorder and many other subjects. As of 1990 commission studies have been cited in at least of 211 reported Canadian court decisions, 39 of which were Supreme Court of Canada decisions.
To terminate the Court Challenges Program in my view is a crime. Simply put, trying to obtain justice in our society has become extremely difficult. It has become one of the things that only the well-to-do and the rich can obtain in a fair and equitable way. It is my hope the day will come when we see justice done for everybody in equality, without the dependency on the ability to pay.
Another fine institution is the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Between 1984 and 1992 it established a research and information library, developed school education curriculum programs, supported Canadian scholars and in general developed a first-class centre for peace and security offering a Canadian perspective. Right now is the opportune time for the government to enhance and support the work of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
Our world is going through turbulent times. Take for example eastern Europe. Unless we see peace and security in Yugoslavia in the next few months, the world is going to see the beginning of something that none of us will like. Not just Europe, but the whole world will find itself in a volcanic situation. For us as a country that has spoken out so forcefully on issues that affect the peace and security of the world, it is unfair to turn

around and fold up or wind down one of the finest institutions that can continue to bring Canadians pride.
Those are some of the agencies that are going to be wound up, much of whose work is unknown to anyone who could continue that work. For instance, many of these agencies have work plans for the next five years. It is beyond me to see the government winding down those organizations without providing an effective alternative or without doing a study or analysis to find out about the viability of those organizations.
We on this side of the House believe that these organizations should not be wound up. They should be maintained and enhanced. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call on the government to reverse its decision and not close down these organizations.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself so often standing and speaking in the House of Commons with regret because of the subject matter under debate. I pray for the day when one can stand up with pride about the legislation presented because it is so positive and far-reaching and has some hope for this country which we love so much.
I was rather intrigued this morning when listening to the debate. One of the government members stood up and said it is not the job of the government to employ people. It is the government's job to provide the climate where the private sector can thrive and employ people. That may possibly be. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something. It is not working. Therein lies the problem.
This government depends on the private sector and because of that this country is in a state of dependency on something that does not work. There is no hope for the economic outlook of Canada at all with the dependence on monetarism and supply side economics.
The other day, I read an article by an American economist from the supply side who actually admitted it. He said that supply side never really was an economic theory. It was only a way of describing and obfuscating the economic situation in order that Ronald Reagan would be able to put forth his ideas and to enable the
Government Orders
wealthy to become even more wealthy. The trickle down theory is what it is. It is also, of course, what is behind the Canadian situation, where we have free trade, whether it is the FTA or the NAFTA and Heaven knows what other free trade agreement the government is liable to come up with next.
However, this philosophy is the source of the tremendous debt in this country of ours. The debt created by this government, created by its misled, misdirected economic philosophy is what has led us to the impasse we have reached. It is, of course, the excuse for bringing in Bill C-63. Everything this government does by way of trying to make the Canadian public think it is saving the taxpayer money is done under the excuse that we have such an enormous debt.
It has not been all that broadly stated, except that the clue to the underlying rationale or excuse which this government came up with was stated by the member this morning when he said that it was not the government's job to employ people. Of course, the debt is not the real reason for it. The debt is the excuse for doing it. What the government really wants to do is to kill the messenger and we have several messengers within the organizations this government is slashing under Bill C-63. There are several messengers who often provide rather bad news to the government. It is the government's intention to try to silence these voices as much as possible.
In almost every Question Period through which I have sat since I was elected to the House of Commons, the finance minister or the Prime Minister or some minister of the government has said that if this country is going to be prosperous, if this country is going to compete, if this government is going to be able to fulfil its destiny not only in the remaining decade of this century but also into the 21st century and become the country it is supposed to be, then we have to educate our children, we have to train our children, we have to give our citizens every opportunity to become as well trained and technologically advanced as is possible.
Then we have this proposal in Bill C-63. Can there be any doubt that regardless of what the Canadian public says, regardless of what our universities say, or our institutes of post-secondary learning say, that the

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
Science Council of Canada is going to be eliminated? Can you believe that?
The council over the years has provided at times bad news to the government. I would suggest it is certainly part of the function of the Science Council of Canada to point out to the government where it is making mistakes. Why else would it be there if it is not to adjudge what is happening in this country as far as the advancement of science and technology is concerned?
Sometimes it is conceivable that governments are not necessarily on the right track. I would suggest that it is certainly within the purview of a council such as the Science Council of Canada to let the government know. Obviously the government has seen the Science Council of Canada as a bearer of bad news and is certainly going to kill the messenger.
I was rather interested in some earlier rationale. It may have been part of the budget debate when the Minister of Finance was criticized for getting rid of the Economic Council of Canada and other bodies which the government is eliminating as well, the comeback was that these services could be provided within the private sector. Therein lies the problem, particularly if we are talking in terms of the elimination of the Economic Council of Canada.
One of the previous speakers asked: "If the Economic Council of Canada cannot provide the government with the valuable information which it has over the years, who will?" I would disagree with my learned colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca who said nobody.
I would suggest that the government is quite able to find within the private sector a substitute for the Economic Council of Canada. I would guess by the economic philosophy it has so conscientiously followed ever since it came into office that it has not been paying enough attention to the Economic Council of Canada but has certainly embraced the Fraser Institute. The musings- and I think they cannot be much more than that-of the Fraser Institute although they have had devastating effects on the country are what the government has been following.
I suppose there are substitutes within the private sector which can take over from some of these boards and commissions. That does not necessarily mean it is
good news for the people of Canada. Perhaps the people of Canada should be the ones who get rid of the messenger in this case. I would suggest that is going to occur before too long.
Other institutions are going to be eliminated which have served this country very well, such as the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. We as citizens and we as parliamentarians are rather proud of our immigration policy. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why Canada has had such a good immigration policy, why we have shown so much compassion.
I see you indicating, Mr. Speaker, that my time is coming to a close. There is certainly not enough time to address all the institutes which are going to be eliminated. However, I would suggest that perhaps one of the main reasons Canada has had such a good policy as far as immigration is concerned is that very council. Its elimination is certainly not going to enhance Canada's image and the advice it gives to the Canadian government. It is not going to enhance the government's ability to deal adequately with the immigration concerns which we will be having in the future.
I have not been able to address all the issues. I thank the House for giving me the time it has. Perhaps we can pursue the issue at a later date.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, when hon. members heard the Minister of Finance say in his budget speech that he intended to get rid of a number of government agencies, many of us were astonished the government wanted to eliminate agencies that provided the government with non-partisan advice, advice that may not always have been what we wanted to hear as parliamentarians, but advice that was extremely valuable just the same.
Let me give an example. The job of the Economic Council of Canada was not called "the tell the government what it wants to hear council of Canada", it was called the Economic Council of Canada. Obviously its job was to provide to all of us as MPs and to the Canadian public expert advice on economic matters.
May 4, 1992

As one member said earlier, some private sector organizations do that now, but is it the role of these organizations to provide independent advice to the benefit of everyone or advice which will benefit their own members?
Earlier today I received a very thick and glossy brochure. I guess it must have had about 75 pages to it, possibly even more, from Thomas d'Aquino and those other fine people at the Business Council on National Issues. St. Thomas d'Aquino gave us all his usual very excellent advice, at least the advice that he wants to convey on behalf of his members. That may very well be the view of the members that he represents or purports to represent, but is it to the best interest of the Canadian public?
On the other side, some groups will advocate measures which they feel will better groups at the other end. They could be organizations that represent organized labour or what have you, but who speaks for everyone? Who provides independent advice to all of us in economic matters and that advice being unbiased and in everyone's interest?
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that was one of the jobs of the Economic Council of Canada.

Unfortunately, the council is now doomed to disappear because of the Minister of Finance's budget.
Interestingly, in Bill C-63 the government not only proposes to wind down the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council, and so forth, it even wants to eliminate any reference to these agencies in our legislation, like someone who tears up the photograph of a husband or wife to wipe out every trace, every memory of the past, memories that would otherwise come back to haunt the Conservatives, memories of the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council and many others.

If you think that I am the only one who feels that way about some of these organizations, let me read a little bit here from a story written by Stephen Bindman who is an excellent writer for The Ottawa Citizen. He is actually a writer for Southam News but Southam of course distrib-
Govemment Orders
utes articles to such papers as The Ottawa Citizen. Listen to this statement:
When the Law Reform Commission of Canada winds down over the next three months Canada will join Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as the only Commonwealth countries without an independent Law Reform Commission.
That is where this government has brought us. That is where the Prime Minister has brought us. Not according to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell or the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, although I am sure she could provide equally objective and constructive comments in this House this afternoon, but according to the Canadian Bar Association as reported in this Southam story for The Ottawa Citizen. We have now joined the ranks of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in terms of not having an independent Law Reform Commission.
Some months ago a number of members of this Parliament were debating a bill, and a horrible bill it was by the way, Bill C-203 which was kind of a euthanasia bill. It is still debatable as to what that thing was.
In any case, we were debating that bill. Some of the advice that we received was from the Law Reform Commission, not that we had asked it to present something to us but we were relying on many of the things that it had said in the past on this issue. We looked for its counsel. We sought information that was written in that regard by the Law Reform Commission.
On many of the issues discussed in courts, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, cases have utilized time and time again briefs, papers, documents of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, as it should be. We should have that kind of independent legal advice to make sure that we remain a country which believes and which advocates the enhancement and protection of the democratic rights of everyone.
We saw a great country last week tearing itself apart to a certain measure on racial issues: the United States of America. When we saw what happened in Los Angeles and other cities in which we saw that violence, we saw a judicial system which had failed in my opinion and failed miserably. Here we are in Canada, not that it is perfect, far from it, but we have at least some of the tools that have made this country better. It could be a lot better yet, granted.
Here we are dismantling some of those tools right now, as we speak today in the House of Commons on May 4, 1992. I ask: Why are we doing this? Why are we

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
abolishing the Law Reform Commission of Canada? Why are we abolishing the Economic Council of Canada?
I can only conclude one thing, that these organizations were telling this government many things that the government did not want to hear. The Economic Council of Canada prepared a report which was made public last week and from which members quoted extensively in this Elouse. Members on both sides were speaking on the literacy rate and the government defended itself in other parts of the report.
No one was questioning whether the report of the Economic Council of Canada was right or wrong. It was a given that this was right, that this was in fact what was going on. All of us were arguing in this House passionately for those things that we were trying to improve.
We were not questioning the report of the Economic Council of Canada. We were not questioning its validity. We were not questioning whether or not it was the truth. We were just questioning how we could accomplish the goals and meet the challenges that were in the report.
Not even the ministers who were in the process of dismantling that organization tried to discredit it. No one said, to their defence: "Oh well, it is just the Economic Council". That was not said.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about the Law Reform Commission first, which the government is destroying in this bill.
We have about six items in this bill that the government is putting out of existence. They are very important to the parliamentary history of Canada.
There is one thing that bothers me particularly as I look at the Law Reform Commission proposal. It is really a wind-up of that commission, as the previous speaker stated. It also states that the Department of Justice will contract out for research and publish reports directly.
There is a secret agenda here. Contracting out is the key. More jobs for Tory friends. That is what is going to happen. It is going to be more contracting out. We have just seen in the Public Service reform bill that the merit principle is going to be taken away in the Public Service of Canada and there is going to be work contracted out. The contracting out will go to people who want to report what the government wants to hear.
All of these six commissions and bodies that we are talking about today are independent bodies that have tabled their information in this House through the appropriate minister. The government is very upset because the government has been left empty-handed with some of these reports because these reports have flown in the face of what the government is doing.

