1992-04-29

Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufF-ville):: Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 days the world has heard incredibly good news about the Syrian-Jewish community.
On April 19 Syrian officials finally released the Swed brothers who had been in prison since 1987 without a fair trial. I was elated to hear the news that Selim and Eli Swed were released on Passover, a celebration of freedom for the Jewish people.
Then on Monday, April 27, there was welcome news that Syria will end travel and personal and real estate property restrictions on Jews.
As chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group for Syrian Jewry, I hope these developments signify the resolve of the Syrian government to end all discriminatory abuses of Syrian Jews.


NATIONAL UNITY RALLY
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, later today about two dozen busloads of constituents from my riding will be making a trip to Parliament Hill as an expression of support for a united Canada.
The idea for this rally originated with Diane Manion, a Brockville high school teacher, who, along with some of her colleagues and friends, decided to visit the seat of the nation's government.
This rally which started rather small has grown dramatically, illustrating that ordinary Canadians are concerned about Canada's future and are suggesting by their
trip to the Parliament Buildings that Canadians do indeed want to break the silence. They hope all other Canadian communities will express themselves in this or some similar way.
We should no longer take Canada for granted. The message is clear from my community. We are one united Canada.


QUEBEC POISON CONTROL CENTRE
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to announce that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is actively involved in a feasibility study on the development of a national data bank for use by poison control centres. A national data bank that would be available to provincial poison control centres would be an essential factor in consumer protection, especially where children are concerned.
When an accident occurs, poison control centres would be able to provide quick and specific advice to consumers and health professionals on what should be done and what kind of treatment should be given or where the victim could receive appropriate care.
I would also like to commend the Quebec Poison Control Centre for developing the TOXIN software. Users of the software will have rapid access to vast amounts of data on the composition of many different chemical products (drugs, pesticides and other toxic substances) that would be included in the Canadian data bank for poison control information. This work represents a major contribution to the health and safety of all Canadians.


FOREIGN DOMESTIC WORKERS
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration began his new live-in caregiver program on April 27 which continues a

April 29, 1992
medieval injustice requiring a foreign caregiver to live in the employer's home.
The government has failed to honour its promise of February 26 to give to the committee on labour, employment and immigration the studies he claims shows that Canada has no shortage of live-out caregivers.
I understand that the department officials gave the reports to the minister's office a few days after February 26. Nevertheless, two months later the minister is still withholding the evidence he claims justifies his live-in requirement.
The minister also began the program without publishing the controversial regulations for public comment and has often even refused my office a request for a copy of the regulation.
In fact his regulation does nothing at all to protect live-in caregivers from the kinds of abuse they have suffered, as he well knows.
I call on the minister to table both the departmental studies on this matter and the regulations today.


POTATO INDUSTRY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, potato producers in Prince Edward Island are concerned that this government is not being clear about possible compensation for their 1991 seed potato crop.
Due to this government's misdiagnosis last year where only 10 out of 96 cases were correctly diagnosed as PVYn positive, seed sales were lost for another year.
Yet there are mixed signals coming from Agriculture Canada about what type of compensation will be forthcoming.
Island farmers deserve better than to be kept in the dark on this issue.
Despite the knowledge that PVYn is not widespread in Prince Edward Island, despite the acceptance of the zoning plan put forward by the industry, Agriculture Canada, and the province, despite the fact there is no scientific justification for the ban, the blanket restrictions remain in place.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture to remove the atmosphere of uncertainty and immediately announce his plans to compensate Prince Edward Island potato producers for the 1991 crop.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, there were lots of headlines yesterday and questions in this House about a helicopter contract which went to a company in the province of Quebec.
It has been raised as a divisive issue suggesting somehow that Quebec is getting more than its fair share out of Confederation.
I would like to know where the headline writers were when the $1 billion military contract for new vehicles went to London, Ontario; where the headline writers were when the $1 billion contract for communications equipment went to Calgary and where were the headline writers when $4.5 billion went to New Brunswick for the frigate program? Where were the voices then?
Canada is not a balance sheet. But even if it were, the numbers would not look very bad these days. But I implore Canadians not to fall to this divisive rhetoric and stop looking at these contracts to Quebec as if they were different from any other part of the country.
We are proud of all the contracts let equally and fairly in all parts of this country.


CHRISTINE LAMONT AND DAVID SPENCER
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, as I speak, two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer are languishing in a Brazilian jail.
The tragedy is that they could be released and they could be released now. All the Canadian minister of external affairs has to do is ask, but she has yielded to technical and bureaucratic arguments and refuses to do so.
I am particularly concerned that the Brazilian trial judge said he was under strong political pressure to convict all 10 accused.
April 29, 1992

Surely the role of the Canadian government is to put Canada first and help Canadians in trouble abroad. The Canadian government is all they have.
I ask the minister, in view of the strong reaction from my riding and from other parts of Canada to her decision, and the indication today that members from all parties on the justice committee want to re-examine the case, that she refer the facts to the justice committee and keep an open mind about asking for their release in the future.


CANADIAN WOMEN'S ICE HOCKEY TEAM
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest) Mr. Speaker, congratulations to our women's hockey team on their medal-winning performance at the 1992 women's world hockey championships that were held in Finland.
In an exciting final game on Sunday, Canada beat the U.S. team eight to zero. This is Team Canada's second straight win at these championships which had its debut here in Ottawa in 1990. It makes them the only team to hold the world title in women's hockey to date.
I look forward to seeing women's hockey included in the Winter Olympics of 1998. Meanwhile, I am sure all parliamentarians and all Canadians join me in applauding the achievements of Team Canada's players and coaches, as well as wishing them all the best in the future.

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, for some time a work conflict has existed between Nationair and several hundred flight attendants who have been without a regular pay cheque since November 1991.
I have spoken to the president of Nationair, Mr. Obadia, and to representatives of the union. It seems to me that they both want a fair settlement.
Nationair flight attendants are mainly female although there are some male workers. There is a great concern about having them return to work soon. A mediator was appointed. Recently, he presented his report to the Minister of Labour.
I urge the minister to do all he can to bring about an end to the present work difficulties at Nationair. If possible, I would request that he make the mediator's findings public.


ONTARIO GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, Ontario's NDP government cries foul while trying to blame its own wanton ineptness on Ottawa.
But audited accounts clearly prove the total dollar value of federal transfers to Queen's Park have increased every year since 1984. In fact, during this period average federal transfers to Ontario went up 6.1 per cent each year, while those to other provinces averaged only 5.5 per cent.
Meanwhile, Ontario government spending has shot up 10 per cent each year, while federally we have held such increases to about one-third of that at 3.9 per cent.
Two successive Ontario governments have been on a spending rampage, and tomorrow Ontario taxpayers will have to pay.


SENATE REFORM
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional affairs minister indicated that we are making great progress on the building blocks of a constitutional agreement and that is good news.
But at the same time he expressed doubts and uncertainty over the prospect of real Senate reform and unfortunately, once again, refused to take a strong stand in favour of a truly elected, effective and more equal Senate.
Let there be no misunderstanding. There cannot be a fair and acceptable constitutional package without serious Senate reform.
The western and Atlantic regions are willing to compromise to keep this country united, but only if the same spirit of co-operation is shown by political leaders in other regions. The only way to have a new Canada is to have an effective second chamber representing the regions and holding the executive branch accountable.

April 29, 1992
Oral Questions
I urge the minister to make this kind of Senate reform an essential building block in a new constitutional agreement.


SPORTS CHAMPIONS
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, it is a day for recognizing our champions.
This last weekend in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, the Lac St. Louis Lions won the title in the Air Canada Cup, a national midget hockey tournament and the Beacons-field Lady Bison girls volleyball team captured the silver medal in the eastern Canadian finals at Charlottetown.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate coach Blair Mackasey of the Lions as well as coach Steve Leighton of Beaconsfield for their volleyball team.
[Translation\
On behalf of all residents of the riding of Lachine- Lac-Saint-Louis, I warmly congratule the athletes on both teams, and I also want to say we are very proud to have them in the riding.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For seven and a half years the Prime Minister has said that he is taking action to fight illiteracy. That is what he has told Canadians during two terms of office.
According to a report issued today by the Economic Council of Canada, more than one in four young people in Canada cannot even read a newspaper article and almost half cannot add up a restaurant bill.
The council goes on to say that if we pursue our current policies, the policies of his government, our schools could well produce over a million functionally illiterate people in the next 10 years. Does the Prime Minister realize we are sitting on an education time bomb? What has he done to diffuse it?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend probably knows Canada spends more per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world with the exception of Sweden. One of the factors that entered into the United Nations assessment of Canada as the number one nation in the world in which to live last week reflected on that commitment, broadly speaking, to education.
As usual my hon. friend has been selective in her choice of analysis coming from the report because the report indicates Canada is second only to the United States of America in average years of schooling. There are no significant gender differences of any kind in educational levels which is most encouraging, given the kinds of problems we are trying to solve-it was mentioned on the floor of the House of Commons yesterday-and the report says that access to post-secondary studies in Canada is significantly higher than most other countries in the world.
I would think my hon. friend might be able to see a little ray of sunshine in some of the things that are going on in Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I cannot find a ray of sunshine in the fact that almost half the young people in Canada cannot even add up a restaurant bill.

We know why the Prime Minister is winding up the Economic Council of Canada. He does not like being reminded that his policies are a total failure.
The Prime Minister can shut down the Economic Council, and he can try and muzzle his critics, but the fact remains that his policies are producing a generation of young people who do not know how to read and write. According to the Council, labour market adjustment programs are pitiful, training programs are pitiful, research and development is pitiful, and the same applies to the assistance given French schools outside Quebec. Every sector where the federal government has a role to play is a disaster area. Why, why, why?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the Liberal Party of Canada should bring such a devastating indictment against the provinces which, after all, have jurisdiction over education in this country.
April 29, 1992

The hon. member will have to admit, and she should tell Canadians and this House, that the government has acted in partnership with the provinces to help address the shortcomings of our system for acquiring knowledge in this country.
In the last Speech from the Throne-perhaps the hon. member would care to refresh her memory-we introduced our Prosperity Initiative. Two distinguished Canadians, Ms. Marie-Josee Drouin of Quebec and Mr. McCambly head a group that, in consultation with all Canadians, is trying to meet the challenge of the next century: the acquisition of knowledge. I think it would be of interest of the hon. member for the Liberal Party to show some desire to co-operate with other Canadians instead of doing nothing and always pointing to the dark side of our country, because after all, we have a wonderful country. Read the report.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the report says that Canadian young people are graduating from school without knowing how to read or write. That is what the report says.
The report also says that when you consider federal government initiatives; labour market adjustment program-poor; apprenticeship programs-poor; research and development-appalling; help for French schools outside Quebec-poor; the areas for which the federal government is responsible are a total failure.
I ask the Prime Minister this question. Instead of closing down the legitimate criticisms of the Economic Council of Canada, will he not open his government's approach to a real strategy to deal with the almost one million Canadians who may graduate without being able to read or write over the next 10 years?


Bernard Valcourt: Welcome to the real world. Mr. Speaker, these people should look at what is happening in this country. What is the prosperity initiative all about? We talk with individual Canadians all around the country and we ask them to be a part of the revamping of the education system. We have devoted resources and money to do it.
Oral Questions
Members opposite say that we are dismissing those areas where we could do better. It is not the truth, it is not a fact. The hon. member should come of age and see what is happening now and respect the fact of provincial power over education. Stop indicting our teachers and our schools. We are not doing that badly and we can do better-we acknowledge that-and we will do it with them.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard so much nonsense as in the first two answers. The Economic Council's report clearly points to a national crisis. This nation cannot afford to have one million illiterate young people join our labour force by the year 2000. It is evident that this government's policy on illiteracy has been a total disaster.
Why has the government allowed this problem to reach such a dangerous level?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks about hearing nonsense, obviously he was at his caucus this morning.
The fact of the matter is that learning is a challenge that all Canadians face. We have to respect the jurisdiction of provincial governments over education.
All we can do at the federal level is be a partner with the provinces, with individual Canadians, with our dedicated teachers in trying to improve the situation.
Members opposite are picturing Canada as if it is a banana republic in terms of education. That is not what the report said. It said we can improve. We are intent on improving education but we are not dictating to the provinces or the people what to do, but working with them.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
As you play your political football games with the provinces-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Please put the question.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister plays his political football games with the provinces, who loses out are those young Canadians who are being cheated by this government's system on this particular issue.