We must not forget the 300 jobs that will be lost. Many of my constituents in the national capital region are employed by these agencies. However, more than that will be lost. By dismantling something that later will cost millions of dollars to rebuild, we will lose the expertise, because those experts will be scattered across Canada and perhaps beyond, and we will have trouble rebuilding later what this government now proposes to wind down.
I want to ask all my colleagues on the other side of the House to for once take the objective view and prevent this government from terminating the various agencies I just mentioned.
We who are in this House day after day can understand why government wants to get rid of these bodies that are going to give it some good advice. We in the opposition and other members talk in this House from day to day about what should be done and what should not be done. Yet nobody is listening. Government does not want to listen to these bodies either because it has its own agenda.
Under the mandate of the Law Reform Commission it undertakes some research in-house, contracts out other work to consultants on a full or part-time basis. That is a conflict in terms. At the same time as you are contracting out, you are indeed not listening to the very people
.
May 4, 1992

whom you are appointing to these commissions and who are there because of their expertise.
Let's take a look at the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. What is the proposal here? To wind it up, for the Department of External Affairs to take over functions as appropriate. This body was established in 1984 under its own act of Parliament and the Secretary of State for External Affairs designated as the responsible minister. That minister is the one who has been tabling this report in the House of Commons.
One can understand, and one must ask the question: Is there competition between the bureaucrats in External Affairs who are jealous of their advice to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and what the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security might provide as information for the minister?
In other words, here again we are taking away the valued opinions of people who are professionals in their field to advise a government that does not want to be advised because it has its own agenda.
The mandate of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security was to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective, with particular emphasis on arms control, disarmament, defence and conflict resolution.
What could be more appropriate than to have this Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security advising a government of a country that has probably participated more than any other country in the world in international affairs in the area of peacekeeping and keeping hot spots in the world cooled off?
I was in this House when this bill was passed in Parliament.
We had great hopes at that time, I remember, for good research being done on the issues around the world. Before you go into an international crisis, you had better understand what the background is and what is going on and who all the players are, not only who some of them are. The institute was one that did considerable studies, in-depth studies, on these international issues.
Here is Canada, a country that does a great deal of good work around the world in peacekeeping and working with other nations in a diplomatic manner in order to bring hot spots to a cooling off position and to restore
Government Orders
peace and prevent these things from spreading into a major war. That is Canada's role.
The government should be ashamed of itself today for bringing in this bill which destroys the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security while at the same time bragging about what Canadians do in peacekeeping around the world. This government today cannot hold a candle to the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, the late Right Hon. Louis St-Laurent and the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and others for what they have done in peacekeeping of this country with the international community. I would add the Hon. Mitchell Sharp to that list as well.
If Canada is going to continue to play a role in keeping the peace of the world, in carrying on good diplomatic relations with countries around the world, we need this kind of research. You do not go into a war disarmed of what it is all about. You have to have knowledge as well as your equipment. If you have knowledge beforehand, you may not need the equipment. I think this is something that the government has totally overlooked.
I would like to say that the Science Council of Canada has been a tremendous body in this nation since its establishment in 1966. I was in the House when the bill was passed. It was established in 1966 by the Science Council of Canada Act. It was a departmental corporation reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and to whomever was delegated authority as the minister in charge of science.
What could be more important in this day and age when we are talking about competitiveness? This government is in conflict with itself. Out of one side of its mouth its says we have to be competitive and we are going to match the world and out of the other side, it is doing away with the very bodies by Bill C-63 today such as the Science Council of Canada, which is one of the six. It is doing away with the very body. If the government were willing to take its advice, follow its recommendations, Canada would be on top of the heap and we would not be in the economic mess we are in today.
It is hard to assess this government. No one knows where it is coming from. What is the mandate of the Science Council of Canada? So that all Canadians will understand, here it is. It is there to assess scientific and technological resources, requirements and potentialities for Canada and to increase public awareness of scientific and technological problems as well as opportunities. What is more important than that when it comes to

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
competition with other countries? It undertakes research, publishes studies and reports and provides advice to the minister.
The latter is a problem. The minister does not want to be bothered taking advice. Neither does the government.
Finally, concerning the Economic Council of Canada, in this day and age when this country is facing such horrendous unemployment line-ups, disasters, industries are closing down and moving out, small business is in trouble, what does the Economic Council of Canada do? Its background is supposed to achieve the highest possible levels of employment and efficient production in order that the country may enjoy a high and consistent rate of economic growth and that all Canadians may share in rising living standards.
That is what the Economic Council of Canada stands for. This government is destroying it in this bill.
There is no question that Canadian people are right. The sooner we have an election in Canada, the sooner we stop this nonsense and start listening to people, and the sooner we get rid of this government that is not listening, the better off this nation will be.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.
The budget announcement last February highlighted the elimination of some 46 government agencies. Twelve hundred federal employees would be affected, 500 jobs lost, and all for a savings of some $22 million.
With one simple swing of the henchman's axe, this government has served to silence the valued advice of advisory boards which have served this government and previous governments for decades. It is a senseless, stupid piece of legislation. It serves no rational purpose other than the fact that this government simply wishes to silence its critics and kill the messenger.
Simply, it does not like getting advice, the advice that has been given in good faith by these organizations
through the many years they have served both the government and the people of Canada.
It is a method of simply muffling the criticisms that have been brought before this government in terms of the government's own failure to address the many concerns that these individual councils and organizations have highlighted.
It is also a piece of legislation that is unbelievably arrogant. It is arrogant because what it is saying, what the government is saying to the people of Canada, is that it knows better. It does not need the advice of these organizations and professional bodies that have served through the years because it has all the answers. That is what this bill is saying. The government does not want to listen to the valued advice of these agencies because it knows all the answers.
Heaven knows that the people of Canada firmly believe that this government does not have all the answers.
That is why this piece of legislation is so incredibly arrogant. It is arrogant for the government to think that it knows better and can dispense with these boards, with these organizations, with these agencies, that it can simply do away with them because it does not like to hear the bad news. It is simply unbelievable.
Let us look at six very critical agencies that have served for many years: the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council; the Law Reform Commission; the Institute for International Peace and Security; the Economic Council of Canada; the International Centre for Ocean Developments; the Science Council of Canada. These six organizations have provided through the years extremely valuable information, service and advice that this government has largely chosen not to act upon, that it has chosen to ignore.
I get the feeling that the government has been feeling the heat because many of these organizations have been critical at times of the policies and the direction that this government has followed. Rather than take the heat and admit its mistakes and failures, the government has simply chosen to kill the messenger, to silence the criticisms. It is dumb. It is stupid. It is simply outrageous. This legislation will do nothing but harm the process of
May 4, 1992

valued advice that this government should be and hopefully would be open to.
When you look at it in large measure, it is in line with the government's over-all plan to reduce services. What is even more frightening is that it is very much in line with what can only be called the corporate agenda.
The Business Council on National Issues, headlined by his royal highness, Thomas d'Aquino, is really the agency that is pulling the strings and the government has merely been its mouthpiece. It said: "jump", and this government has asked: "How high?" It said: "cut services" and this government asked, "how deep?" It is all part and parcel of this corporate agenda for Canada of which the people of Canada, I might add, are growing weary. There is no rational explanation for the silencing of these advisory boards.
In particular, let us have a look at the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. This organization provided advice to those people who were affected by this government's employment and immigration policies. There was too much criticism so it simply silenced it with one fell swoop of the axe.
Regarding the Law Reform Commission, it had 20 years of service to the Minister of Justice. It provided a review of the statutes of Canada and made a series of very valid recommendations for the improvement of particular statutes and for the reform of common law in Canada. It cost $4.9 million a year for this organization to function-too expensive; kill it, turf it out, get rid of it.
The Economic Council of Canada is another 20-year institution that has been silenced by this government. The objective was to provide advice on how to achieve the highest possible levels of employment in Canada. It was a very influential and a very prestigious think-tank that has been highly regarded across this country. It prepared reports throughout the years on education, health care, productivity, employment and on retraining programs. Absolutely no warning was given when the government decided to kill this organization and to silence yet another voice of criticism. It was a ham-fisted, totally arrogant approach. This government is facing the worst unemployment crisis this country has seen in many, many years and it silences the very
Government Orders
advisory board that is trying to develop the policies and initiatives to get us out of the difficult situation we face.
One that strikes particularly close to home is the Science Council of Canada, another organization, 25 years old, that has given service to this administration and previous administrations in Canada. It had the important task of assessing scientific and technological resources and potentials in Canada and holding the government to task on its performance in terms of developing research and development initiatives in Canada.
Throughout the years the council at times has provided very strong criticism of this government. It has even embarrassed this government. It has reminded this government of how it has abandoned its previous commitment to increase basic research and development in Canada. What has the government done? It has taken the axe and silenced yet another criticism.
It talks about globalization, it talks about the need for international competitiveness. When the Science Council of Canada says the government is doing a lousy job in terms of research and development in Canada, it is failing the Canadian people and failing the science programs in this country, the government, rather than reacting to the justified criticisms and doing something positive, simply kills the messenger. Therefore, it has eliminated the Science of Council of Canada and has done a great, great disservice to scientists across this country as well as to our aspiring students of science from Victoria to St. John's.
Let us take a look at another agency, the International Centre for Ocean Development. The ICOD focuses exclusively on oceans and its mandate was to provide assistance and training programs to developing countries to improve the management of oceans as a primary food source. It is an important task and it is an important responsibility for this government on the international scene to assist those developing nations to utilize the resources available to enhance the use of our oceans as a primary source for food.
Right here in Canada we face a very critical problem. Our own northern cod stocks off Newfoundland have been devastated by the overfishing of other countries off

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
the Grand Banks. What is the government's response to this crisis? It silences another messenger.
This legislation is wrong. This legislation is stupid and hard-fisted. It is arrogant and it should be stopped. It should be stopped right now.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, behind a very harmless looking title, namely an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, there is a measure of enormous importance we are debating today.
Bill C-63, I submit to you, is a bad measure. It is wrong. It is a wrong proposal by the government. I am saying that because the government is disbanding centres of excellence which have served Canadians well. People with unique skills are being laid off because the Government of Canada says we do not need advice anymore. These are the people who have given Canada creative ideas, who have pointed at new opportunities, who have measured performance in the country, who have told Canadians of how and when we were doing well and when we were doing badly and have advised the government of the day accordingly.
It was extremely disturbing to have learned of this measure we are debating today as we did on February 25 when the Minister of Finance announced his budget. This measure can only come into effect once this bill has passed. This government is labouring under the illusion that it knows better, it needs no advice, it has all the answers.
In other words, the Minister of Finance will from now on perform the role of some of the major councils that are being abolished by this bill. The Minister of Finance will be the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, the Law Reform Commission, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and the Centre for Ocean Development just to name a few. That is now the role the Minister of Finance has implicitly assumed for himself.
People not in politics expressed their shock when they heard of this dreadful decision. Nobel prize winner, John Polanyi, commented in Toronto: "In our concern that the ship of state is too big, we are removing the rudder". That is how John Polanyi put it.
I am glad to see in the House the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. He knows of the calibre of John
Polanyi who is a distinguished Canadian and a Nobel prize winner. Dr. Polanyi said "in our concern that the ship of state is too big" because that was the argument of the Minister of Finance on February 25. He wanted efficiency and in the name of efficiency we are cutting the rudder. That is the logic and the principle this government is pursuing with this measure. This is unacceptable, obscene and just unbelievably stupid.
Dr. Polanyi went on to say: "It is vital to have a body that is thinking about the future of science and technology in this country". We are then to believe that with the removal of the Science Council of Canada the minister will do all the thinking for it. If he cannot, then the Minister of Finance will do it for the Science Council. That is the logic behind this measure.
Dr. Polanyi went on to say that every industrial country that is ambitious has to have a science and technology organization at arm's length from the government so it can be critical and so it can see past this year's crisis. It is so elementary, so basic, that one cannot understand how this has escaped the collective brains of the cabinet of this government.
Let us move to the Economic Council of Canada and put on record what the distinguished analyst, David Crane, wrote in The Toronto Star last February.
He wrote that the Minister of Finance's decision means that the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada will no longer have to put up with the Economic Council casting doubt on a monetary policy that keeps 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, nor will they have to tolerate the council criticizing the lack of effort in worker training, calling for reform in agricultural policy or making inconvenient policy proposals to improve competitiveness.
The only losers are Canadians who want an informed debate in Canada. That is the last thing the Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues want but this should be no surprise. Since the Mulroney government came into office, there has been a continuous series of steps to restrict the flow of information. One of the first was the decision to make each report from Statistics Canada self-financing.
The Minister of Finance is one of those hard-edged politicians who is intrinsically hostile to public debate unless it can be carefully controlled. That is why he is prepared to spend more than $20 million on a vacuous
May 4, 1992

public relations gimmick known as the prosperity initiative.
While it cancels all these bodies, at the same time it can find the money for this public relations gimmick, the prosperity initiative. But he cannot support the continuation of these councils holding meetings, running lots of advertising to promote competitiveness while at the same time claiming that Canada cannot afford the $3.25 million for the Science Council or the $11 million for the Economic Council. What a sham.
What we have is a shabby decision which appeals to the Tory right wing with no alternative ideas around, of course. Canada will be the loser. Canada will be the loser because a strong democracy depends on both solid information and the range of policy ideas being available to the public. That is what a good, strong, healthy democracy depends on.
Let us now look at the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security as in the case of the Economic Council and the Science Council. This is the most inopportune time to kill the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
Eastern Europe is in turmoil. Parts of Africa are facing famine and environmental degradation. Outdated and faulty nuclear power stations all over the place are threatening security with the potential for new Chemo-byls. Yugoslavia has fallen apart.
This is not the time to do that. It does not make sense. It is backward. It is idiotic. It is stupid. I am running out of adjectives.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Lincoln Bloomfield, certainly not a Liberal, certainly not a Canadian, arguing that Canada has become a focal point for research and knowledge about international security said that the government's decision will "give a powerful, negative message to the world about Canada's role in this new era where Canadian leadership is more essential than ever".
I am told that the institute is obligated under law to continue its functions until Parliament passes legislation to dismantle it and Treasury Board is committed to continue providing money to finance it. For the sake of peace and security in the world, it may be a good move to prolong this debate for as long as we can.
Government Orders
In The Ottawa Citizen editorial of March 7, under the title "Lobotomizing Canada's future":
The Mulroney government has been accused before of not
knowing where it is going. Now it apparently has decided it doesn't
want to know even where it should be going.
We did not write that editorial. It went on to say:
A long-range, independent view in economic and science policy is
essential to Canada's prosperity.
The swan-song of the Economic Council of Canada is titled: "A Lot to Learn". It is a report on education and training in Canada. Yes, this is the last one that we are going to see on such an essential subject.
We have seen many reports: "Crimes Against the Environment" from the Law Reform Commission; "Pulling Together-Productivity, Innovation and Trade" by the Economic Council; "The Canadian Agricultural Policy and Prairie Agriculture"; "Climate Change-Global Security and International Governments"; "Sustainable Farming-Possibilities Between 1990 and 2020," a discussion paper by the Science Council of Canada; "A Protected Areas Vision for Canada" by CEAC, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. The list is very long.
We will never again see the likes of it because of this backward, primitive, non-understandable, idiotic decision by this government. It is unbearable that the public interest be mutilated, amputated and so gravely damaged by such a decision of the Minister of Finance with the budget on February 25.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had another half hour to go on.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill this afternoon.
I would like to follow up on the excellent speech by the member for Davenport. As he has expressed, I am completely disgusted and mystified by the government's decision to do away with these organizations.
As the member has said, the Economic Council has been a source of pride for this country. Its most recent report on education is something which every Canadian should read. Therein lies our future competitiveness, therein lies the future of our young people and where we

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
are going as a nation. It is absolutely incredible that the government would do away with this organization.
The Science Council of Canada is another excellent organization which has been tremendous for this country. If only it had been listened to, we would have gotten so much more out of it.
A friend of mine was in Japan when the news that the government was cancelling the Science Council of Canada became public. He said that the Japanese were completely mystified as to why the Canadian government would cancel this tremendous organization. He could not understand at this time of global competitiveness that Canada, a country which is at the end of the spectrum except for Italy as far as R and D expenditure per capita is concerned, would not only not be making strides to increase its research and development, but would actually be going out and cancelling an important organization for the future of Canada like the Science Council of Canada.
In the time I have remaining I want to speak about the Law Reform Commission. As justice critic for my party I am completely shocked and saddened that the government would decide to do away with this very important organization. It has been at the foundation of new legal thinking in our country.
We only have to look to the situation in Los Angeles to see that we can never take for granted the evolution of our justice system and the evolution of crime control in our communities. We can never take for granted that we have the question of law and order under control, that our legal system is fine for the future because as our society evolves, our legal system must also evolve.
The Law Reform Commission was founded in 1971. Last year it had a budget of $4.8 million. That is a sizeable amount of money, but I want to give more of an idea of the importance of the spending of that money.
The work of the Law Reform Commission has been cited in 255 court decisions, including 44 decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. People come to you and say: "How many of the ideas of the Law Reform Commission are now law? How many of the reports have been put into statute?" That is a complete red herring. Anybody who would say that is a complete Philistine as far as evolution of the law is concerned. In the reports and the
thinking of the Law Reform Commission are ideas which have come forward for the future and the evolution of our society, our law reform, law and order and the proper progress of our legal system.
We have had these reports and these ideas cited in 255 of our court decisions, 44 of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Most recently, we have had decisions come forward that are now part of Bill C-46, the contraventions bill, which we are going to be debating in this House tomorrow. The Law Reform Commission came forward with the idea. That is the backbone of the contraventions bill, C-46. The Law Reform Commission came forward with that idea in 1976, sixteen years ago. Only now is this government putting these ideas into force.
It gives you an idea of the forward thinking of the Law Reform Commission. The government says it does not need the Law Reform Commission. The Department of Justice can take the place of the Law Reform Commission. That is not only a pathetic thought, it is a scaiy thought. It is a scary thought because right now you have the most retrogressive thinking in the Department of Justice we have had in this country in many, many years. It is so busy playing catch-up to what it feels it has to do that it is not even close at being the vanguard of legal thinking in this country. It is completely consumed with politics, completely consumed with damage control. For the minister and the government to say that this is the department that should be at the forefront of new legal concepts in developing the evolution of our legal system is absolute and complete ridiculousness. As I have said, that is a very frightening proposal for the government to make.
I will give another statistic that will put the Neanderthal thinking of this government in perspective. By doing away with our Law Reform Commission in Canada, we now join Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as the only three countries in the Commonwealth that do not have a law reform commission. We are not progressing in legal thought in this country. We are sliding backward. We are cascading backward in the very retrogressive and reactionary thinking of this government. We cannot possibly allow this to happen. The Department of Justice is prosecuting. It is prosecutorial. It is reactionary in its thinking a good deal of the time.
May 4, 1992