April 29, 1992
Oral Questions
My question is quite simple. What will the minister do differently in order to address this concern, this national crisis, and eventually address the concerns of the prosperity agenda, global competitiveness and lead Canada out of educational and societal chaos?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be too political, but that statement takes some gall.
It was his party that opposed in this House and in the other place a bill trying to target hundreds of millions of dollars to better train Canadian workers. It opposed it all the way.
Now he comes in this House and deplores the situation. What a bunch of-I will not say the word.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, he talks about global competitiveness. Welcome to the nineties. We are working with the private sector, and it will come up with an action plan that will hopefully address some of the problems that have been mentioned in this report. I think that Canadians will be all the better for it.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We learned today that unemployment insurance benefits now cost us $4 billion. Last night, the Prime Minister spoke to people in the Outaouais and told them that they would lose their jobs if Quebec separated.
Instead of frightening people, would it not be better if the Prime Minister created jobs in Quebec and everywhere else? In that way, he would make a country where people would like to live.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed the beginning of the hon. member's question, but I think that she is quite mistaken. I made no statement of that kind.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I am not wrong in the fact that unemployment insurance payments have gone to $4 billion in Canada. What this government should be doing to add to the unity of this country is not to threaten job losses but to create jobs.
This government has choices. It has instruments in its power for positive change. As was mentioned, we now have an illiteracy rate in this country of 20 per cent and according to the Economic Council there is the possible creation of another million illiterate young people.
The government has cut $100 million from the job training funds. Will the Prime Minister recognize that unemployment costs this country money and costs this country in human potential. When will he put his government's resources into training to reduce illiteracy in this country and to creating jobs? That will bring the country together.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to follow the socialists in their arguments. It is almost as hard as following the Liberals.
My hon. friend made two statements that I think she might want to re-examine. First of all, she said: "I think the unemployment insurance costs in Canada have gone to $4 billion". That is wrong. They have gone to $18 billion.
Second, she implied that I referred to that in my statement last night in Hull. I made no such statement at all, not directly or indirectly.
With regard to the separatists sitting back there, we will deal with them a little later. They are wondering about unemployment. The people who are going to be unemployed are those Bloc Quebecois separatist members sitting down there after the next federal election.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, in fact unemployment and social assistance cost this country $30 billion a year.
The financial costs, the human costs are huge. They are tragic and long term. I am saying to the Prime Minister, there are two ways we can go in building this country and making it stronger.
One is to threaten job loss, and the other is to make sure that we create jobs, have good training programs and have a fair tax system. With this government and its so-called tax reform those people making over $250,000
April 29, 1992

a year pay less taxes than they used to pay, but the unemployed still pay taxes on unemployment insurance.
When is the government going to make this country stronger, truly, by fair tax reform, creating jobs, attacking training and investing in Canadians, which is what the government should be doing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dishearten my hon. friend, but she is wrong again in terms of her figures. The numbers are not the ones that she used.
If she would care to consult page 98 of the budget, she will see that the federal government does not transfer the amount to which she refers. We transfer $42.35 million in direct major transfers to persons, and we transfer in cash and tax transfers to other levels of government for that purpose an extra $38.9 billion, which indicates the enormity of the contribution of the Government of Canada toward the provinces for use in their jurisdiction.
My hon. friend is criticizing us for areas of jurisdiction that are exclusively provincial, for example education. We agree that education has to be improved, which is why there is the prosperity initiative. We do not have the right constitutionally to insinuate ourselves unilaterally into the jurisdictional areas of the provinces under the Constitution.
My hon. friend is concerned about the level of constitutional illiteracy in the House and so I am trying to deal with it. With regard to the report, I share my hon. friend's concern about some of the deficiencies in our system. But the report is useful in that it underlines the government's message that education and training are key to Canada's ability to compete internationally. The targets set out in the report are generally desirable and consistent with those mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
In fact, to conclude, to indicate the advances that we are making, we actually heard from the Liberal Party today the word "competitiveness".


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
The minister claims that his government is committed to training. He claims that he has a modem and effective
Oral Questions
training and apprenticeship program. According to the Economic Council of Canada, today's apprenticeship programs produce a range of workers better suited for the job market in the 1940s, not the 1990s.
Will the minister of employment admit that his apprenticeship program is a failure, and when will he start doing something to help the hundreds of thousands of young people who need help to get a job?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, to continue the exercise of teaching constitutional law to the Liberals, apprenticeship programs are a provincial responsibility.
While apprenticeship is a provincial responsibility, the discussion paper entitled Learning Well-Living Well has outlined the major challenge which Canadians face in terms of having a better apprenticeship program.
I invite the Liberals to join with all other Canadians in trying to be part of the solution, not the problem.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the minister is passing the buck. It seems to me that he is spending a little too much time under the sun.
I would like to ask the minister about his commitment to putting people back to work. He knows that the drop-out rate is 30 per cent in Canada, that 70 per cent of high school students do not attend post-secondary education. They need help in finding a job.
I would like to ask the minister specifically: What is he doing for the hundreds of thousands of young Canadians who leave high school and need help in finding a job? Specifically, what is he doing?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know I must not do that too lightly, but whenever he refers to my colour in the sun in New Brunswick it is true that the republic of Madawaska has beautiful sun.

And where I come from, they know what I mean. [English]
As for the question the member raises, my colleague the minister for youth indicated yesterday that young Canadians looking for work benefit from programs for kids in schools, colleges and universities. For those youth who have quit school we have a host of programs trying

April 29, 1992
Oral Questions
to encourage them to improve their skills and knowledge in order to be able to get into the work force.
The hon. member would be well advised before criticizing Canada's youth to look at youth achievement-


Mr. Speaker:: I believe we must move on.


EDUCATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
The Economic Council of Canada report published today makes clear that this government is presiding over the development of a two-tier education system in Canada. One system, a slightly higher quality education system sustained by the richer provinces and another system, a lower quality education system barely sustained by the poorer provinces.
Does the minister think it is acceptable, coming from Atlantic Canada himself, that Atlantic Canadian students consistently demonstrate lower academic performance in the maths and the sciences and demonstrate a lower level of literacy in large part because of the $9 billion in education transfer cuts right across this country?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would not want to induce anyone in error. When he refers to cuts, I challenge him to look at the figures for transfers to education in Atlantic Canada. I will bet-I will not do that; it is illegal.


An hon. member:: Tomorrow it won't be.


Bernard Valcourt: I will not drive, either.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: I will tell the hon. member that we are just as much concerned as we can be with the question of the level of education in Atlantic Canada, and for that matter in all of Canada.
When we consider that last year 300,000 jobs went unfilled in Canada because people did not have the
skills, we know we have a problem. That is why the prosperity initiative has produced a discussion paper where we invite all Canadians to be part of the solution.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister knows the report today makes clear that Atlantic Canadians, when it comes to the quality of education they have access to, are fast becoming second-class citizens of this country.
In light of the clear evidence in this report, and I quote, "in light of the fact that provincial governments in Atlantic Canada are clearly struggling simply to maintain their educational system", what are this minister and this government going to do to restore access to all Canadians in every region to quality education?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of a maritime university I must take the responsibility-


Mr. Fontana:: Now we know what's wrong with you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want to point out for the House of Commons that a Liberal member of Parliament just said: "Now we know what's wrong with Canada".


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: I said you, not Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is a terrible statement for all of Atlantic Canada.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact this may break my hon. Liberal friend's heart, but Coline and I are graduates of the same university.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
In its swan song the Economic Council identified the fact that Canada is not number one in education or training.
What does the government plan to do about the fact that Canadian kids are not number one in preparation for entering school or leaving school, not number one in terms of vocational training, not number one in terms of numeracy, literacy or science skills, not number one with
April 29, 1992

respect to apprenticeship training availability or training availability, and that this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps there is a question there.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, this rhetoric does not take away from the fact that the United Nations thinks we are number one on this planet.
In that report the hon. member will find another element that was contained in the Speech from the Throne of this government when we invited all Canadians, all stakeholders, to be part of the solution. That is what the prosperity initiative is all about, trying to invite Canadians to acknowledge the need to develop a training and learning culture in this country; not excluding anyone from the challenge but doing it together. That is what the prosperity-


Mr. Speaker:: We really do have to move on.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the operative phrase in the question is: "What does the government plan to do?"
The council's report is a provocative indictment of the educational and training system of this country. It cries out for leadership and it cries out for action.
My question to the government side is: having killed the Science Council, having killed the Economic Council at this critical time, what action does the government plan to take in response to this report? What will it do to ensure that this country has the kind of policy analysis and research available to it to give leadership in education and training?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I share any concern my hon. friend has about any deficiencies that do exist in our system. No one has ever said that Canada has a perfect educational system.
In fact one of the reasons why we were considering the possibility of trying to bring in national standards and so on was to enhance and strengthen the competitiveness of our educational system.
Pursuant to the objective criteria chosen by the United Nations a few days ago and announced a few days ago, Canada emerged further to an application of some important criteria as the number one nation in the world.
Oral Questions
That does not mean that Canada is a perfect nation, nor does it mean that we do not have difficulties. On the educational side because of the exclusive provincial jurisdiction that exists, there are inhibitions on the federal government and the Parliament of Canada in respect of any interventions that could be helpful. We have to try and bring the provinces along and persuade them even though this remains an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
One thing we can do is, for example, to increase, as we have from $25.6 billion to $38.9 billion, our transfers to provinces in this general area to allow them to better help the citizens of their provinces enhance their skills and enhance their well-being. We are going to continue to do this, and I think my hon. friend would support us in that.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the minister of employment. For months this government has been absolutely indifferent to the faltering economy of metro Toronto which traditionally has been one of the principal economic engines of this country.
Yesterday a metro government report concluded and found that 8,900 Toronto firms last year alone either moved out of the city or went bankrupt.
Therefore I ask the minister: When will his government recognize that the bankruptcy rate and the mass exodus of these Toronto firms are tied directly to this government's economic agenda? When can we expect a change of course in order to stimulate, redirect and turn around this very dangerous economic trend?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be political, but when the member looks at the results in Toronto, I am tempted to ask what the previous provincial government and the current one have been doing about it.
He is not talking about the $350 million that we spent in downtown Toronto with de Havilland. He is not talking about the increase-I do not have the figure- the hundreds of millions more that we are going to be spending in Ontario, especially Toronto, on training.