For the Department of Justice to prosecute and to say that it is going to evolve new legal thinking is completely contradictory. It is incredible that we are placed in this position. A great many legal scholars have donated their time. Many have been paid quite reasonably, although certainly not nearly as much as they would have been paid if they were in the private sector, in their own practices. They did the service with the Law Reform Commission because they believed in the concept. They believed in the concept of the Law Reform Commission and the necessary evolution of law in this country.
One comment that is important is that made by Mr. J. J. Camp, who is the president of the Canadian Bar Association. He said, in denouncing the action of the government in doing away with the Law Reform Commission: "I have heard it said that it was too independent. I do not think that is possible". It is a very important statement by a very important man in a very important position.
This country has brought forward some very good legal thinking in the past few years. It has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which we are about to amend. It has had court decisions based on this Charter of Rights and Freedoms such as the Butler case, which is on obscenity, which has resulted in the overturning of the rape shield law. It has so many other things such a good, sound legal system. We cannot allow this country to be offset by the ridiculous and negative and reactionary thinking of this government.
I call upon this government today to reinstate the Law Reform Commission for the benefit of not only Canadians of the present but for future generations in the very important evolution of our justice system in this country.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to use my time to comment primarily on the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, although the sentiments expressed by this side of the House throughout this debate clearly reflect the wrongheaded thinking of the government in eliminating these advisory committees and councils.
The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council I know very well because I served on that council for four years as a labour nominee. That council was
Government Orders
made up of no fewer than 15 members and no more than 21 members, in addition to the chairperson. The council was made up of seven members from the employer community, seven members from the labour community and seven members from the non-governmental agency community. Every piece of work that this advisory council did was a consensus document. The labour community was not always satisfied with what appeared in the documents. The employer community was not always satisfied with what appeared in the documents, and certainly the NGO community was not always entirely satisfied.
What did appear in the documents was a reflection of what all three parties were able to agree on. To me, that was very important information for a successive list of ministers of employment and immigration because they were consensus documents.
Therefore, the minister was able to take that documentation and say that it is a pretty clear reflection of where labour, employers and non-governmental agencies are on this issue.
When I served on that advisory council, we met regularly, we worked while we were at the council very hard. Sometimes we used to complain bitterly because we had cold sandwiches and old coffee. The energy level that was brought to the work of the advisory council was, however, quite phenomenal. The staff was excellent, and many of those people were seconded from other departments of the federal government.
We undertook studies which included an annual report to the minister on what the council felt would be the appropriate levels every year on immigration, studies on the difficulties with immigration, studies on the difficulties with backlogs, and on the employment side, a number of very important studies that truly reflected a consensus view.
I would like to briefly run through some of the documents that this group produced as consensus documents.
In 1982 the employment services to natives report to the Minister of Employment and Immigration Canada was a document that was produced at a time when we were in a recession, at a time when many Canadians were hurting in terms of employment but certainly the aboriginal community was suffering even more.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
This document talked about some of the difficulties and some of the resolutions to that problem.
In 1982 we also did a report for the minister on illegal immigrants. What we discussed in that study was how we felt the minister could best deal with what was becoming an increasing problem for the government; namely, the landing of the illegal immigrants and the subsequent difficulties in processing those people through our existing system.
In 1985 the advisory council did an excellent document on older workers entitled "An Imminent Crisis in the Labour Market". This report was presented to the then minister because again we were coming out of the recession but many workers from the ages of 45 to 55 to 65 had been displaced by the recession and were not likely, even though times were improving, to find themselves back in the work force.
This document provided a blueprint because while there were some safety nets for those workers, there were many workers who tended to fall through those safety nets and were left disenfranchised, if you like, from the world of work.
In 1987 the advisory council produced a document called "Canada's Single-industry Communities: A Proud Determination to Survive". I had the privilege of chairing the committee that did that study on single-industry communities in Canada. That document was a result of endless hours of hard work by representatives on the advisory council from all three groups: employers, unions, and non-governmental agencies, and what we discovered was that we are a country of extractors. Most of the population of the country lives across the 49th parallel and we go in and extract Canada's wealth and resources and then we move out. We shut down whole towns in some cases.
What we were trying to address was how we could ensure that, while the first shovel of ore is one step toward the closing of the mine, for example, we should be addressing ourselves to diversification so that we would not find ourselves shutting down two or three-generation communities and leaving ghost towns in Canada's hinterland.
What we found was that Canada had to make a decision of whether we were going to fly in and fly out
and extract resources or whether we were going to settle the north and central Canada and develop the infrastructure that would make those communities viable with alternate resources and alternate industries.
In 1984 we produced the youth employment report to the Minister of Employment and Immigration Canada, again coming out of the recession and finding ourselves with a lot of young people who had been disenfranchised for a number of years and who now needed to move into the work force. It was on this and how best to facilitate it.
In 1987 the advisory council produced a document called "Tax Policy Implications for Employment". That document was very important to the government in terms of the kinds of things that the government should be aware of when we had large amounts of unemployment, when we had tax implications of not having the full employment policy.
In 1988 "Innovative Approaches to Enterprise Development, a Lever for Employment Growth" was another document presented by the advisory council.
There was also a follow-up document called "Canada's Single-industry Communities: In Search of a New Partnership". That was a follow-up report based on an interdepartmental conference that was attended by people from single-industry communities and by the departments that would be impacted by the study.
In 1988 "The Unemployed Older Worker Phenomenon: A Problem that Will Not Go Away", was a policy note presented to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In 1989, there was an Employment and Immigration Canada report called "Regional Unemployment in Canada: A Nation out of Balance". In 1990 "Canada's Full Employment is an Achievable Goal" was a report presented to the minister again by the advisory council. In 1991 "Immigrants and Language Training" was a report presented by the advisory council; and in 1992, Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council did a report on unemployment insurance and part-time work in Canada; and "An Investment in People", a report on Newfoundland that the advisory council did where we travelled in Newfoundland and met with the people about the economy and provided very important recommendations to the minister.
May 4, 1992

To get rid of an advisory council that put forward this kind of consensus documentation seems to be so futile on the part of this government. Maybe it is not so futile. In keeping with this government's record of not listening to anybody about anything, this advisory council produced first-class consensus documents over and over again and I think most of them are sitting on some dusty shelf somewhere. I suspect the ministers much less their departments, have never read them. I think it is despicable. Throwing away this and the other commissions, committees and councils that the government is dismantling is bad thinking. It is bad planning. But I think in view of this government's inability to listen to anybody but itself that we should not be surprised by it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is our job as opposition party to criticize. It is also true that the bill tabled by the government is probably one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen since I came to the House of Commons, both in substance and in terms of the long-term impact on our country.
The government has seen fit to give the boot to the Economic Council of Canada. Granted, the council sometimes submitted reports that were pretty critical of this government and the previous one. But to claim that the Fraser Institute will be able to do the job done by the Economic Council of Canada is simply preposterous.

I cannot over-emphasize the importance of the institutions that are being closed down with one fell swoop by this government, first of all, because they were independent organs of public opinion outside the realm of government that were able to give us guidelines, directions, constructive criticism. They were organizations that could take the politics out of politics. We know the list and we know their contribution. Bernard Wood of the Canadian Institute of International Peace and Security is probably one of the most renowned names internationally in bringing people together, whether it was with the North-South Institute or in the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. What a
Government Orders
long-term deficit the decision to close these institutions will have on public thought outside the levels of government: the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada.
I would like to concentrate my remarks more specifically on an area that has been helpful to me personally in acquitting my responsibilities as a member of Parliament and also I believe has been a national and international leader in terms of taking our country forward. That is the Law Reform Commission. I have here a copy of a study called "Human Dignity and Genetic Heritage". As we speak, there are changes in science that touch the lives of men and women and children across this country over which there is no law, over which there is no jurisprudence.
Several years ago, I introduced a private member's bill in this House which dealt with the issue of whether or not surrogacy should be a for-profit activity in this country. My private member's bill which banned any possibility of renting your womb for profit and any profit-making surrounding the notion of surrogacy did not answer all the questions relating to human conception that we now face as a country, but it was one small step in a plan to have some national strategies to keep ahead of technology.
I introduced that bill several years ago, I believe it was six years ago to be precise. Do you know from whence I drew my most specific scientific data and information? I drew it from the Law Reform Commission of Canada which had the courage and also had the mandate to take these issues one step beyond the political arena.

Whether we like it or not, there are some steps in the legislative process that are not dealt with here in the House of Commons or in the provincial legislatures.

We are still waiting for specific legislation as it relates to the whole explosion of human reproductive technology. We know the difficulties now that have faced the royal commission in even getting a consensus on what we move forward on organizationally and yet-

May 4, 1992
Government Orders

-thanks to the Law Reform Commission of Canada, we have come out miles ahead of all other countries with respect to our ability to manage a very difficult dossier.

In 1983 the Law Reform Commission was examining euthanasia, an issue with which this Parliament has yet to deal.
In 1978 the Law Reform Commission was speaking out on issues relating to sexual offences, issues which we are still grappling with today here in the House of Commons.
In 1984 the Law Reform Commission was speaking out on extraterritorial jurisdiction.
I say shame, shame on the Minister of Justice and shame on the Conservative Party and shame on the Government of Canada that would silence a voice of reason, a voice of vision and a voice of independent, non-partisan critical examination of our laws.
Today the Minister of Justice, in response to legitimate questions posed in this House about the state of the nation, about how it feels to be a young black person in the city of Toronto with no job and no hope, said we did not need a national study because the minister herself had already invoked a specific clause and I quote: "Campbell used a rarely invoked power to request a study on whether the Criminal Code and other federal laws ensure fair treatment and equality of access for aboriginal and multicultural people".
That study will never be published. The study the minister quoted today as the reason for not moving forward on specific government agendas with respect to racial inequalities in this country was shelved along with the other agencies that were put to death by this government.

They are talking about the tremendous savings this will mean and how it will help the deficit. We already know, and the minister herself has said, that what was done by the Law Reform Commission will now be done in her department.
It is cold comfort for Canadians to know, for example, that the Minister of Justice will now be responsible for examining the progress we are making-

-on the Court Challenges Program.

How can Canadians have confidence that the Government of Canada will in an objective way analyze and criticize its own laws? It makes sense that an independent, impartial, extra legislative body can bring forward suggestions, recommendations, and very specific data to force parliamentarians to act.

We as parliamentarians have a very good example of a political dossier unfortunately, because what is happening today in Los Angeles affects us here in the Parliament of Canada. It is absolutely essential for us to have professionals, economists and legal experts, examine where we will be in 20 or 30 years. Do not kill criticism. We must realize that to live in a country like Canada, we need extra-parliamentary institutions to foster human rights and analyse our economic needs.

The government does not have the credibility to do the type of research it claims it is going to do and to silence organizations such as the Science Council of Canada, the Economic Council of Canada, the Law Reform Commission, and the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. It is a travesty. It is a travesty at a time when Canadians are looking for leadership outside Parliament and at a time when the big questions such as what happens to the whole issue of reproductive technology have not been answered here in this place and they need to be answered for the future of our children.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-63 because of all the irresponsible things that were included in the budget of the Minister of Finance on February 25. To a large extent it was a budget of smoke and mirrors. It was a budget that seemed to provide some minor stimulus and seemed to be doing something where in fact in most cases it really was not making any particular impact on the economy.
May 4, 1992

I think of the proposal for the food processing industry. A week before the budget came out an advisory group had recommended that the government double the capital cost allowance for innovative and expanding facilities for the processing and manufacturing industry. In fact, the government increased the capital cost allowance by 5 per cent.
That industry had had a 50 per cent capital cost write-off only three years before and suddenly it was down to half of that. The advisory committee on competitiveness had recommended it be doubled. In fact, the government increased it by only 5 per cent which was typical of that entire budget. Tb a great extent the budget was a shilly-shallying around of movements that seemed to provide a very minor stimulus. Certainly any of it that really was a stimulus was for later this year or early next year or it seemed to be meeting some kind of political agenda of the government.
When you come to the section of the budget which deals with what the government described as streamlining government, it certainly was not designed to only have a cosmetic affect. It was in one way. That way was that the government was trying to convince the people who are intending to vote for the Reform Party that here was a government that was going to lower the boom on everything in this Government of Canada that had anything to do with science or technology or anything that might be beneficial in the long run. It was really playing that whole mentality that chopping everything in government operations was a good thing to do.
That was the one direction of the government. One was to try to regain some of the support that it has lost to the Reform Party. I understand that there was a poll in Alberta just last week which showed that the Reform Party had something like 69 per cent. Obviously the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the House leader, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are absolutely petrified that they are going to lose their seats in the House of Commons, so they would destroy anything in the Government of Canada.
That is the one dimension that we are very familiar with in this House of Commons. The other dimension
Government Orders
that you have to think about is that these are independent agencies, the Science Council and the Economic Council of Canada, which often criticize the government. This is a government that is at 15 per cent or 20 per cent in the polls and does not need any more criticism than it is already getting.
When the Science Council of Canada criticizes the commitment that is made to R and D and aid in this country the government wants to silence that voice. It is just like a year ago when it chopped the CBC and native newspapers. If anybody criticized the government or its actions, it moved to silence those voices of criticism.
The government is killing off groups like the Science Council or the Economic Council of Canada, agencies that are not doing reports that will have much effect this month, next month or even perhaps this year. Their reports, studies and recommendations are sort of an early warning system of where our society, our science, our economy, our research and development need to be going in the long haul. Clearly, advisory groups like this are invaluable because governments by their very nature have to look at what has to be done today. If there is a crisis in the agriculture sector or a crisis in the manufacturing sector or whatever, governments tend to look at the short-term horizon, certainly not much beyond the next four years or the four year mandate of any particular Parliament.
The Science Council has done tremendous projects in the past. It is easy to just look at its publications to see the kinds of work that it has done. At the current time it is doing a study in agriculture on sustainable agriculture, clearly a very important subject. It is one that is very important because we know that we are facing an incredibly difficult time in agriculture because of the grain wars that have occurred between the United States and the European Community which has driven the price of grains down to the prices that we had in the 1930s. That is a very real and tremendous problem for the agriculture sector both in Ontario and eastern Canada, but especially for those grain producing areas in western Canada. Yet, society is demanding that we produce food with less pesticides, that we do not degra-date the soil, that we maintain the fertility of our industry and of the agricultural sector.

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
That kind of study done by the Science Council of Canada is essential. It has done many studies throughout the years on an unlimited number of topics having to do with international affairs, the impacts of studies in many areas. It has really become the early warning system, not only for this government, but for any government, as to what steps need to be taken in the long haul.
The government, because it is facing a political challenge by the Reform Party, says that 46 agencies have to be chopped. It will certainly impress its supporters in Alberta that it is really chopping down big government, regardless of what the impact is on the Science Council of Canada or the Economic Council of Canada. It sees it as good politics.
This is a travesty. It is a deed that no government should be doing. It limits the future of this government and future governments. It is something that needs to be reversed. It is a bad decision.
I wholeheartedly support the position that has been taken by the Liberal caucus to oppose this bill. It is a mistake, certainly as far as the Science Council, the Economic Council, and the Law Reform Commission are concerned. These are all agencies and bodies that operate in an independent way and make for a better country and a better future for Canada.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I know that we are discussing a government bill, but I do not see any member of the cabinet here to listen to the debate. I wonder if Your Honour could consider having the members of the cabinet attend to the House so they could participate in and listen to the debates that are being raised on their own legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think that the message has been received. That said, I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in again rising in outrage at the intolerable steps and the lack of foresight and, as one of my colleagues said, the sheer stupidity of this government in presenting Bill C-63, which reflects the budget priorities to chop six of the most important institutions of democracy in this country.
The 1992 Tory budget has already devastated Canadians and threatens to change the nature of Canada. We saw the government chop the Court Challenges Program, the only program that is available to disadvantaged people and minorities to fight for their rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It refused promised funding for the Race Relations Foundation and has not even proclaimed legislation. This week of all weeks we are so conscious of how much that is needed in Canada.
It cut funds for job development and cut transfer payments and assistance for children and families. We can go on and on. Now we have this Bill C-63 which continues the attack on the rights of Canadians and the institutions which are essential for effective, democratic government.
This bill, as we have heard, eliminates major agencies and advisory boards which have been established and have years of sound performance, doing major research, providing expertise and critical analysis of trends in Canada which are essential for sound government policies. These centres of excellence are essential to also provide advice and criticism, yes criticism-of course, that is what bothers this government-in a constructive way that should be used by government to improve legislation and to improve policies that in turn will build a better Canada. All six institutions are very important, not only to government but to the public of Canada to keep us better informed about trends.
Surely this investment is very little for us to be informed about essential and important policy questions and what recommendations are needed for change. The six agencies that are affected and will be done away with by Bill C-63 are the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Law Reform Commission, the Institute for International Peace and Security, the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development and the Science Council of Canada.
I am sure most Canadians, when they think about this, will realize that these are quite unnecessary and devastating cuts. Why is the government doing this? Why is it cutting important, essential institutions to save only a total of $22 million? It could have saved over $50 million by not establishing a phoney Canada-125 private corporation that is not even going to provide funds to communities for July 1 celebrations. Or it could cut the
May 4, 1992

prosperity agenda, a very phoney PR stunt which is costing over $20 million.
But no, it is proceeding with its decision to kill these institutions because it is afraid of what these institutions do. It is afraid of sound research and criticism of government policies. If ever any government needed it, it is this government. Just as it was afraid of advocacy groups, it cut the funding by 50 per cent for many groups in last year's budget.
Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have been commenting on the six institutions. It is well documented what they have done. I must say the debate has been very eloquent and very sincere. This is not political rhetoric. This is deep concern on the part of all of us.
My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam described in detail the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council which she was a member of for a number of years as a labour representative. Previous speakers on the Liberal side spoke eloquently about the Law Reform Commission. I recall the fact mentioned by one member that Canada will join Bangladesh and one other country as the third member of the Commonwealth that has no law reform commission now.
Is this what we want as Canadians? Is this what we will be proud of as Canadians? There are many legal and justice issues that must be monitored by a non-governmental body. We must have recommendations for changes.
I feel, as the member of Parliament for Vancouver East, that we need recommendations that the law commission was preparing on Criminal Code changes, a comprehensive study of the Criminal Code. I would like its advice on what we can do about hate propaganda, for example, and what we can do to counteract racism in Canada.
As the member of Parliament for Vancouver East, where our communities are being seriously damaged by the effects of prostitution related activities, I think we have got to look at the legislation on soliciting, remove it from the Criminal Code and find practical ways to protect neighbourhoods from abuse and to protect women from violence. There have been 25 murders of prostitutes in my riding. This has got to change. I want
Government Orders
some expert advice. It will no longer be available from the Law Reform Commission.
The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security was established in 1984. I want to pay special tribute to Pauline Jewett, then the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam, who played a very strong role in working for the establishment of this important organization. Its mandate is to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security. It was to do this from a Canadian perspective, a Canadian perspective which has proven to be so valuable internationally as well and well respected.
Its emphasis was particularly on arms control, disarmament, defence and conflict resolution. It has contributed to a growing wealth of information and knowledge about these matters and about peacekeeping, and Canada has established an international reputation as a primary contributor to world peace.
Why is this institute being chopped? Does the government think we have achieved eternal international peace, for goodness' sake? I want to say that those of us who were recently at a parliamentary conference in Cameroons, Africa heard constantly day after day from delegates about conflicts in the Middle East, the stalemate in Cyprus, a military coup which occurred in Peru, conflicts in Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union, as well as in East Timor and many other countries.
Why can the government not afford $5 million to keep this institute going when CSIS was given a $20 million increase and the defence expenditures for the Canadian Armed Forces went up $200 million? This is at a time when the cold war is over and we should be finally bringing our troops home and putting our investment in peace. For that we need the peace institute to advice us and to challenge government. We need it also to challenge the military industrial complex that continues to control expenditures. We have to find ways to create a peace dividend now that we are supposedly and hopefully in a time of peace. This is desperately needed particularly for women and children in developing countries.
I could go on and on. The Economic Council of Canada was not even warned of its demise. Just last week it produced a very important report on educational

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
reforms and government policies that are essential to reduce illiteracy and prepare young people for productive employment.
Our country is surrounded by oceans and yet it is cancelling the very body that is doing research in that area. Surely we need a centre for ocean development with scientific, environmental and economic benefits. The Science Council of Canada is one of the foremost bodies in this country to help us prepare for the future, and it is being chopped.
This government talks about the need for research and development and then it cuts one of the most important bodies that we have to assist in that. We have to make sure that the people of Canada know about this. Surely the government will reconsider. It is a small amount of money and we must have a voice of independent research, advocacy and criticism in order to function as a democratic country, particularly with a Conservative government in power.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-63 whereby the Government of Canada is terminating a number of agencies which in the past have provided valuable information to public policy makers in this country both at the national level and at the provincial level.
The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law Reform Commission and the Science Council of Canada, all these institutions provided valuable, reasoned information to public policy makers.
In the preface to my remarks I made reference to the fact that the government was terminating these agencies. It goes beyond the termination of these agencies. For me as a parliamentarian and as one who is concerned about public policy, one must be concerned about the over-all thrust and direction in which the Government of Canada wishes to take the nation as a whole. I will refer to two or perhaps three of these agencies in the few minutes I have.
The Economic Council of Canada is a body which has provided information to Ministers of Finance since it was
put into place some time ago I believe in 1963, if memory serves me correctly. This government has taken it upon itself that it does not wish to hear from Canadians, institutions or agencies of institutions whatever negative things they may wish to say about the government.
If one is a proponent of the government and of the policies of that government, one has a better opportunity in terms of its longevity. On the other hand, if one's sole mandate is not to be political or to suggest a political direction but is to provide reasoned, well-thought-out, well-reflected information on public policy issues of the day, I suggest this government has done what it ought not to have done, which is to terminate the existence of these particular agencies.
The Economic Council of Canada repeatedly provided information to the government of many different political parties of the day, but it has also been able to provide Parliament, academics, labour, business, various interest groups, non-profit interest groups, with information on important public policy issues of the day.
I believe it to be utterly shameful that the Government of Canada would embark upon this type of program when in fact we are in need of those agencies today.
A second agency is the International Centre for Ocean Development. We have heard repeatedly in this House from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whose absence is understandable. I am sure that the minister has other important things to do. It is doing away with this agency, the International Centre for Ocean Development, at a time when environmentalists, when people from Fisheries and Oceans, fishermen, and all such interest groups are telling the government that there are serious issues with regard to the fisheries at the present time. I fail to see the rationale for terminating such a useful agency as the International Centre for Ocean Development.
Yes, this particular agency was put in place some time ago, 1991 I believe, at the Commonwealth Heads of State Conference. It was announced in 1991, following the 1982 signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was incorporated into a non-profit organization in 1983, became a Crown corporation in 1985 and is dependent upon the Government of Canada for its appropriations.