April 29, 1992
Oral Questions
He wants to assign the blame for the global recession and the restructuring that has got to take place in the global economy to this government. Well, we are quite powerful. We have created a recession in the United States, in Japan, and in Germany. We are a powerful government. Thank you.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the minister of employment who I think is absolutely shocking and embarrassing in the face of the unemployment faced not only in Toronto but across the country for those kind of answers.
That same report found that the loss of those firms created a net loss of 65,000 jobs in Toronto alone and another 31,000 jobs were lost by the firms that remain because they downsized. What does this government have to tell those increasing numbers of unemployed Torontonians who are desperately searching for employment in a Toronto economy that is not only depressed, but shrinking?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to picture us as taking pleasure at seeing people unemployed.
Canadians will look at the economic policy of this government. The interest rates we are experiencing today are a result of the deliberate policy of the government. The inflation rate at the lowest in 20 years is as a result of a deliberate policy. All of these policies will help create the climate that we need to create jobs for those people. We could go at it the Liberal way by the illusion of-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will have to move on.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the minister of employment.
A comprehensive economic review of the Hamilton labour market released at McMaster University concluded that while 36 per cent of employees felt they would be laid off this year, an astounding 52 per cent of business owners and managers said they will be laying off employees this year.
Given that alarming fact, what concrete action will the minister of employment take to ensure that employees in
Hamilton and in any other city across this great country will not become statistics?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, what we will do for the people in Hamilton and everywhere in Canada is try to make these programs that are in place as helpful as they can be through the tough times that unemployed people have to go through.
We are spending this year in employment and immigration on the employment side $3.4 billion, which is $300 million more than last year, in trying to help those individual Canadians who are in this situation.
Of course, if the Liberal Party has any recommendation to make where we can improve what we are doing in this department in trying to help people without bankrupting Canada, I will listen to it.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion for the minister of employment and it does not come just from the Liberal Party. It comes from those Hamiltonians who are out of work. Employed or not, 68 per cent of those surveyed would prefer retraining and work programs over UI and welfare.
Canadians want to go to work. They know that retraining by this government is the biggest myth being spread that we have ever heard by any government in this land.
Will the minister commit himself today to implement programs to get Canadians working again to ensure that those Canadians who do have jobs never have to fear for losing them?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the member talks about training. We increased the level of dollars for training.
Over a two-year period, there has been a 120 per cent increase in funding for training unemployed Canadians. If my memory serves me well, they were in this House opposing this government and trying to block the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act that provides this money to needy Canadians. Now, the Liberals complain.
April 29, 1992


GOVERNMENT DOWNSIZING
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The February 1991 budget outlined plans for eliminating layers of management in the government and eliminating at least 475 executive jobs, or 10 per cent. This was to be done over two years. Since over a year has passed, I would like to know what progress has been made.
Second, because the recession has been much worse than anyone anticipated, many large and small companies have had to take further tough steps to slash costs and cut more employees. In light of the long and brutal nature of this recession, is the Treasury Board planning even tougher measures to eliminate more management jobs in government?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report through you to the hon. member that we are actually on course.
As of January 31, 1992, the executive group population has decreased by 320, that is 67 per cent of the reduction that was announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. We are, of course, continuing the downsizing, and we will have reached our target by April 1, 1993.
As for the last part of the hon. member's question, I would say that we are reviewing all our operations on an ongoing basis to make sure that they are very cost effective. We do not have any particular plan of more de-layering, except that we announced in the last budget the downsizing of a lot of agencies. We are proceeding with that.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
A mere five weeks from today, the United Nations Conference on Environment Development begins in Brazil. The success of this conference may well determine the survival of the planet. Because of the importance of this meeting, I am pleased the Prime Minister will lead the Canadian delegation. In contrast, the
Oral Questions
American President has indicated that it is doubtful that he will attend.
Will the Prime Minister tell this Flouse if he has been in contact with the President to urge him to reconsider and attend this crucial conference?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine what the reaction of the socialists would be if the President of the United States called the Prime Minister of Canada and tried to tell him what to do.
To save my socialist friends from any further anguish, which I like to do from time to time, I can assure my hon. friend that I have in the past discussed with the President and with other G-7 leaders the desirability of their presence at this very important event. I know that President Bush, like President Mitterrand, Chancellor Kohl and others with whom I have spoken, are hopeful of attending. They will make their own decisions pursuant to their own national agendas and national requirements.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this issue is beyond partisan politics. My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Tomorrow in New York there will be an urgent last ditch attempt to reach a legally binding international agreement on climate change. The U.S. is objecting to any commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, it even objects to the term climatic change. The U.S. is putting the rest of the world in peril because of its inaction on this issue.
What actions will the Prime Minister and the government take to make sure the world will not suffer by a failure to reach this crucial agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that the question of the environment is beyond partisan politics. She may be right but this will come as a great surprise to the member for Skeena. Although I tend to agree with her personally. I think that the environment is indeed a question that ought to be treated beyond partisan politics.
I take good note of the observations of my hon. friend. I think the Minister of the Environment has prepared, in co-operation with the NGOs, the provinces and so on, a good delegation that will represent Canada's interests and the interests of our friends and allies effectively and

April 29, 1992
Oral Questions
well-apart from the very important matter that is raised by my friend.
By way of illustration, we propose to broaden the agenda to the question of overfishing off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador where we believe that the destruction of the fish stocks is an ecological disaster. That, too, we propose to raise at the Brazil conference.
There are a number of very important agenda items that Canada will be attending to while we are there. I will be happy to seek counsel and support from my hon. friend and I thank her very much for her interest.


INCOME TAX
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue.
Tomorrow is the last day for filing personal income taxes for 1991. Many individuals who are not employed for salaries or wages are obliged to pay their taxes by way of a quarterly instalment system. This quarterly instalment system is difficult to manage for many people, hard to calculate accurately and easy to neglect to pay.
My question for the minister, through you Mr. Speaker, is this: What are the minister and his department doing to simplify and improve the quarterly income tax payment system?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will know that over the past few years we have been bringing in new technology and new systems in order to allow us to provide better service and greater efficiency, including for quarterly payments. As a matter of fact, beginning this year some one million taxpayers, which includes about 400,000 senior citizens by the way, will no longer have to calculate their quarterly instalments. We will be doing it for them automatically- a system which the rest of the world is envious of, by the way-advising them in advance, in writing, which will further reduce costs both to the government and the taxpayer. It will eliminate errors and it will provide greater service and greater efficiency to the taxpaying public.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that one of the worst environmental problems in Canada is the tar ponds in Sydney. His government and the government of Nova Scotia entered into an agreement in 1986 to clean up this mess. But there are cost overruns because of the increased cost of the technology of the cleanup and because the province of Nova Scotia is skimming off money from the project.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why his government is backing away from committing more funds to complete this project. Can he give the people in the Sydney area his commitment today that this program and this cleanup will be completed?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, in very many instances the protection of the environment is a joint responsibility, a partnership between two levels of government. I am very pleased that in the agreement to which the hon. member refers the federal government, in fact, has provided some 70 per cent of the cost of the agreement. Some $24 million has either been expended up to now or has been committed toward this project.
I could also inform the member that the Minister of the Environment met with the hon. Tom Mclnnis just recently. He made a commitment to the Minister of Economic Development that he would indeed consult or have his officials consult with those who worked on behalf of ACOA and those who worked on behalf of Industry, Science and Technology to see whether additional assistance could be provided.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Canada is pleased, imagine how pleased the Government of Nova Scotia is. It is just overjoyed because it is skimming millions from this project as a result of the weak agreement entered into.
In 1986 the federal government said this project was an environmental menace to the health of the Sydney residents and now it is backing away. The government's stupidity in the agreement it entered into should not fall
April 29, 1992

Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
on the people of Sydney and the health of the residents of that area.
What I want today is a commitment from the federal government that it will complete this project and the funding will be there for the completion of this project.
['Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the activities of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians. This report is about the meeting of the international executive of the AIPLF held in Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast, from February 27 to 29, 1992.']
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it should be noted there is an agreement covering the tar ponds development. Under that agreement, as my hon. colleague has said, we are making a 70 per cent contribution to the cost. The province agreed it would meet any overruns that were necessary in order to complete the work. If there are any overruns, it is clearly the responsibility of the provincial government.
Nevertheless, if it has any representations to make to the Government of Canada I am sure it will be listened to with great sympathy. Whether it will be any more than that remains to be seen.



Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency William F. Weld, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, and the Excise Tax Act, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the motion.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I would like to table the government's response to 14 petitions in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Andree Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the activities of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians. This report is about the meeting of the international executive of the AIPLF held in Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast, from February 27 to 29, 1992.



EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Employment Equity Act.
This report is a request that the special committee's mandate be extended to May 15 of this year. The committee's order of reference, as you will recall, stipulates that the report should be tabled no later than Friday, May 1, 1992. Due to the large volume of evidence and the complexity of the issues, your committee is at this time not prepared to table the said report and must request the extension.

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HOUSE MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
31ST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 31st report of the Standing Committee on House Management as per Standing Order 104. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (applied ethics research).


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, scientific research does not occur in a vacuum. It has an effect on the lives of all of us, especially when it moves from the laboratory to a greater society.
My bill proposes to amend the Income Thx Act to allow the deduction from income of expenditures on scientific research and experimental development relating to applied ethics research. In other words, applied ethics research would be treated by the Income Tax Act in the same manner as other scientific research.
With this type of support, I think we will advance technology and development in medicine, the environment and businesses.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Pagtakhan moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed carried.
Bill read the first time and printed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has requested agreement from the House to revert to reports by committees. Do I have agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for its understanding.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This report is a follow-up to the government's response to the second report of the committee. It deals with program evaluation in the Department of Finance.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 31st report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the first report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Employment Equity Act, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not had a chance to read the contents of the report. Can I ask the hon. member if in fact what this does is simply to allow an extension for the committee to continue its work.
April 29, 1992


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, yes in fact, as I indicated when I made the report, the intention is to extend the time for reporting from this Friday, May 1, until Friday, May 15.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to compliment the government but since I have limited time, I just want to say that it was our clear understanding that the request made by the hon. member was for an extension of time in order that they might complete the report and it would not be necessary to concur at this point in time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) Mr. Speaker, I move that the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House on Wednesday, February 12, 1992, be concurred in.
I do not want to take up too much time of the House but I do want to put on the record a few comments on this report.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the issue of parliamentary reform and procedural reform has been an issue of members of Parliament and of this House for some time now, going back to the Lefebvre committee in 1982 or 1983, followed by the McGrath committee on reform and work that flowed out of that, which of course was very significant. It touched on a number of very important issues for members of Parliament, what we call private members, and an attempt by the McGrath committee to make certain that members of Parliament were active
Routine Proceedings
participants in the legislative process and were members who felt that they had a contribution to make and when they had an idea, they would then have an opportunity to pursue those goals and ambitions.
The McGrath task force focused on several things, but probably chief among those several items was the reform that was done to committees. It was a veiy significant change, a change that took committees from having to wait for a reference, largely from a minister or from a department to be able to do some work, to the point that we have committees today that are largely self-starting, self-motivating and have an ability to direct the areas and interests that they want to direct and to be able to put before this House some very important work.
I think for the most part that has been a very successful process, a process that I think all of us, as members of Parliament, are quite excited about. We certainly have some concerns about areas that we may want to see improvements in, but I think in general there is a strong feeling among members that the committees are better than they were prior to 1984. That is why so many of us put so much time into the work of those particular committees.
The report did other things, including changes to the Private Members' Business process, the election of the Speaker, making sure that once again there was an independence attached to the Chair and giving a sense of members of Parliament being very much involved in the process.
The 22nd report of the committee on House management is another report in the long evolution of reform of this institution. We have entered a new time frame or time period of coverage of the House of Commons. At one time it was all printed word. It was a few editors or writers sitting in the Press Gallery and reporting what was going on in Parliament.
This has now changed dramatically. It changed back in the late sixties when the cameras first came into the House of Commons. Suddenly, for the first time, Canadians were able to watch, via these television cameras, the debates in the House of Commons as they were happening. That was a major change.
It had a major impact on what happened to the institution. If we think back to why it was done, particularly in the style it was done, there was a great deal of concern by members of Parliament. They did not want it to become a show per se, they wanted the television
[Stage Direction]
April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
cameras to be an electronic Hansard, a verbatim word for word picture of what is going on in the debates in this Chamber.
The management committee, recognizing the influence of television and recognizing the importance of it as a communication medium, recently put forward another report which was designed to open up the televising of the committees of the House of Commons. It will be an opportunity for Canadians to see where a good deal of the work of members of Parliament is done and let them see the environment in which those members are working. That was recently approved by the House.
The 22nd report, this report we are debating at this moment, is very much related to that subject. What we have asked in this 22nd report is that the cameras that focus on our debates during one time period of the day, Question Period, be allowed to change the coverage of this institution.
Right now we have the electronic Hansard format. The camera focuses on roughly my head and shoulders and that is the image that goes out across the country.
David Charles Dingwall: That is enough.