It provides technical assistance, information and training programs to developing countries to approve their management and utilization of ocean resources as a source of food. There is a reciprocal thing there as well. It is not just a matter of giving information or technical support. It is also the beneficiary of expertise and of information on other countries across the world. It employed up to 74 people in the capital city of my province, namely the city of Halifax in the province of Nova Scotia.
Nova Scotian Progressive Conservative members of Parliament have a lot to account for in terms of the sins and the omissions that this government has inflicted on the people of Nova Scotia. This just adds to the list, adds measurably to the list of sins that the Tory government has committed with regard to the people of the province of Nova Scotia.
Why in the name of God would they want to terminate an agency such as the International Centre for Ocean Development when our fisheries, the backbone of the Atlantic economy, are in serious trouble at the present time? I do not say that as a fearmonger. I do not say that to be a politician seeking headlines in the newspapers. I say that as a matter of fact. If one talks to inshore fishermen, those who work in the offshore and those who work in provincial governments, one will quickly recognize the seriousness of the issues which are facing our fishermen and the resources of the sea.
To terminate that agency is stupid politics. It is stupid public policy. It is stupidity by the minister responsible who is bringing forward this bill and particularly the ministers who are aiding and abetting, namely the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and in this particular instance the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
There are other agencies this government is terminating with this particular bill. I refer to the Law Reform Commission of Canada. By profession I am a lawyer. By choice and by practice I am a politician. However I want those who are viewing our proceedings tonight to understand that the Law Reform Commission of Canada carries no brief for the Liberal Party of Canada, no brief for the New Democratic Party of Canada nor for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Government Orders
In the past it has sometimes demonstrated views to which I do not subscribe. Nevertheless they have been views which have been reasoned, well thought out, and have positive consequential effects for the implementation of public policy in this country. Now we have the government and of course the Minister of Justice going to terminate the Law Reform Commission of Canada as the Minister of Justice has terminated the Court Challenges Program, an essential element giving ordinary Canadians an opportunity to present their legal cases before some of the superior courts of this country.
To terminate the Law Reform Commission again adds injury to insult and shows once again the stupidity of the minister involved. It shows the stupidity of the public policy. It shows the stupidity in the fact that the government wishes to proceed at this time with privatization, in fact doing away with this particular agency.
In the moment that I have remaining I want to say to the government and ministers of the Crown that it is important they hear from a cross-section of Canadians on a variety of issues. Whether that information, those statements or their interventions are positive or negative, they are essential elements the government must take into consideration in the formulation of public policy in the best interests of all Canadians.
I am afraid this government is not only tired and has not only used up its usefulness in this particular Parliament, it is acting in a very stupid manner on behalf of all Canadians.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-63 should not be a surprise to those who have been watching this government closely over the last several years. We can observe an agenda that is totally disinterested in promoting programs that have longterm benefits, benefits that can be measured in terms of quality of life and in terms of future revenue.
Today Canada is the number one country in which to live because of the investments made in human capital decades ago. Canada has a tradition of investing in people. We developed a health care system and an education system that maximized the capacity of people to reach their own potential. It is the access to quality of health care and education and the prosperity generated

Government Orders
by that high quality of education that have made Canada the envy of the world.
It is the foundation of our success that this government has targeted for demolition. This government's Bill C-63, is an extension of its rejection of investments in Canada's human resource, our educated, healthy and secure work force.
Such investments are being rejected because the rewards will not be measured in time for the next election. This is a government that has cut real transfers to post-secondaiy education, transfers for health care and has refused to pay the human and social costs of its own policies.
In the short term, shutting down the institutions and commissions affected by Bill C-63 will have immediate political benefits in the eyes of this government. Money will be saved by the treasury to lower the nominal deficit and the government will not even be liable for the unemployment costs as insured wage earners alone will have to foot that bill through their UI premiums.
Fundamentally, these agencies are being disbanded because they run against the grain of the government's agenda. This government is simply cutting out the tongues of its critics. Let us take the Economic Council of Canada. The mandate of the council is to advise Canada as to how we can "achieve the highest possible levels of employment and efficient production in order that the country may enjoy a high and consistent rate of economic growth and that all Canadians may share in rising living standards".
We all know that high levels of employment are hardly a priority for this government. Price stability is the target and interest rates well above the rate of inflation. This government's agenda sacrifices employment, so why would the government want to hear from organizations whose mandates advocate high levels of employment?
The council's mandate to advise as to how all Canadians can share in rising living standards also puzzles the government. In February last year in the face of record crowds at food banks, this government proposed that new loopholes be put in place to allow the richest Canadians to avoid paying tax on their private trust funds for another generation.
That is this government's idea of sharing; the wealthy keep their private trusts and the poor keep their food banks.
The Science Council of Canada also has a mandate that is bizarre to government theorists. It is mandated to assess scientific and technological resources and advise the ministers as to how to take advantage of Canada's opportunities. This often means spending current dollars for return three, five or ten years down the road and beyond the horizon of this government.
Today, Toshiba rivals all of Canada in research and development spending-a shameful state for a nation of our size. The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council is there to advise the Minister of Employment and Immigration as to the effects of the department's policies and activities.
It must be really hard on the minister's conscience to have to hear from this body all the time. Worse yet for the minister, this council is supposed to make its opinions and recommendations known to the public. Could anything be worse for the hon. minister?
The Law Reform Commission has a severe timeframe problem for this government. The benefits from the modernization, improvement and reform of legislation, as would be proposed by the commission, will not be realized by 1993. That means spending $4.9 million this year to benefit Canadians later in the decade which is unthinkable to this government.
Bill C-63 is here for two important reasons for the government. First, these commissions are able to gather information, publish expert opinions and publicize objections to government policy. This government is not interested in public awareness. It has financially strangled universities and soon it will be able to silence several of these think-tanks as well.
More dangerous is the fact that this government is not interested in investing in Canada's human capital or in Canada's industry and technology. It has tied its political fate to the size of the current nominal federal deficit. This creates serious policy distortions that have no benefit for the Canadian public that may provide a political resource for this government.
The government has passed the costs previously borne at the federal level on to provinces and municipalities. In the last recession the government was forced to increase
May 4, 1992

transfers by more than 20 per cent in a single year to care for those left unemployed in the economic crisis.
The current government cap on the Canada Assistance Plan offers no benefit to ordinary Canadians but transfers the cost of crippling welfare rates on to municipalities and the provinces. Property taxpayers in my community pay this cost directly on their assessments.
No benefit is derived for Canadians. The cuts in transfers for education on health care are other examples of how the government is not focused on the well-being of Canadians. Bed closings, course cancellations and higher tuition fees reduce the general well-being of the public. These also represent a rejection of the Canadian tradition of investing in people.
This is a government that reaps the revenues from investments made by previous governments but is unwilling to make the same investment in future generations. That is the purpose of these organizations, to plan investments in Canada's future.
Perhaps the political myopia of this government can only be cured by an election.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we have all heard about the movie The Terminator. It is not a movie any longer. It is not Arnold Schwarzenegger. The terminator lives and is in good health here in the city of Ottawa. This year the terminator is Brian Mulroney.
With this bill terminating these important research agencies, our Ottawa terminator has become the first terminator to shoot himself in the head.
I agree and I believe all parties agree that we have to reduce the cost of government. There is no doubt about that and I am sure there are many things on which we could probably agree. There are areas that we could agree to cut without putting ourselves in a position of no return, or we would not put ourselves in a position in which what we cut would be fatal to our future in a research sense.
Once these agencies are gone, universities, private agencies, are not going to be able to do their job.
There are principally four reasons why I am against this bill. The first reason is that we are cutting important research agencies; shedding, cutting, terminating these
Government Orders
agencies without putting anything in their place. When they are gone, there is nothing else.
A second reason is that these agencies will be gone and will no longer provide a voice of independent critical analysis of this government's actions.

Mr. Speaker, you know as I do that in this House, one party is often blaming another for all the problems in the world. We do not always accept our own responsibilities; we are always blaming others.
But in such a context, it is absolutely essential to have independent agencies that can criticize the government not for partisan gain or for show or to win a Gallup poll but to give Canadian voters an idea of how the government is doing, a critical idea of what the consequences of this government's decisions are.
So just when we need these independent researchers, our government is dismantling forever-and I do mean forever-the agencies that provided this kind of information in the past.
The third reason that I am against this approach of the Conservative government is that it is using radical surgery when it might have merged some groups-it already did that in the past, and I even think that some groups were merged in a single bill. It could have spoken with the managers of these government research agencies to see how their operating costs could have been reduced. But no, it did not want to do that. It wanted radical surgery. Why such radical surgery from the government? Is it because these agencies did a bad job or not a very good job? On the contrary, the government has said many times that the Economic Council of Canada is an excellent organization, that the Law Reform Commission of Canada is an excellent organization. Well, if they are so excellent, why do we have to abolish them? Is it a question of cost? Then let us reduce their operating costs and keep these research agencies alive, because we will need them more and more.
The fourth reason, and the main reason that I oppose this bill which would abolish several research agencies of the federal government is that the $22 million to be saved-government is trying to save, but I am not so sure, since I have already seen savings in the past that were not really savings. This government claims that it will save $22 million from a deficit, or an accumulated

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
debt of around $161 billion, and here we are talking about $22 million.


An hon. member:: No, Phil, it is $400 billion, not $161 billion.