Albert Glen Cooper: Some would say that is enough but I can say at my particular height there is not a lot more.
We are proposing in this particular report that those camera angles be broadened a bit, not because of my height or my width but because we want to be able to give Canadians a context of what is going on. One of the things we have discovered in talking to people is that they find it very hard to relate to an individual face that seems to come out of nowhere and ask a question of somebody somewhere else, and that someone else is a head again answering. Canadians said no, wait a minute, we do not understand what is going on. We cannot put that in context.
This report is designed to allow us to open up a little bit so that the public will be able to see that if it is the hon. member for Cape Breton asking a question, he will be seen in the context of his colleagues. They will see the answer given to his question in the context of the cabinet members.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when you rise in your chair, they will see the cameras come back and see the Speaker in perspective with the whole House. In other words, the public will have a sense of both sides of the aisle. They will get an impression of where an hon. member is coming from and it will help them to understand the cut and thrust of the debate. They will see people on opposite sides of the House in most cases, as well as often opposite sides of the same issue, addressing one another in debate, which I think is an extremely important issue. The debate will make sense to people. They will begin to understand the relevance of these particular debates because right now they do not have an over-all picture. In fact, the impression could be that I am standing up to ask a question and my seatmate is going to stand up and answer it. They do not know where it is coming from. They have no sense of context.
Therefore, it is very straightforward. I want to emphasize that the committee agreed that this move should be experimental. I want to make that very clear for the record that this would be a 30 sitting day experiment. I am prepared to put that forward at this point in my remarks and to indicate that I am prepared to accept that suggestion from anyone on the other side of the House. It is designed to simply be an experiment.
We want Canadians to begin to understand this institution. This institution has not survived the televising of its debates very well. We believe that by allowing the public to see the questioners, to hear the answers in perspective, where everyone fits in the institution, what side of the House they are sitting on, where the Speaker sits in relation to the two sets of benches on either side of the aisle and what the Speaker is doing when, for example, there is disorder and noise and the Speaker is rising. But why is the Speaker rising?


An hon. member:: Disorder is always on the government side.


Albert Glen Cooper: I am not here to debate which side is the guilty party. In fact, I would have to confess that both sides are guilty. Mr. Speaker, I know you do not see it that way, but I have to admit that from my humble perspective from time to time it is this side of the House that is causing the disorder.
April 29, 1992

Canadians will then see that. They will see you rising to bring order to the institution and they will see why you are rising because they can hear the noise and they can see what you are trying to accomplish.
I do not think there is anything sinister about this 22nd report. It is a very simple attempt on behalf of all members to adjust to the televising of one part of the debate called Question Period.
I want to emphasize that this is the work of the whole committee. It is a report that was adopted by the committee and recommended to this House. I know that the vast majority of my colleagues support it. When it went through the committee it was unanimous. I know there is significant support for it.
I would certainly encourage other members of this House to take a few minutes to recognize the fact that we are in a new age and that we have had to adjust. We are all doing it. I think this is one of the ways we can make that adjustment here in this Parliament, particularly for that one event called Question Period that gets so much of the television attention.
This will allow the Canadian public to put Question Period in context, in perspective. It will allow them to better understand the cut and thrust of debate in this House during Question Period, a debate all of us would argue is very, very important in terms of the issues across the land.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene with regard to the motion of my colleague concerning the 22nd report of the House management committee.
The parliamentary secretary is somewhat selective in reviewing the process of this particular report and how it found itself in this Chamber today. I want to be clear so that the parliamentary secretary will have no doubt in his mind about where we stand with regard to the particular issue.
It has been a tradition that in reports from the House management committee we try to seek a consensus, a unanimous recommendation, particularly on those things which affect rule changes and performance and different aspects of the Chamber.
Concerning the wide angle camera shot, I was interested to hear the parliamentary secretary's new-found love for television and the televised proceedings of this Chamber.
Routine Proceedings
It behoves me to underline the comment that some have made that perhaps the only reason we are proceeding with this particular change is that there may be a federal general election in the offing. Members of the government side who have been hiding behind ministers and in the backbenches would like to have a bit more exposure on television. That is one argument. I am sure other arguments would be made by other hon. members.
It is rather peculiar that the government and its representative, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, would now want to put in place wide angle camera shots of the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could share your great wisdom with us, but I do not know if the Chair has been consulted. I do not know if Mr. Speaker has been consulted on this particular manoeuvre.
I somehow doubt that Mr. Speaker has been consulted with regard to this matter unless it has been a private deliberation between the parliamentary secretary and Mr. Speaker. I do not know. You might wish to provide additional information later in the day concerning that particular item.
I find it passing strange that this has come up months before a federal election. All of a sudden, the televising of proceedings of the House of Commons has taken on a priority by the Government of Canada. One has to be, not cynical, but I would think just a smidgen suspicious as to why the government and the parliamentary secretary, who is a very able parliamentary secretary-I want to tell you that that parliamentary secretary will not remain a parliamentary secretary for a very long time and will probably aspire to other great things within the government.
I wish him well in his deliberations to try to put a manoeuvre to win support in the back benches so that other backbenchers will be able to obtain exposure on television for the purposes of election I think is going a bit far.
I would have thought that the campaign for bigger and greater things would have embarked upon a different course of action as opposed to trying to put forward this report No. 22 of the House management committee.
I wish to make this very clear to the hon. member. It is not the number of members of Parliament who are shown on television screen, whether it be the opposition side or the government side, that is the concern of

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Canadians across this country. They do not care whether the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on this side, or myself or my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier, or the parliamentary secretary and his colleagues, are on the television or not.
What Canadians are concerned with is the quality of the answers that are coming from the government with regard to important policy initiatives or lack of initiatives. That is the major concern of Canadians.
I have travelled this country extensively. I have never had a citizen of this great country come up to me and say: "You know, Mr. Dingwall, you have to get Albert Cooper on that television more often because I watch the proceedings of the House, and I think it is very important to have Mr. Cooper on television more often". I have never heard or come across a Canadian who has made that request of me as an opposition House leader. I have never met a Canadian who has come up to me and said that more Liberal members of Parliament have to appear on the television. It just does not happen.
What does happen is that Canadians want the government of the day-and it will be for a short period of time, I am sure it will not be for a very long period of time. This government is not going to be around for a long time-to provide quality answers. The New Brunswick shuffle that the Minister of Employment and Immigration did today with regard to important questions relating to unemployment insurance, training, apprenticeship, arid illiteracy did nothing to add to the confidence that Canadians have in this institution. Whether the minister is on television surrounded by two members of Parliament or 40 members of Parliament, or 100 members of Parliament, that is not the issue. The issue is the quality of the answers which ought to come from the government of the day.
Quite frankly, Canadians have told us, and my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier has said to me repeatedly that Canadians have written to him, they have written to me and my other colleague from Ottawa Centre where Parliament Hill is concerning not only the quality of the
answers, but also the action which is supposed to take place as a result of government initiatives.
We have seen that this government acts on very little. We could get into a very substantive debate. I see my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who will probably want to enter this debate as well, but we could get into a very substantive debate on some of the major issues of the day.
Suffice it to say it is not the number of members of Parliament. It is not whether they are short, tall, whether they are as long or as wide as they are long, whether they have long hair or short haircuts like mine, or no hair like some other hon. members. That is not the issue. For the parliamentary secretary, a seasoned veteran of this House, to stand in his place almost with a tear in his eye and hand on his heart and say that wide-angle camera shots will help the confidence of the Canadian people in this institution of Parliament is rubbish.
I have had numerous dealings with the parliamentary secretary, both in his senior capacity as parliamentary secretary and at another time on the energy committee, when he was in opposition and I was in government. I have always found him to be a person of his word. But you know, the words today are a little bit different because when reading the 22nd report one does not find that these wide-angle shots are on an experimental basis.
In fact I asked my colleague, the hon. member for York West, to read that report for me and see if he could find whether or not it is supposed to be done on an experimental basis. I asked my colleagues from York North, Ottawa Centre, Broadview-Greenwood to read it. Not one of them could find where it is supposed to be done on an experimental basis.
The parliamentary secretary, the able individual that he is, who aspires to bigger and greater things, said in his remarks that this will be on an experimental basis. He said 30 sitting days, a term that he just rolled off as he had his hand on his heart and a tear from the eye and spoke about the wide-angle camera shots. He said: "30 sitting days". That is how he said it, Mr. Speaker. I am glad he said that because it gives me confidence in the relationship I have with him. It is on an experimental basis and will not be forever and ever.
April 29, 1992

But just so that will be crystal clear, I am going to be moving a motion, seconded by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the
word "That" and by substituting the following therefor:
the 22nd report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on House Management with the instruction that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that their recommendations be implemented for a specific, limited, experimental period of time of no more than 20 sitting days.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I still have a few minutes left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes. You have a few minutes left. I will take it under advisement. This will still be debate. The hon. member has another 10 minutes left if he would like to continue.


David Charles Dingwall: Twenty minutes?


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


David Charles Dingwall: Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought I might have more. But maybe there is a disposition within the House that with unanimous consent that I have unlimited time.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I heard a no. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has a point of order.


Mr. Harb:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I value my colleague's contribution. As you know, every MP in this House, including the Prime Minister, is a constituent of mine. As the MP for the constituency in which the House of Commons lies, I would like to see the time of this House used efficiently.
To that extent, I would like to move if possible to get unanimous consent of the House to allow those of my colleagues who would like to to introduce some petitions in order to get on with our work at the committee level. So may we take about four or five minutes to introduce petitions?


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do have some hesitation in agreeing to that because, as you know, there are several reports that we would like to concur in.
I do, however, want to indicate to my hon. friend that I understand members want to be able to table their petitions and move on to other work. Just as an indication of our good faith, we would be prepared to offer our consent to his request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are you allowing them to table their petitions? If any members want to table their petitions they may table their petitions, but I am not going to recognize them.
I want a little direction here, please. You can table the petitions by just giving them to the clerk or giving them to the table, or if you want to present them then that is another matter.


Albert Glen Cooper: Presenting them in the normal way would be acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Present them in the normal way? Thank you very much. I will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa Centre on petitions.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I want it to be official. I thought everybody had finished their discussions and we were going on to the NDP for their presentation. That is why I interfered. I did not know that my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond had not finished his presentation. Otherwise I would not have interfered.


PETITIONS
Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which is signed by many constituents of the Ottawa-Carleton region. These constituents are calling on this House to urge the government to promote and encourage the institution of national education standards in consultation with provincial governments, education professionals, industry and labour, parents, students, voluntary organizations and individual Canadians.

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
This comes immediately after the report which was tabled today by the Canada Economic Council.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also signed by a group of constituents in the Ottawa-Carleton region. These constituents are calling on this House to recognize the effort of many of the professionals who work in the arts and museum industries and to declare the week of the 25th to the 31st of May 1992 as National Heritage Conservation Week.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions on three different subjects which I have the great honour of presenting to the House of Commons, and specifically to the government, from constituents of my riding of York West.
The first petition is from hundreds of workers at the Downsview depot base in the vicinity of my riding.
This has been in the public eye of late. The petitioners are asking that the government reverse the decision that will cost 300 individuals their jobs and the loss of some $100 million of investment to the Toronto area.
At the very least, if the government is not to reverse the decision, they are asking the government to rethink the entire situation to be fair to all Canadians regardless of the region in which they live and in the best interests of Canada and our security interests.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Mr. Swannick of 9 Loney Avenue in Downsview who collected a number of signatures from his neighbourhood concerning the Constitution of Canada.
The petitioners humbly ask that, given the fact that this government has had a Citizens' Forum travel the country and that the Constitution belongs to all Canadians, this government not move without consulting Canadians in a national referendum. This is one of the nine points that the Official Opposition Leader and the Liberal Party of Canada have been advancing for some time.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the third petition again comes from constituents of York West.
They are asking that the Narcotics Control Act be amended so that the assets resulting from seizures of capital or real estate through drug busts rather than being funnelled into the general revenues in Ottawa be split with police organizations and local community groups on the front lines in the fight against drugs in our community.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House some petitions signed by Canadians in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario.
These people want to present a grievance to this House, namely that the Court Challenges Program, which enabled Canadians to assert their constitutional rights in court and have them clarified, was abolished by this government, as we know. These people petition this House to have Parliament reconsider the possibility of reinstating the Court Challenges Program, which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present and support a petition signed by over 400 constituents of my riding of Bruce-Grey.
Their petition draws the attention of the House to the fact that the sentencing for crimes of violence does not appropriately reflect society's abhorrence of violence, act as a true deterrent, or protect the public by removing offenders from society.
The petition calls upon Parliament to revise the statutes governing the criminal justice system to reflect social attitudes by amending the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.
April 29, 1992


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present, all on the same topic.
Nearly 7,000 people have signed these petitions stating that the murder of Nina de Villiers on August 9,1991 has exposed serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system.
Therefore, the petitioners request the Parliament of Canada to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and that Parliament should amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present several petitions.
These petitions concern the serious immigration crisis in the city of Toronto. Right now, the fate of refugee claimants, especially in Toronto, is a very serious problem. It is a serious problem because Canadian taxpayers are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars on a system that is not working.
The delay in processing claims is causing grave physical, social and psychological problems to our people.
We are calling upon the government to grant a general amnesty to all of these claimants except those who have criminal records or those who have questionable records abroad.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present three petitions calling upon the government to ensure that a referendum of the people be held before any constitutional change takes place.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I have the pleasure to present urges Parliament and 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. It is signed by people from all across the country
Routine Proceedings
and it is an indication of the concern that Canadians have about this particular issue.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with several dozen names from Elliot Lake, Ontario. Since the government has put forward a number of proposals concerning the Constitution and has held public hearings across various parts of the country in the form of Citizens' Forums these petitioners call on the government to utilize a referendum to seek the views of Canadians in a binding way.
This is one of the nine points put forward by the Leader of the Opposition over a year ago. These people obviously support the Leader of the Opposition's position in that regard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from a number of constituents, mostly on Manitoulin Island, from Little Current, Mindenoya, Kagawong, Gore Bay and a number of other communities from across the country. I would judge that several hundred names are on the petition concerning the case of the two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years in prison in Brazil and have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons, and discrimination in sentencing and parole.
The petitioners call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel the two Canadians from their country so that they may be returned to Canada.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cooper (p. 9841)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, assuming that we are now returning to the concurrence motion, I have had an opportunity to read my hon. friend's proposed amendment to the concurrence motion that is before the House today.

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I am certain that he does not intend this to be a form of filibuster or delay of this particular report. I take it as a genuine effort on his part to indicate to the House that he wants to ensure that this is done on an experimental basis rather than on a permanent basis.
I want to indicate to him that I accept that principle. We are prepared to accept an amendment to the motion right now that would allow the report to be concurred in on an experimental basis.
I have indicated on my remarks 30 sitting days. He has indicated 20 sitting days. I am quite prepared to offer to agree to 20 sitting days if that is what he would like.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there agreement? The hon. Whip of the NDP.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to participate in the debate. I certainly recognize the wisdom of having an experimental time period.
The reality is that even if the motion as originally presented had been passed this House can always revisit its decisions. After 20 days we could say: "Oops, we goofed. It does not make sense. Let us revert to the old way or another approach".
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader's suggestion that we accept it now is quite reasonable. We would be prepared to go along with that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a difficulty with the proposal put forward by the parliamentary secretary.
We cannot amend a committee report. The procedure at hand is simply to recommend that the committee be asked to reconsider and amend its own report and bring it back to the House. We will then accept the limited period of 20 days as an experimental period. It is not in our power to amend a committee report. That is for the committee to do. I want to debate this question. We do not have to debate it too long. He will have to accept that procedure being procedure whereby the committee itself is its own master, and if it is its own master it will amend its own report on the advice of the House.
We are not fighting this thing. We are just saying that procedure being procedure, it would be appropriate at
this time to leave the committees, since they are masters of their own work, to do their work properly.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, perhaps through you we can get some advice from the Table.
Even if the report of the Standing Committee on House Management was adopted as presented surely there must be an additional step which would change the Standing Orders of this House concerning broadcasting of the House. Surely that would be the appropriate time to make a specific amendment in terms of an experimental period.
I may be wrong, but surely the adopting of a report in this House has to be a decision of the House. It is a recommendation from committee that surely we have the ability to decide as a House how we are going to be broadcast.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the hon. House Leader for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to carry on with debate. I would like to discuss this further with the Table. I am sure I will be getting advice from the Table and from other sources. Maybe by the time the hon. member has completed his debate we will have the proper decision.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my concluding remarks by saying to the parliamentary secretary that I think that we are now making progress. Very clearly we are making progress.
There are some procedural things that have to be done but I suspect that we are now making real progress. At least I am sure that the amendment that I have put forward will be supported in principle by the government and it can go back to committee within a day. I am sure it can be clarified in the committee and then a new report put before the House and we could then proceed very quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Chair and yourself, and others that sit in the chair, will be consulted as to whether it is 20 days or 30 days. Maybe the recommendation of the parliamentary secretary is a reasonable one, maybe we could go to 30 days.
In fairness it should go back to the committee on procedural grounds, as my colleague has outlined, and also on substantive grounds. We are not looking to drag this out forever and ever but I think certain other individuals ought to be consulted with regard to that.
April 29, 1992

I am going to leave my amendment as it is because I think that the parliamentary secretary is trying to make progress. I concur with him that if we could pass the motion the committee could revisit the issue and then have it back before us probably later this week, if the House management committee was to agree with that.
In the final minutes that I have I would just like to reiterate that this line by the parliamentary secretary that wide-angle shots will be the panacea for restoring and reinstating confidence in this Chamber is a bit bazaar.


Dennis Joseph Mills: It is the exact opposite.


David Charles Dingwall: In fact, as my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has said, it could perhaps be the exact opposite. People will see on a regular basis, if those shots are taken, that many members will not be in the Chamber during the periods of time in which debate is taking place.
I have had students come here from my constituency, as I am sure have all other hon. members, and ask why so few members are in the Chamber. Of course the parliamentary secretary will argue that camera angles used during Question Period should be wider. He says that it is just for Question Period.
There are a lot of members who are not here during Question Period. In fact, some have pressing duties which may result in their missing Question Period for valid reasons.
Just the other day, I think it was on Tuesday, there were 14 standing and legislative committees taking place. Sometimes members sit through lunch and sometimes they have to miss Question Period in order to get lunch and carry with the deliberations that take place in the afternoon and the early evening. I am not certain, nor do I share the confidence of the parliamentary secretary opposite, that wide-angle shots will reinstate confidence in the deliberations in the Chamber.
It runs the risk, quite frankly, of the exact opposite. That is why we took the parliamentary secretary at his word-and I believe him as I am sure all hon. members believe him-that this will be an experimental basis. That is the reason I put forward an amendment to send the subject matter back to committee. If it is 20 days, 22
Routine Proceedings
days, 25 days or 30 days, we will take a look at that and then we will proceed.
He comes in here, hand over the heart and a tear in the eye, to try to tell me and Canadians that what we need in this Chamber is wide-angle shots so we can see the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who happens to be one of the better looking members of the cabinet. I will stop it there. He is not like some of the other ministers who are not good looking and who do not run their departments the way in which the hon. minister does, with some degree of sensitivity for the clientele he serves.
I wish to compliment the Minister of Veterans Affairs who led a delegation to Vimy. I understand Canada's presence there was well received. In particular the presence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, not the Prime Minister, was duly appreciated by those who organized the event and by the Canadians who had travelled with him.
Let us not be hoodwinked. Let not the media be hoodwinked as I think they are being hoodwinked into thinking the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary opposite of wide-angle shots of the House of Commons during Question Period will be the panacea in terms of changing the perceptions Canadians have of this particular institution.
The hon. member has not up until this date in committee or in this House-and I hope the media will search it well-provided any empirical data to substantiate his claims that wide-angle shots of all the members, either in opposition or in government, will in fact improve the confidence that Canadians have of the House of Commons. It is just not in the cards.
If they really want to improve the confidence of Canadians in this Parliament, in this institution, I say the ministers ought to take a course in terms of clear language and answer the questions which are put to them by the opposition members. That is what ordinary Canadians have asked us to do. They should answer those questions honestly, sincerely, and provide some action on major policy initiatives. Then we will see a confidence level of Canadians in this Parliament increase substantially.
To suggest wide-angle shots so that we can see the physique of the hon. parliamentary secretary more often than we do now is a bit ludicrous.

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings SPEAKER'S RULING


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think I should rule on the amendment. I find nothing wrong with the amendment, but I do have trouble with the parliamentary suggestion that it is unusual for the House to amend a committee report. I would like to refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, 1958, citation 323(2) which states:
A report in committee cannot be amended by the House, but it must be referred back to the committee.
Citation 322 states:
When the motion to concur is proposed the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend it in any respect. It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision, but if the House resolves that such reconsideration is necessaiy, the correct procedure is for the House to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
I think that is pretty clear. I regret that I cannot do anything more for the parliamentary secretary at this time, but I am sure that we will be able to resolve all our problems.


CONCURRENCE IN 22ND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if I may, before I enter into debate. It is my understanding that this Chamber, if it so desires through unanimous consent, can do whatever it wishes.
Perhaps Your Honour's ruling suggests by consent that we could do as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has proposed and accept the intent of the motion by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Whip of the New Democratic Party has just made a proposal. I understand the purpose and the spirit of it, but I must say as a parliamentarian that I am getting a more and more preoccupied with this habit of members thinking that anything can be done by unanimous consent in this House.
We cannot do just about everything by unanimous consent in this House. If it is unanimous consent to change a procedure I do not have any problems with it. If
it is a substantive question that members of the House who are not here do not know about, I do not think we have any authority to give that unanimous consent. I do not think the Speaker as a member of this House can ask for that because the Speaker, by asking for unanimous consent, gives unanimous consent himself.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that some of us are getting a bit uptight about this practice of some members, especially government members, coming in and saying that by unanimous consent we can declare just about everything; we can make June 25 Christmas Day instead of December 25. We just cannot do that and I beg, Mr. Speaker, that you do not ask for unanimous consent because I think it would be out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think I mentioned Beauchesne's fourth edition, 1958, and that it should go back to the committee for a decision.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I just heard you correctly, I heard you say that it should go back to the committee. That is not a decision for the Chair. It is a decision for the House of Commons.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very clear from this side of the House we are prepared to vote on this concurrence motion as it is right now. We are also prepared to say publicly here and right now, with the agreement of my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party, that we are prepared to do this on an experimental basis.
We are not interested in any games. We are prepared to concur in the report right now and we are prepared to say that we will do it on an experimental basis. We are not playing any games. We are prepared to concur in it at this moment, not having to go through the whole process of sending it back to committee and then listening to hon. members filibuster the issue for the third time.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. parliamentary secretary does not like it, that is tough. The parliamentary secretary has an option here. We accepted his word that it would be on an experimental basis. We found nothing in the motion itself, in the 22nd report, which would say that it would be on an experimental basis after having discussions both privately and otherwise. That is point number one.
April 29, 1992

We accepted his word, and he said so here today. Now what we have offered is a clear amendment. We could just have it go back to the committee. We do not have to sit 10 days or 2 weeks; we could do it in a day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry if I was misunderstood. The House can do anything by unanimous consent and I will ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. member:: You cannot, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House can do anything. I can ask for unanimous consent. If there is no unanimous consent-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are going to ask for unanimous consent then I submit to you that to protect the position of Speaker of this House you refer the whole question to the committee of this House responsible for studying the question of unanimous consent and how it is given. I submit to you that the best person to take that up would be the chairman of that committee who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for Peace River. He would enjoy and probably use his judgment and his wisdom in coming to grips with this issue.
By protecting you, Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to do today is to make sure that this House does not accept this concept that we can do just about everything by unanimous consent. It is nonsense to say that.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple solution to this. The House can concur in the report. It will take us two seconds. Then what the House can do is by unanimous consent agree that it is prepared to act on the report on an experimental basis. The House can do that because it is House procedures we are dealing with. It is the House cameras and the coverage of the House.
That is a very clear, logical option and we are prepared to offer it because we do not want to play games. Let us concur in the report. I am willing to indicate very clearly at this minute that we are prepared to agree to a unanimous consent motion to make sure that this is done on an experimental basis. We want to get on with the work of the committee which the committee members from all sides of the House have indicated they are supporting.
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would then like to ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the folks at home are probably wondering what we are doing. What we are doing is spending time in the House deciding whether to give me a camera shot like this or a camera shot like this. That is really what we are all about.
Perhaps the committee might have come in with a different recommendation, but it did not. One party in this House has decided that the recommendation needs to be modified, which is quite legitimate and fair game; but there are a lot better things we can be doing in this House on behalf of the people of Canada. We just have to think back to Question Period on the questions that were raised today. Ironically one of them was education and the literacy and competency of our graduates. I suspect that maybe we need some retraining here in the House as well.
I just want to make a couple of quick comments in support of the principle of opening up the cameras. First off I say that this is going to affect my caucus much less than the caucus of the government, or particularly the cabinet of the government, and the Official Opposition because what people at home cannot see in this House is the positioning of the cameras.
As I have looked at the tapes I have found that the shots of members of the New Democratic caucus are already much wider than the shots of members of the Official Opposition or the senior cabinet ministers just because of the positioning of the cameras, the focal length and the distance from this comer of the Chamber. It is not going to change anything for us. We already have, when my leader is up, eight or ten people behind her in the camera. Obviously as I am speaking today there is no one behind me. That is not going to change. People can see that there is nobody behind me today. I do have a colleague to my left.
People understand that members of Parliament have other duties. During Question Period most of us are in attendance in the House of Commons because committees do not sit. It is an interesting time and we get a lot of information. Any times there are absences with regard to