Philip Edmonston: Yes, that's right. One of my Liberal colleagues just told me that it is $400 billion, not $161 billion. I thank the Liberal member for telling me, because they are intimately acquainted with that debt.
Twenty-two million dollars will not make much of a dent in that debt.
Is there anything else the government could have done? I will try and give some figures that are a little more specific than the ones I gave earlier. If they really wanted to do something about our deficit and the cumulative debt, they could have saved about $3 billion by removing all tax loopholes, as requested by the public and by our party for many years because they are unfair to most Canadians.
Second, we could reduce the deficit by $2 billion or $3 billion by reducing interest rates. This is pretty straightforward. Reducing interest rates means our debt charges will be lower.
Finally, there is the matter of defence spending. By reducing defence spending by 25 per cent-the United States is already talking about a 20 per cent cut-we in Canada could easily save $3.5 billion, not million but billion. If the government really wanted to, there are a number of areas where it could cut spending.
There is something else I would like to add before my time is up. Perhaps the government should look at the way the Department of National Defence awards contracts to the provinces, in Quebec and Ontario. When money is spent without public tenders, whether we are talking about Quebec or Ontario, Hibernia or any other project, this is not right. It is not the right way to spend taxpayers' money.
Finally, I think that instead of using its research groups as scapegoats for all our ills, all our current problems with the deficit, the government should have taken a
good look at areas where it could really save billions, not just millions.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I really am distressed to have to rise and deal with this bill, particularly in the manner in which it impacts upon my riding of Halifax. I refer, of course, to the cancellation of ICOD, the International Centre for Ocean Development.
It is an institution that was started up some years ago in which expertise, not just that developed in Canada but world-wide expertise, could be funnelled through this particular organization to help other countries and most particularly developing countries. It is close to my heart and it is also close to my house. The centre is just down the street from where I live. There are 74 people who will lose their jobs because of the cancellation of ICOD, but there are also countless people around the world who will lose jobs and opportunities because the work that ICOD did will no longer be available particularly in developing countries.
It does not say a whole lot for a responsibility that Canada has on the international stage particularly in areas of expertise such as ocean development that we have developed in close to 125 years as a maritime nation.
What it shows again and again is that this government is losing any sense of long-term, long-range planning both for what is good for Canada and for what it can do to help to control in dealing with its neighbours.
There used to be an expression, and I am sure it is not peculiar to Nova Scotians even though we are known as "Bluenosers", about cutting off your nose to spite your face. That is exactly what the government is doing in this situation.
I trust that I am not being unparliamentary here but the cancellation of ICOD has to rank up there with one of the five most stupid decisions in the history of government action.


An hon. member:: One of the four.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I agree with my colleague from Quebec, but it is probably in the top three, maybe even in the top two.
May 4, 1992

At the same time we look at the other institutions that are being thrown out here. The Law Reform Commission. What kind of a country are we if we do not have a Law Reform Commission?
That is not to say that I agreed with everything the Law Reform Commission said and did. I frequently did not. In several parliamentary committees I had some fairly energetic go-arounds with the members of the commission when they defended some of their actions.
What kind of a government that is trying to run a country of the size and diversity and geography and everything else we know affects this country says: "Okay, we do not need a Law Reform Commission". It is obviously the same kind of a government that thinks we do not need an International Centre for Ocean Development. Obviously, it is the same kind of government that thinks we do not need an Economic Council.
Let me, while I mention the Economic Council, talk about this a little bit in the top five most stupid decisions of all time. I think we should possibly have some kind of an award that we can make for stupid government decisions.
We understand and we hear ad nauseam from the government members that we have to fight the deficit. It is true that deficits are not healthy. We all agree with that. It is true that we have to pay our bills. It is true we have to be fiscally responsible. But it is not going to do any of us a powerful amount of good if there is no country left when we pay off the bills. If we cut down all our institutions, if we throw away all our thinkers, if we drive all our intellectuals and academicians away, we are going to be a sorry excuse for a country.
I know there are some who said that some of these commissions were cut just because they were headed by women. I would never be so crass as to accuse the government of that kind of exemplarily stupid behaviour.
I do say that it seems rather interesting that the Economic Council was cut just after Judith Maxwell, an exemplary chair I might add, had told the government just how stupid it was being in a variety of areas. It makes me wonder.


An hon. member:: She was right.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Oh, she was absolutely right.
Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: And there is not one of them here.


Mary Catherine Clancy: No, not one because they do not want to hear it, because they know it is true.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They are hiding their heads in shame.


Mary Catherine Clancy: And so they should be.
I know that my time is limited, so I want to go back to the International Centre for Ocean Development. That, of course, is the institution from Halifax. That is the institution that is going to see 74 jobs gone from my city. That is the institution that is going to see a useful tool in international development and co-operation gone. Seventy-four jobs. I wonder how much help that was to the deficit. Not a great deal.
Many of those 74 people because of their technical expertise will find other jobs. But they will not find them in Canada. They certainly will not find them in Halifax.
What is going to happen in that case? They will go to other countries, to the United States, perhaps, to the European Community, to the Far East where people are more far-sighted than this government is about the kinds of planning and development tools and about the kinds of intellectual development necessary to the thriving of a modem day country.
Therefore, those people are lost to us. They are lost. They are gone. They are a loss to Halifax, and a loss to Nova Scotia. It is the whole country's loss and the honour and the development they bring will adhere to another country. It will not adhere to us. Canada will once again be left standing by the dockside, if I may say, with no participation and no involvement in what could have been long-term, beneficial programs for the world and bringing back honour to the country we all claim to love and serve.
I am very disappointed. It is a sad day for this country.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, in February of this year the government announced in its budget that it would be cutting, eliminating or consolidating 46 Crown agencies, corporations and commissions for a projected savings of $22 million a year.
Bill C-63 in essence is doing that with the first six of these poor corporations to go on the chopping block, the poor sick victims. One of them is the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, another is the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. The others are the Economic Council of Canada, the

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law Reform Commission and the Science Council of Canada.
One wonders whether the government has given a lot of thought to cutting these agencies. One wonders. Some might say that this government really has no idea where the country is going. Over and above that, it does not want to hear where this country is going.
But I will say that this government knows one thing for sure and it is governing all that it is doing over the next little while. That is that it wants to get re-elected in the worst possible way. So now all of its actions are going to be measured in terms of the next election.
What is the one of the first things that can be done at the same time killing two birds with one stone? One is to eliminate a lot of criticism. Independent bodies do not always say nice things about the government and that does not help the prospects of getting re-elected.
Then government members can also say what great managers they were, how they actually saved the Canadian taxpayers some money. So they are going to go back and say to the people: "See how good we are? We have cut costs to the tune of $22 million."
Now let us talk about cutting costs. While cutting off these very important agencies which fulfil a very important role within our country, the government has its own agenda on the side. It is this prosperity agenda, this agenda for competition. A lot of that is fancy brochures and fancy advertising gimmicks again geared solely to convincing the Canadian people that they should vote for government members. The problem is it is not working.
I am going to give you an example from a letter which I happened to read today. It is from a constituent of mine and it says: "Dear Mrs. Marleau: Enclosed you will find not one but three announcements from the Mulroney government announcing a new look to the unemployment cheques." Now, that is three announcements, and the person has enclosed them. "Being unemployed since a Christmas Day fire at the plant where I worked, I find
it unbelievable that the government could waste money on something so frivolous as new cheques."
Can you imagine? At the same time government members are trying to tell the people of Canada that they are good money managers, they are wasting money on all kinds of frivolous things, when the important things are going to be cut out. That is just one example.
I have also received correspondence from other people in my riding complaining about some of the glossy brochures that are being mailed out all over the place at the drop of a hat. There is no end to the amount of money being spent on that kind of propaganda. But when it comes time to fund independent agencies which are of a very good long-term use to this country, then we have no money.
In a hearing on the Economic Council of Canada I asked what the actual costs involved were in winding down an agency such as that.
To begin with, just in terms of the leased location, the Economic Council of Canada has an annual lease on four and a half floors in the Place de Ville building here in town at $813,000 a year. It is going to have to honour that commitment and the lease runs until November 1993.
It will probably move another government office in there, but it will still be faced with that expenditure. There is no saving there. Again, what about computers? What about libraries? This massive infrastructure will just be transferred to another agency and be maintained there, so there really is not that big cost saving in terms of the location at any rate.
The next thing is what the Economic Council of Canada was looking into. Some studies were on the demand of the government. One of them was on the government's impact on competitiveness. This was one project that it had undertaken.
I quote from a list of items that was provided to me: "The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of government on the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. It will assess the effect of major elements of federal, provincial and municipal policies with respect to expenditure, taxation and regulation on the ability of the Canadian economy".
Just before I sat at the finance committee and was given this particular list, there was a directive that we

form a subcommittee of the finance committee to study the theory of regulation within Canada. There was a budget and the whole bit, so now the finance committee instead of the Economic Council of Canada is going to study regulation.
We, of course, work very hard on the finance committee. We will do our very best, but none of us really are experts on regulation. There is another big factor at play in the finance committee and that is that the governing party always controls the end result. If it does not like it, it does not accept it. It does not go forward, so what kind of independent type of authority is it?
It may be somewhat independent if the members of the committee happen to approve. Otherwise, do you know what happens in a committee? If someone in the committee disapproves of what is going on, the government members stand up and walk out. Then quorum is lost and nothing is accomplished.
I want to tell you just one of the things that is happening. I know for a fact that the finance committee is actually asking to hire seven people to help. Why would the finance committee be doing this? Because the Economic Council is no longer doing it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They have a Tory majority on the finance committee to keep you quiet.


Diane Marleau: Of course. What it is doing is unceremoniously dumping an independent advisory council. Where will Canada's applied research be done in the future? Who will do the in-depth, long-term planning? Is it going to be the finance committee that is dominated by the party in power?
Will we be more and more dependent on the applied research that is done in other countries which will not be tested in relation to the realities of Canada? This at a time when the challenge of making wise policy decisions are more and more difficult.
The government says that universities may do some of the work. Some of the private research institutes may do some of the work, but these institutes are very biased. They do not have representatives of union, management or governments and it is essential that all levels work together. These agencies were links, they were bridges to bring these people together. First, they brought together ideas and then they brought people together in the end.
Government Orders
I tell the House that is the greatest loss. One of the lessons that we in Sudbury learned is that you cannot work on your own. You have to bring everyone in together and they all have to co-operate. This bill says that only the party that forms the government has any say in anything that goes on in the future of this country. That is despicable, and we should not stand for it.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the kind of debate we are engaged in tonight is what we get when we extend the rules of the House of Commons to its current absurdity, where the House gets the right to debate something that is as important as this bill, which attempts to dissolve a number of federal agencies, Bill C-63.
The agencies it is proposing to dissolve are six in number. The result of the kind of deal that was made earlier in the day, which permitted us to extend the hours to get on the record, has resulted in a victory for the opposition being able to talk to no one except perhaps the members of public who might inadvertently tune in and their television dials stick and they are stuck with this or nothing.
As we see, there is no interest from the members on the government side. Our persuasive arguments are falling on deaf ears. We are not going to convince any of the government members that they should be voting against this move on the part of the government in its attempt to save, as it says, $22 million, because there are no ears here to listen.
The $22 million that is supposedly going to be saved comes as a result of dissolving six government entities: the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Law Reform Commission of Canada, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the International Centre for Ocean Development and the two that I am going to concentrate my remarks on in my 10 minutes, the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada.
The reason I will concentrate on these two is that they are the two oldest of the agencies being dissolved. The Economic Council of Canada has been in existence for just over 29 years, while the Science Council of Canada has been in existence for 25 years. We are told by the government that it is just a coincidence that each of these agencies has over the last couple of years been headed up by appointees who are female and who I think have been doing an excellent job. The government has