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
either side of the House they are because members are off doing the work of members of Parliament in their constituencies. We do not always have to be in Ottawa. Members may also be with a parliamentary committee elsewhere in the country or on an international trip either with a minister of the Crown or with the parliamentary association or even a committee. Therefore, the gaps we will have behind us will be reflected. One concern I do have is for the people back home who are viewing us. As the angle of the camera gets wider the person who is front and centre gets smaller. There are people with visual impairments who may be able to recognize my face today, but if the camera is widened and I begin to move back and become smaller, it is less likely.
For you Sir, when we go from what we have today of a very tight shot on the Speaker and the Speaker's chair when standing to control this place or move on to another speaker, the Speaker will be a very tiny dot in the centre of the screen. While it shows the whole House, it will take away from the public's understanding of what is happening. Again, someone with visual impairment who is able to see clearly today will probably just see fuzziness.
While I know there are times when you wish you were a wee bit smaller, I do not think you wish to be shrunk-


An hon. member:: Steve shrunk? You're dreaming.


Iain Francis Angus: What is the phrase? "Mommy, I shrunk the Speaker?"
Those are just a couple of light-hearted comments. I think we should move on and deal with the real business of the Parliament of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to thank the hon. member for calling me a very tiny dot for history.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Some dot, Mr. Speaker. He should have known you 25 years ago when you played football for Edmonton. He would remember that dot.
I am participating in this debate because I have an interest in the matter. I think of all the speakers today, I may be the only one who was here originally in 1977 when the House decided to televise its proceedings.
Before I get into the comments I intend to make on the report of the committee, I just want to say briefly that my objection to what the parliamentary secretary proposed today was based on procedure.
Procedure is everything around here. Whether people understand it or not, that is how order is maintained. We know the rules, we obey the rules and therefore, there is no disorder. There being no disorder, things proceed as they should. Once we start forgetting the rules, abandoning the procedures, then there is a disorderly situation which causes some problems for the House and for the people of Canada watching us.
In dealing with the unanimous consent that was requested by the parliamentary secretary, my point was he was putting the motion at the wrong time and was asking us to do certain things which I do not believe- and I think I am supported well by Beauchesne's and I could go on and read from the document that you quoted to the House which I think supports my point. Briefly this is that the House of Commons cannot amend a committee report. It has to send it back to that committee with a recommendation that an amendment be made and then it comes back here to be adopted.
We made that proposal today. We said that because the motion before us does not talk about certain things that we think have to be controlled by the Speaker, such as wide-angle shots, that the experiment have a time limit. We proposed 20 days. The amendment put by my colleague, the House leader for the Liberal caucus, was that the 22nd report be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on House Management with the instruction that they have power to amend the same, so as to recommend that their recommendations be implemented for a specific, limited, experimental period of time, no more than 20 sitting days.
It sounds to me like a reasonable procedure. It is within the rules of this House to do that. It is the accepted procedure. It is backed up by Beauchesne. It is
April 29, 1992

backed up by all of the authorities that we have looked at. It is backed up by an awful lot of experience here. I think it is the way to proceed.
The other question of course is unanimous consent. Can one ask for unanimous consent on just about everything and anything? I submit to you very humbly, Mr. Speaker, that in my 19 years here if we accept this so-called myth that the House can do anything unanimously at any time, we are wrong, dead wrong. If you look at the jurisprudence, and I am going to quote from Beauchesne, Beauchesne makes a distinction between a substantive amendment, that is something that touches the essence or the principle of something, and a procedural amendment.
On procedure I have no difficulties. If unanimously today we decide to change a procedure, I say good. If we all agree, that is fine. But substantively, it cannot be done, unless notice is given to all members of Parliament, those who are not here, those who are in committee, those who are in their offices, those who are in their riding, that indeed the House is going to do something substantive. I think I am well supported on that argument by Beauchesne. I will quote from Beauchesne.

This is citation 18:
(2)	The House is perfectly able to give consent to set aside its Standing Orders and to give its unanimous consent to waive procedural requirements and precedents concerning notices and things of that sort.
I continue:
(3)	The extent of what may be done by unanimous consent is not clear, and Speakers have expressed doubts over the years when members attempted to introduce amendments contrary to the principle of a bill or requiring the Royal Recommendation. 19. Whenever the House proceeds by way of unanimous consent, that procedure does not constitute a precedent.

We cannot change the principle of a bill. If you cannot change the principle of a bill by unanimous consent, and that is substantive, why could you change a committee report which is substantive in itself by having the unanimous consent of those who happen to be here today? There might not be a member of that committee here today and we would change the way that committee operates. We would change the standing commitment that we gave to committees that they are their own masters.
Routine Proceedings
If this question comes up again, I will come back on it until the Standing Committee on House Management deals with the question substantively and comes in to help the Speaker and help us understand better what unanimous consent means.

I wanted to get that off my chest because it has been bothering me for a long time.
On the motion before us today, the 22nd report of the committee recommends that:
Camera angles used during Question Period should be wider so that viewers can appreciate the context and flavour of the House: when the Speaker rises, the whole House should be shown, and when individual members rise to ask or answer a question, wider shots should be employed.

It sounds to me like something that is reasonable. Maybe we should try it. My House leader proposed, and I seconded the motion, that we try it for 20 sitting days to see if we agree. The reason I say that, and my party says that and my caucus supports this idea is simple. Go back into history. In 1977 the House adopted a motion to put television in this place and to give Canadians access through that media.
Many of us were concerned and worried that it would become show time. Many of us were concerned that it could be used to disadvantage some members. Our concerns were quietened by the fact that the Speaker, a very independent person, one we trust, would be responsible for the guidelines. He or she would decide how our technicians and our television people would broadcast this image.

There were no written guidelines. A series of events over the months and years since the decision to broadcast the proceedings of the House in 1977 led members, the media and the general public to make proposals and suggestions to tighten up the broadcast image a little.

The Speaker of the day had to deal with some complaints, justifiably some suggestions from members on both sides of the House as to the image being broadcast.

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I want to come back to a statement made in committee by the Speaker of our House, the Hon. John Fraser. It is in a report prepared by the Library of Parliament research staff. I would like to read a paragraph:

"At first, the guidelines given to staff concerning the shots and all other aspects of televising the debates were oral and rather vague. They involved no restrictions. Problems soon arose."
As the Hon. John Fraser, the present Speaker of the House, said recently: "Television directors saw the proceedings with the eyes of seasoned professionals trained in producing quality television programs. Just like Foster Hewitt of Hockey Night in Canada, their eyes followed the puck; this approach is not appropriate for members of Parliament, especially when the opposing team scores a goal". You see, they thought it was like televising a hockey game.
I am one of those who think that the game we play here is more like tennis than hockey, because the ball travels much faster. I think it is better to use the analogy of a tennis game than a hockey game. I do not want to criticize your analogy, Mr. Speaker, but I think that a tennis game is more appropriate, because the reply is important here.
It is useful to me when my opposite number in the House answers back.

The heckler is the most useful person in a crowd. We all know that in politics today. I love it because the heckler from the government side or the NDP side helps me in my cogitations, in my thinking in trying to come to grips with an issue that is being debated.
I do not find heckling difficult and I kind of like it. I do some myself once in a while, Mr. Speaker. You know that. I think it is a positive sign of good debate. It is healthy as long as it is within certain limits. Those limits are called decorum. In my view that is the essence on which the whole question of televising our debates should be rested upon.

Decorum in the House, parliamentary decorum, is important.
When there is no decorum, there is disorder. When there is disorder, there is chaos, and the system does not work.
I did not personally object to televising the proceedings of the House of Commons the way one might televise a tennis match. I never objected to that. I admit I had have some hesitation about having the person upstairs, who is non-partisan and non-political and who selects the images that will be broadcast, under the constant supervision of the Speaker of the House of Commons, and about the fact that the Speaker decides what kind of image, what angle will be used.


An hon. member:: Poor Jean-Robert.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Poor nothing. Don't worry about me.
There have been a number of incidents in the House of Commons, for instance in 1980, when the Conservative opposition literally rushed the Chair. You remember, Mr. Speaker. You were there at the time. A number of Conservative members had serious objections to one of the government's measures and decided to prevent the Speaker of the House from doing her job by disrupting the proceedings. If Canadians had seen what I saw, they would have been shocked and appalled. I cannot think of anything worse than to see politicians engaged in a free-for-all, It is not a pretty picture.
There were other instances when television could not tell the whole story. When, for instance, the leader of my party, John Turner, announced his resignation, his family was in the galleiy. He wanted to recognize their presence. The cameras, however, could not show Mr. Turner's family being thanked by Mr. Turner. I thought that was rather unreasonable. I think sometimes we should show a little more sensitivity and consider the human aspect we would like Canadians to see when they watch the House of Commons.
When a newly elected member enters the House for the first time, the cameras are not allowed to cover the ceremony or to follow the member. I think that is a bit outdated. There are also unpleasant situations when a member is named and has to leave the floor of the House. Here again, the cameras are not allowed to focus on that person, because he or she does not have the floor.
When a member crosses the floor of the House, and there have been several instances, it is a traumatic experience. In some cases it is quite unpleasant, but these things happen. This is drama, but it is not shown on
April 29, 1992

television. Why not? Because it is against the Standing Orders.
If we adopt the report for a certain period, I think it will be a very useful experiment. I supported the motion because I think that on the whole, the committee's report is positive. This may be a new way to give Canadians a more comprehensive view of our proceedings, instead of the restrictive single image of our electronic Hansard.

We now have essentially an electronic Hansard. The member speaking is shown from the waist up, or less, or his or her face is shown, and that is it. When I lose the floor to somebody else the camera moves over to that person. The reaction time of the technicians upstairs makes some members on this side of the House uneasy.
It is important that we be seen on TV. It is important that we be seen actively engaged in debate. It is important to us in a political sense, in my political career as in everyone's. Whether we like it or not McLuhan was right: the medium is the message. Sometimes it is not what you say, it is how you say it that is important.
For example, when people rise in their places to vote on divisions the camera starts with the Leader of the Opposition on our side. By the time the cameras have swung over to this side at the end of the row the member for Saint-Denis, who is the first on our side, may have stood and sat and the member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke may have stood and sat and the camera has not yet caught the image.
People will say to the member for Saint-Denis: "Marcel, we didn't see you on TV". Marcel was there but the TV camera did not have a chance to swing around because the reaction time is not fast enough.
We are going to have to ask for some patience. We are going to have to ask our technicians to use a lot of technical skills and possibly get some different lenses, technical equipment and so on. I do not know, I am not a specialist in that field. I know that there are some technical problems we will have to resolve.
Routine Proceedings
That is why we believe that (a) an experimental period is essential; (b) it should be restricted to the Speaker's control, the Speaker should have full authority on that; and (c) we must get rid of this myth that we have guidelines. We have no guidelines. You, Mr. Speaker, are the guideline keeper of the television broadcasting of the deliberations in this House.
I end my comments on I hope a positive note by saying to the government side that we are not filibustering this thing, we are not debating it in any negative sense. Yes, we think we have improved the report by proposing that it be sent back to the committee for reconsideration. Yes, we think that an experimental period is important. Yes, we propose 20 sitting days. Yes, if the committee acts promptly we will look at this very expeditiously and pass it, maybe even this week.