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
decided that these high profile women will lose their agencies and their jobs.
These two agencies that I am worried about cost just over $13 million. The Science Council of Canada has an annual budget of $3.1 million and 29 person-years are allotted to that agency. The Economic Council of Canada, which as I said is 29 years old, has a budget of around $10 million. It was projected this year to have a budget of $10.3 million and would have used 118 person-years. The total budget for the two of them was $13.4 million, employing 147 person-years.
I put those numbers on the record because in my criticism of the government for having done away with this expenditure of money, I wish to spend a little time pointing out other places that the government could have made an equal or better saving of money. It was a decision that was well within the power of this government and the party that now makes up this government to have made.
I go back to 1988 after this government had served its first four years. It had a decision to make toward the end of that first mandate. It had to decide what to do about redistribution and how many seats would exist in the House of Commons. There had been 265 seats in this Chamber. For the 1988 election the decision was made to expand the House of Commons by 30 seats to 295 members. Expansion by 30 seats meant the government did not have to make any decisions in provinces like my own where the number of seats would have had to drop from 14 to 11, or in Manitoba where the same kind of thing might have had to happen.
Instead of facing that awesome responsibility, a hard decision for a political party to make-this is the government after all that claims it is used to making the hard decisions-it decided to duck it, not bother making that decision. It said in the backrooms of the Conservative Party: "Let us just expand the House of Commons by 30 members and then we will not have to tell some of these provinces we are going to have to reduce the amount of people they had representing them".
I am from Saskatchewan. I would have been one of 11 members instead of one of 14, presuming I would have won my seat, but my influence would not have been any less in the chamber of 265. In fact, it would have been slightly better than it is here, one of 14 members from Saskatchewan in a chamber of 295. The saving from that would have been in the neighbourhood of $15 million per year.
In short, it is quite a bit more money than we are saving with getting rid of these two agencies, the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada.
What do the 30 new MPs contribute to the economy of the country? They are entitled to employ 4.5 employees for each new member which means another 135 person-years being applied to the government payrolls; the 135 plus the 30 is 165 person years to sit in the House of Commons and to add to the already heavy pressure for office space around these premises and to supply more people. Was that a good trade? Was it a good trade to give up 147 people at the Science Council and the Economic Council for the 165 political types we get with the added 30 seats that come into the House of Commons? I do not think so.
Do we get objective analysis of government programs from these new 30 members? I am afraid we do not very often. The objective analysis we do get or did get from the Economic Council and from the Science Council is out the window when it comes into the House of Commons.
Did we get objective analysis of science policy with these 30 extra members of Parliament and their staff? Not likely. We only have a modicum of people in this Chamber with a background in science let alone science policy. I think it was a bad trade.
Where was the objective analysis with the 30 new members and all of their staff on economic policy? Well, it has not shown up in most of the debates in this Chamber. There are people with a background in economics and in policy in this Chamber but they cannot in a 10 minute or a 20 minute speech do the kind of work the Economic Council of Canada was able to do; studies which over the years included investigations into the questions of productivity, education, health, agriculture, employment, bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, the constitutional debate, and even retraining.
May 4, 1992

It was very efficient in its operations, using only 12 per cent of the money allocated to it for administrative purposes. Sixty-five per cent of its budget actually went into the research and policy analysis, and another 23 per cent of its remaining budget went into public information and consultations so the discoveries of the agency could be disseminated to the general public. A very efficient use of funds which this government has now taken away, a 29 year record of good service to the nation and this government is now throwing that away.
I say a trade-off for a political decision it could not bring itself to make back in 1988.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, this debate concerns the abolition of a series of government agencies that frankly have served Canada extremely well.
I am disappointed that the government has seen fit to introduce this bill as a follow-up to its budget announcement. It was wrong-headed. I think every member on this side of the House thinks it is wrong-headed. I am sure that all the members on the other side think it is wrong headed and that is why they have all departed.
I find it distressing that on a bill of this importance, a bill that arises out of the budget, that I speak to a House that has only Liberal and New Democratic Party members in it. It is a shame, a disgrace that there are not members of the other political party in this House present to participate in this debate and to listen to the comments of the members of the opposition which condemn this particular bill.
Recently I had occasion to travel to South Africa with two colleagues from this House who sit on the other side, the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington and the hon. member for London- Middlesex, on a trip sponsored by the Government of South Africa. The three of us were travelling together. One of the interviews we had in the course of our visit to that country was with a member of the South African Law Reform Commission. It was interesting to note that as our meeting got under way, the first thing this gentleman said was how impressed he was with the work of the Canadian Law Reform Commission. He said that the research that was done by that commission was some of the best they ever received. Of course, they had a regular exchange of documentation with the Canadian
Government Orders
Law Reform Commission. He spoke in extremely laudatory terms of its excellent work and of its excellent reputation in South Africa.
I turned to him and said: "Do you realize that in the budget released a few days before our trip the Law Reform Commission in Canada is to be abolished". He was shocked. I can only say that my two colleagues, who of course support the government at every turn, started to look as though they were suffering from severe mortification of the flesh because they were really grim-faced and said: "Wouldn't you know you would bring that up". They did not seem very pleased about it, although it provoked some amusement on my part at being able to mention it in front of them. It certainly caused them acute embarrassment and well it should have.
They should be here today debating this bill. They should be telling the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance what they think of this policy because the policy is a rotten one. It is not in the best interest of Canada or of Canadians. Not that the best interest of Canadians has ever been a concern of this government. I would not want to make it appear that I am suggesting that it is. It has not been. Canadians want an election to get rid of this government, the sooner the better.
There are three particular bodies that I want to mention in this bill. It is fair to consider one other thing and that is the financial aspect of it. The government said that by eliminating these 46 agencies it listed in the budget speech, it would save $22 million. Twenty-two million dollars and it would get rid of 46 different agencies. It is not much of a saving because after all, the budget of the Economic Council of Canada alone was about $10 million. Somewhere in this, there is something going on. Too many of the jobs are being fudged off somewhere else. They are probably being moved to ministers' offices.
Agency elimination is supposedly to save $22 million. This bill that we are debating today only deals with six agencies. So this bill is not the one that saves $22 million. It saves considerably less than $22 million because there are 40 other agencies to be scrapped that are not dealt with in this bill. In fact, by this bill, we are not saving very much money for the government at all. Frankly this morning I heard the hon. member for Windsor West suggest that the government could save this money better if it cut its advertising program with its wasteful

May 4, 1992
Government Orders
and extravagant expenditure as detailed in one small area by the hon. member for Sudbury a moment ago.
The savings are minuscule. The cost to Canadians in terms of lost opportunity, lost advice, lost attempts to bring together the various elements that participate in these agencies is going to be much greater than the $22 million, let alone the smaller amount that was covered as a result of this particular bill.
The Economic Council of Canada was established in 1963. I note in debates of that time that the Right Hon. Lester Pearson was the mover of the resolution that had to be moved in advance of the introduction of the bill. That procedure has been abolished but the fact is that he moved it first.
I was interested, as I looked through the debate in 1963, to find a speech by the then hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche, none other than the Leader of the Opposition in the House today. It was clearly one of his early speeches in the House on July 15, 1963 because he, after all, was first elected in the election in May of that year. I would like to quote something he said in his speech because the words are instructive and a clear indication of the way the Economic Council has served the interests of Canadians.

I quote from page 2216 of the Debates of the House for July 15, 1963:
In a word, this economic council should not be content to be a propaganda machine for the government, as was so often the case for similar bodies in the past, but it should be a living impartial and courageous body whose qualifications and work will give the nation confidence in it and which thus will be able to play the part we have a right to expect from it, namely draw up a master plan for our economy to ensure the well-being of the Canadian people.

The council has fulfilled that role in Canada. It did not become a mouthpiece or an organ for the government. It has been critical of government. It has suggested ways in which the government could improve its economic performance. It has done it consistently for a veiy long time to both Liberal and Conservative governments.
Finally, it is this government that has said: "We do not want to hear this advice because the advice, frankly, is critical of the disastrous policies that we have been pursuing in this country". That is the attitude it takes and so it has decided to close the council down.
The council has been served by many very distinguished Canadians, many of them from my own community. Dr. David Slater was a member of the council for many years. Dr. Deutsch from Queen's University, subsequently its principal, was, if not the first, the second head of the Economic Council. In its early days the council was particularly successful. Its annual review was an event in Ottawa. It was looked forward to as something extremely important and it received considerable press attention.
In latter years, with the proliferation of reports and the diversity of the reports that the Economic Council has produced, the publicity has been less. Nevertheless, the reports have had a significant impact. They have provided food for thought. They have provided interesting and useful advice to the government which, in the case of this particular government, it has chosen to ignore.
With respect to the Science Council of Canada, it is clear that the council has been providing advice that the government does not want to hear. It has undertaken a study of research and development in Canada among private industries and it is, I am sure, going to become apparent as those results are released that private industry in Canada has done something significant in that regard. It is the government that has failed Canadians in its commitment to research and development.
We keep hearing about the Prime Minister's desire to improve the climate for research and development in Canada. He keeps talking about the wonderful programs his government has implemented but most of the programs have been cuts and redevelopment of moneys that were already in the programs with a fancy new label, with a fancy new advertising gimmick, such as we had today on child care programs. There is a beautiful colour brochure produced advertising the fact that the government is undertaking something, but all it is doing is carrying on with what it was doing before with cuts. By putting a lot of gloss on it and publishing a lot more brochures and distributing them widely in the country, you somehow create the impression that you are doing something instead of doing less than nothing. That is exactly what the government has been doing consistently since it took office. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the cuts have been devastating for Canadians. Canadians know when a cut is a cut. They are not bamboozled by this kind of
May 4, 1992

Government Orders
advertising technique and they are not bamboozled by this government when it says it is going to save all this money by introducing this kind of bill.
Canadians will be the losers as the result of the passing of this legislation. Canadians will not win and this government knows it and it should withdraw the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since no more members wish to speak, the debate is now over.

Pursuant to order made earlier, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 5, 1992, at three o'clock p.m.

It being 7.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 5,1992