Mr. Ken  Janies@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, I am here in the House today because I sit on the House management committee. I have a great interest in House reform.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier says there is a media message. There is one message that the media and the people in the gallery have today and it is that the former House leader is filibustering this very important House management report. I think that is very sad.
He talks about his respect for committees in the House. Yet today he is disputing and denying his own members from his own party who sat on the committee and agreed to the report. I know he has been in this House a long time but I think that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Certainly he should respect his own colleagues who agreed to this report. I think that is a concern.
Also, earlier the House leader for the opposition took special aim at the parliamentary secretary. Certainly that was not called for. This was a committee report that the Whip of the Liberal Party, who also sits on that committee-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the opposition Whip.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct what the member has been saying. I am a member of the House management committee and I did not really support that report. What happened in the House

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
management committee is that the chairman rushed this report.
As a matter of fact when he presented it I warned the chair of the House management committee that the Official Opposition members present at that committee did not know. It was so fast. Yes, they supported it but let us not use that fact to impugn the motives of the member for Ottawa-Vanier on what happened in that committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. It is not a point of order. The hon. member for Samia-Lambton has the floor.


Mr. James:: I read with interest who was present. Mr. Prud'homme was present, as were Mr. Gagliano, Mr. Milliken and Mrs. Marleau. They were all there and there was no dissent. He said: "You rushed it through". That is not fair at all.
Also, to take aim at the parliamentary secretary as the House leader did was certainly unfair.
Wide angles are for everybody. I am surprised at the member opposite. He seemed to be talking positively about that but not wanting to concur in the report. If we are going to make progress on House reform we move along with it and do it.
He talked about being able to have the Turner family be seen yet he will not even agree to wide angles so that the people of Canada can understand what this place is all about. By using a wider angle they can see it as we see it here. I would think that the people sitting in the gallery today, probably for the first time after seeing the proceedings on TV, are saying: "Hey, this looks a lot different. Now I get to understand this".
As a committee we worked on House reform. I will try not to be partisan but from what has happened today it appears to me that the decision has been made by those, other than those who sit on the committee, on the Liberal side that they do not want wide-angle coverage in the House. Certainly, the participants from the NDP have looked for ways today to handle this and carry on with it.
To say that this is something new brought up by the parliamentary secretary, as was said earlier by the House leader for the Liberal Party, is very untrue. We go back
to the Speech from the Throne of May 13, 1991, the Third Session of the 34th Parliament. It states:
Changing the Way Ottawa Works.
Change is the hallmark of our age; in Europe, in Asia, in Latin America, old assumptions are being discarded and new principles are being adopted. In Canada, too, new problems require new solutions. There is a need for change in the way Parliament does business and in the way governments conduct their affairs.
It states that we have to make a change. Therefore, let us get on with making the change.
For over a year members have been working and discussing ways to make some necessary changes. It takes non-partisanship. We have to do it together. We have to work on these things together.
I thought I was on a House management committee that was non-partisan. We work, we do not have any formal way to go about things. Things are done easily. I take serious exception to the member opposite saying that something was rushed through. I was there. I thought we had a committee that would bring a report to this House with our combined agreement, then to have this sort of thing happen. This is not the first time. This report was filibustered by the Liberal Party when it was brought forward the first time.
What is going on? You say you want wide angle. Let us get on with a wider angle. I do not remember the member for Ottawa-Vanier being at the committee when we worked on all of this. Suddenly he is here and people are saying that they do not want it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There is a certain amount of truth that must be kept in mind in this House. I never said I was against this report. I have always said, and I spoke for about 20 minutes, that I wanted an experimental time put in. If the Tories want to play that kind of game we can be very partisan about that too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Again, that is not a point of order. I believe it is debate. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has the floor on debate.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, he has been in this House a long time and has a lot of experience. He is saying that he wants to have an experimental period. If it receives unanimous consent in the House then we take concurrence with what he says he wants and have the
April 29, 1992

unanimous consent to set the number of experimental sitting days.
Additionally, you say you have a lot of respect for our committee. Have respect then that the committee will go back and do that and bring another report to the House of Commons that says that it is 20 sitting days, if you want.
It seems to me we do that. I say to my friend and colleague opposite who sits on the committee, if that is all that the problem is, let us not argue any more. Let us not get the feeling that the Liberal Party is getting offside on this thing.
We carry on with concurring in the report. Then we can go back with unanimous consent here today with all three parties. The NDP has already agreed. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party would agree. There would be unanimous consent to x sitting days.
The parliamentary secretary and the whip for the Liberal Party can get together right now while I am talking and decide whether they want 30 days or 20 days of sitting. We could get this thing handled and get on with the other reports that are here today.
Everybody seems to talk about wanting this. I hear the House leader for the Liberal Party saying that he wants it. I hear the former House leader saying he wants it, so there must be a way that we can handle it today.
The House leader is saying that he has not heard of any Canadians who want this sort of thing. That is not right. Canadians do want to see more of what is happening here. They have been asking to see what happens here. They have been saying to all of us as members of Parliament that they want to understand this place better.
To say that heckling is good, I will tell you that heckling is not good and Canadians do not like heckling. If they do see that there is heckling, they want to see who is doing it. That will be very nice. When they go back home, they say: "You have been heckling".
They do not want their kids to heckle and they do not want their members of Parliament to heckle. I think we have got to get on with this job. We understand that to change, to have House reform is difficult because you need to have a genuine commitment from all parties. That is what I think we have to be adult about and carry on with. I think that is the order of the day today.
Routine Proceedings
With regard to the Spicer commission and what was said there, certainly the report came back very emphatically saying that Canadians want to have a better, stronger and more positive feeling about their members of Parliament. I think that the opportunity of having wider angle exposure in the House of Commons is an important part of all that.
I appeal especially to my colleague across the way who sits on the House management committee to find a way today to carry the debate or a way to get this handled because he is the whip of the Liberal Party. He is the leader from that committee.
Let us carry on with concurrence, set the number of days of experimentation and then we are away. I was about to sit down and say: "Maybe they are going to do something about it". Again it looks like the member for Ottawa-Vanier is going to hold out and cause a partisan Liberal situation in which they are not going to agree to House reform.
That is the kind of reputation that the people here are going to take home and that is what the people across the country are going to get. I would not think you would want that. I think you would agree that they want House reform and they want to see this place.
We have a way of doing it. There are two parties out of three. There is only one party that appears to disagree. Let us go with it today. Maybe the parliamentary secretary was out of the room. There was some indication it was done too quickly or something.
I certainly did not think it was done quickly. I thought it was the House management committee, if you are interested in committees. You indicate that you are. This committee works together I think in a non-partisan way in the main. We work hard and with not a lot of formality and we accomplish reports. Suddenly, those who do not sit on the committee are saying to those who sit on the committee: "We are going to stand up and have a way of having this thing go back to committee".
I have to appeal to you to talk to your colleague or colleagues who sit on the committee and say that it should be concurred in, that we should get on with having experimental days and do that. You should have enough confidence in this committee that we will go back after having concurrence and report to you within the number of sitting days. If you want 20 sitting days I am standing here today publicly saying it, and I know the parliamentary secretary would say it and I am sure

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
members opposite who sit on the committee would say it. You are all set. Right?
You want to send the whole report back because you want to delay. You want to filibuster and it appears you want it delayed. If that is what you do then I think the message to Canadians will be very clear.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will handle on a personal basis just what the gentleman said to me. I think that was unfair.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I just heard a member across the way tell us for 20 minutes that we should spend less time debating this. I could have found a way of doing things perhaps 20 minutes quicker.
The member across says he is prepared to accept the principle that the House will try this new system on an experimental basis of 20 days. I congratulate him for agreeing with the proposal made by the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I would like to ask him if that means he is agreeing to the amendment as proposed by the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. If not, what exactly was he saying?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I am not agreeing to the amendment. What I propose is that we have concurrence in the report today. Everyone here has agreed it should be an experimental basis. We are all on record as saying it should be. Then following concurrence we give unanimous agreement here in the House, if you want to, on 20 sitting days, or have the understanding that those of us who are all here-the whip from the NDP, the whip of the Liberal Party and the parliamentary secretary of the chairman are here, and I am here- will go back to committee and report again separately on the number of days that there should be an experimental basis.
Let us get it concurred in and then go on on that basis.


Don Boudria: I understood very clearly what the member is saying. He is saying agree to this rule permanently and then we will tell you to honour our commitment that we will only do it temporarily on an experimental basis.
If the member commits himself to having this new rule apply on an experimental basis, why does he not do just that? Agree to the amendment which will make this experimental for 20 days and then afterward there is nothing to stop us from having the rule on a permanent basis, which is what he is asking.
Why is he asking us to give him and others the right to have this ruled on permanently when he himself says we should try it experimentally anyway?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, because, and I think he would understand, you would have to go through the whole process from start to finish again. That is not efficient. That is not productive. Why do all that?
There is agreement that that is what we want to do. The member for Ottawa-Vanier even wants to flash it up into the gallery. Well my gosh, all we want to do with this is move into having a little wider angle so they at least understand the floor. We do concurrence and, if you do not want to go back to committee, then we just do consent right here. All three parties consent to the number of days and then we are away. Otherwise, in my mind and in my humble opinion, it is an absolute indication that you are attempting to filibuster and not let this sort of thing take place. I have not been here as long as some of you, but I just do not understand this. I do not understand with the good work that we did there, all of us on a non-partisan basis, and then to get people to walk into the House, who seemed to have this great loving feeling for committee, and completely upset what the committee did. That is not fair.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is getting to be more and more interesting. The member knows that if we accept what he is proposing, that concurrence motion without the amendment, we would need the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw it afterward.
Given that that is what we would need to withdraw it, or that we would need alternatively a new motion doing away with the old one or the effect of which would be to do away with the old one, if he is agreeing right now, on the floor of the House, to all that, why does he not agree to what is much simpler, much quicker and that which does exactly what he says he wants to do, which is to to
April 29, 1992

try this on an experimental basis and if we like it then we go for it permanently and not the other way around?
I guess some of this must only make sense to Tories, that you have something permanent with the alleged reason that you want it temporarily and that if you do not like the temporary permanent thing that you passed then you pass a new permanent motion to remove the permanent part and a temporary part to bring it back to what it was before you started. This is what the member is asking this whole House to do.
As I say, perhaps this makes sense to some people across the way, but in my book if you want something temporary, that is what you do and if you like it then you do it permanent. You do not do something permanent in order to achieve something temporary. It is just not quite the way it is done.
I have some reservations about this. I am prepared to try it on a temporary basis. If the member and his colleague want to accept that amendment, let us do that.
I am worried about another thing. We have talked in the past about such things as wide shots, reaction shots and so on. If I immediately were to stand in my place and ask a question of the Prime Minister, there would be an immediate reaction shot right now of the chair of the Prime Minister. What would the Prime Minister look like in that reaction shot right now? I know I would probably get a blank answer from the Prime Minister at this particular moment.


An hon. member:: You should read the report.


Don Boudria: I have read the report. I am just using that as an example of us trying something on a permanent basis when there is so much reticence to doing that. Let us do this particular experiment on a temporary basis. If it is agreed to at that point, the House leaders of parties can agree and we can proceed with the motion permanently. I think this is a suitable alternative. If the members across the way are willing to give us their commitment and are willing to agree with the amendment then let us proceed with it immediately.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, you talk about gobbledegook and goggledegab, you people must have sure heard it when you were going through all that route. It is very simple how we handle this. We concur, which takes no time at all, and then on the amendment in this House by unanimous consent, it can all be done in two minutes. If
Routine Proceedings
you want to talk about getting this done that is how you do it. Otherwise, you are sending a very clear signal to Canadians that you do not want House reform so they can see this House better.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I really did not have any intention of speaking on this particular motion when I came into the House today. It is funny, I have a young entrepreneur in my riding whose name is Jack Pavlakos. Every weekend when I go back to my riding, I sit down and have a cup of coffee with Jack. He manages the local Budget Rent-a-Car operation on the Danforth. He is a young entrepreneur who watches the repeat of Question Period day in and day out. I just cannot imagine what Jack is going to say when he listens this evening to this debate. This debate is so far out of touch with the reality of what is going on in the country, I just think it is setting us all back.
Canadians should know and must remember as well the reason we are having this debate today is that this is a government motion, this is a piece of business that the government put before this House of Commons today. To me, it shows that it must be pretty thin in terms of what its legislative ideas or programs must be. It has to be pretty thin to put forward a motion-and I am almost embarrassed to read it-that "the committee recommends that camera angles used during Question Period should be wider so that viewers can appreciate the context and flavour of the House. When the Speaker rises, the whole House should be shown, and when individual members rise to ask or answer a question wider shots should be employed."
I mean, really, if I were sitting at home right now without a job, I would scratch my head and think it is no wonder most Canadians feel this institution is not working.
When talking about the idea itself, it is strictly a tactical thing. It would seem to me that anything that we do in this House should show the House in its best light. There is absolutely no way that a wide-angle shot could possibly show this House in an improved light.
We all know that when we stand up to ask a question or give a speech in debate, we are focused and paying attention. We cannot expect people, five on either side of the speaker, to have the same focus on the particular issue. They could be preparing for a debate or writing an answer. There are a thousand different things that those

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
people could be doing. It is not just on the opposition side; it is also on the government side.
Often, especially on Thursdays and Fridays, members leave to go back to their ridings. We have members in this House who travel to the Northwest Territories and to western Canada, and so on Fridays the House tends to have fewer members present. This does not mean that less work is being done. The members are back in their ridings, or they could be on an international trip, or something. We are going to show all these empty seats during Question Period. It is not an accurate reflection of what is going on in this House of Commons.
I think this idea really needs a lot more discussion and a lot more debate. I, for one, certainly do not support this motion.
In my particular location here in the House in the far corner, I know that sometimes when I speak it appears that I am the only one in the House of Commons. Just last week after church, Father Tom McKillop at Holy Name came up to me and said: "Dennis, sometimes when you speak, the way the camera is, it looks like you are the only one in the House of Commons". It gives him a feeling that nothing else is going on here. I think a lot of Canadians feel that way. To widen the lens would only exacerbate the feeling of distrust that Canadians have about this place. We should be doing things to reverse the feeling people have and this motion works against that.
It is not a question here of filibustering. This is an example of where the government is putting tactics over substance. Quite frankly, it is also a sign to me that the legislative agenda must be getting pretty thin. I would hope after a day like today maybe Canadians would put some pressure on the government to put some legislation before this House when we could debate ideas, debate ways in which we can put people back to work, ways in which we can get our economy going.
I do not think Canadians really care whether or not that lens is showing five feet to the left or five feet to the right of me while I speak. What is important is what is being said. Quite frankly, if a wider angle was being used,
it would take away from the substance of the debate we are all supposed to be focusing on.
This is a serious issue and I apologize to my friend Jack Pavlakos who is an entrepreneur. To make a basic living these days he has to work six and seven days a week because the economy is not going as well as it should or could be. There are a lot of people out there counting on us to be debating the tough issues here, not whether we have a wide-angle lens or not.
I hope a debate like this will not be seen again for a long, long time to come. Maybe before we even bring it to this House we should have it organized in a way that it does not have to take up the entire floor of the House of Commons.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his remarks on this issue. It is true that while Canadians are suffering from the economy we are debating something that definitely I do not think is as important as the government wants us to believe. That is that we have wider angles during Question Period.
I was just sitting here reading the motion. It does not make sense. "Camera angles used during Question Period should be wider so a viewer can appreciate the context, the flavour, of the House. When the Speaker rises the whole House should be shown and when individual members rise to ask or answer a question wider shots should be employed." How much wider? Would it take two sections, three sections? There is nothing in this motion.
This is how this government operates. This is a motion of the government. In the House management committee we had months of debate on the broadcasting of committees and we looked over all of these things. We had witnesses. All the media representatives came before the committee, camera experts, and so on.
In the report we approved unanimously three weeks ago in this House there was no wide-angle business because we looked at it. Even in the same report it was recognized that some members had reservations about these changes. Still the government pushes and goes ahead. This is the type of government that does not care enough.
April 29, 1992

The tradition of this House has been every time we change the rules, when we want to do something and we want unanimous consent of the three parties, when the three parties agree, whether it is an order in the House, whether it is broadcasting, we can show Canadians that we can work in this House together.
Since May 1991, this government forced its majority in order to change the rules of the House. Now it is forcing this issue. We agree in principle and we will say that by way of our amendment. But let us try it on a temporary basis for 20 days. Let us see how it works because this motion does not have any details. Still, those members do not want to agree to it. They still want something else.
First of all, I agree with what my colleague said. Maybe he can go a little bit further and say that Toronto used to be the place where every Canadian dreamed the economy was good. All of a sudden, we find through the fault of this government because of the GST, free trade, the high dollar and high interest rates, Toronto is becoming a depressed area.
Could he comment? Could he say what he started to say? What does his electorate think, those who are watching us today who have no job while we are worrying about whether we should have a wide angle or not instead of this government bringing in legislation to help Canadians find jobs?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague, our Whip, the people of Canada right now want us to be talking about tax reform.
They want us to be talking about ways that we can put people back to work. They expect us to be doing that. They would like us to have a good debate in this House on how we could maybe motivate the banking community of this country, the financial institutions, to maybe be a little bit more sensitive to loans for small and mediumsized businesses in this country.
These are the things that my friend Jack Pavlakos and many of his other friends want us to talk about. I do not know if I could go along the Danforth or along Queen Street and say to the small businessmen: "Listen, we are going to have a debate this week. The government is putting forward a debate to see whether or not we should have a wide-angle lens on the camera in the House of Commons. What are your views on this?" If I would dare suggest that to a small businessman who is struggling
Routine Proceedings
today or to someone who is out there looking for a job, if I were to risk asking what they thought about that issue, I would be blown out of the water. They would think that I was lost.
I have said already that it is a bad idea. I do not even agree with this idea on an experimental basis. Who are these camera experts who say that it is better to have a wide-angle lens? Who are these so-called experts? Who do they work for? What is motivating them?
Right now if a wide-angle lens were to be used, we would see my colleague here writing. He is probably writing a very important note to one of his constituents, or a question. Maybe on camera that would take away from the point being debated. Somebody over here might be reading an important article in a newspaper. Does it make his work any less important than the point that I am trying to make? A wide-angle lens is going to take away from the real debate here because it is a distraction.
I want to congratulate the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs for getting behind the idea of a National Unity Hockey Tournament. We brought together 1,200 young Canadians from 58 cities across Canada to Toronto for nine days. It was a cultural exchange and hockey was just the instrument, not the focal point.
On the Tuesday, a day when most people were at work, the wide-angle lens of the TSN camera showed the empty seats in Maple Leaf Gardens. A few of us remarked how that took away from the magic of what was happening on the ice. Naturally for the rest of the week the producer of the show was sensitive to that. We were not dealing with professional hockey players where they sell out every seat, we were dealing with 14 and 15-year old hockey players whose courage and passion were as good as NHL hockey players but they just did not have the same fans. That camera, when it was the wide angle, when it showed the whole arena, took away from the feeling, the spirit and the contest.
The same thing could happen here. With a wide-angle lens I think a lot of Canadians are going to miss what really goes on in this House. I oppose the idea. I am not trying to kill time here in the House. I think it is a bad idea and I hope it does not even get to the experimental stage.

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I will not be speaking very long this afternoon. I think this so-called debate is a discredit to the House of Commons.
I remind my friends from the Liberal Party of comments from their colleague for LaSalle-Emard that women in the House of Commons come here to do things and it seems men come here to talk about doing things. I believe this debate is an illustration of that fact.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, maybe the NDP does not want to debate this, but I want to debate it because it is an important issue.
I would like to comment on the business the government proposed today on the projected Order of Business. It shows very clearly the motion to ask for concurrence although the government knew that negotiations were not completed. We indicated during the negotiations that we were not ready to proceed. We proposed a reasonable amendment.
As I said before when asking a question of my colleague from Toronto, the motion just says that we have wider camera angles. An angle has a certain dimension. What is the dimension? We do not know. It could be one section, ten sections, five sections or two sections. There is no limit, no explanation, nothing.
This question was debated in the House management committee during the debate on the broadcasting of committees. We heard a number of witnesses and we debated this wide angle situation.
If we look at the 23rd report, there is no mention, no recommendation. All of a sudden there is a separate recommendation on wide camera angles because at the national unity conference one member complained that he did not understand how the House proceeded. They could not understand Question Period. Now by enlarging and widening the angle, the government thinks that they would understand what Question Period is all about.
A few months ago we had a motion on decorum. What happened to it? I do not know. We had some nice speeches here and that was it. If the government wants to improve the perception that Canadians have of their members of Parliament, maybe we have to look at a wider range of issues and how we work in this House.
The tradition of this House in the past was that the parties negotiated. When rules were changed there was
always an agreement. Since last year that practice has changed. The government used its majority to force through parliamentary reform and it passed rules that we are amending every day because it did not want to listen to reason and negotiation. It is the same with the debate today because we agreed. That is why those members that were present at that meeting when this report was passed voted in favour; we agreed with the principle.
This is just a principle. We have to make some rules on how this thing is going to work. That is why we are debating it and that is why I think my House leader's amendment is very reasonable. Let us go back to the committee. It can be done. We have a meeting tomorrow. We can amend the report in the House management committee tomorrow and come back to the House and pass it by Friday. This report could possibly be operational next week.
The government wants us to accept something that is not clearly defined on a permanent basis and then we are going to make it temporary. Did you ever see anything permanent, Mr. Speaker, become temporary? Usually what happens is that temporary things become permanent, like the surtax. We have a temporary surtax and then that surtax is incorporated on a permanent basis.
What is wrong, as the member who is now sitting in the Chair was suggesting, if we negotiate further? The amendment that my House leader proposed is reasonable. Let the committee amend the report, make it provisional, temporary for 20 days, bring it back to the House Friday, adopt it, and Monday it can be operational. We will see in the next 20 days what kind of a camera angle we are going to take, how it is going to work, who is going to make the final decision. After that period the same committee can look at the proceedings of the House or the Question Period. The committee can make another recommendation to return to the existing rule or make that temporary rule permanent.
What we are asking the government is very reasonable. I think the government does not have an agenda and maybe it wants to fill the day with this report. That is another story. Let the government say that it has no agenda, that it has no business before the House. We just have to look at the Order Paper and we can see that there is not much. Fine, then we can talk about the other reports and take up time. We said that we agree on the other reports.
April 29, 1992



The truth is that first of all, the government does not have enough legislation.


An hon. member:: He's right.


An hon. member:: Exactly.


Alfonso Gagliano: The Order of Business for the House lists a number of interesting bills we could be debating today. We could be talking about Bill C-67, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This is very important, because as soon as the results of the census are out, the Chief Electoral Officer will start the procedure for changing the boundaries, which will not be ready for the next election campaign. We could save a lot of money. This is important. Why not examine this bill, starting this afternoon, as indicated according to the government's agenda? But no.
There is another bill on the agenda, and I am referring to third reading of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other Acts in consequence thereof. We do not agree with this bill, but it is very important to have this debate because it goes to the very heart of this nation, and I am referring to agriculture and our farmers. But no, the government decided otherwise, although it knew the Official Opposition did not support motion.
So we are stuck with a debate. We showed our good will and we proposed a reasonable amendment, which states that we do not approve the report but want to refer it back to the House Management committee, with instructions to revise the report and make recommendations for its implementation, in the House, for a trial period of not more than 20 days.
Tomorrow, there is a meeting of the House management committee. At the meeting we could adopt these amendments and come back Friday to adopt the report and start implementing it Monday.
What does the government really want? Does it really believe it needs these changes, does it really want a camera with a wider angle, so we can show Canadians there are about 25 members in the House? I do not know
Routine Proceedings
whether the parliamentary secretary, who is an expert on procedure, gave any thought to the fact that if we adopt this kind of rule, perhaps we should amend the Standing Orders, which prohibit any reference to the absence of a member from the House. We are not allowed to say so, but the cameras will show the seat is empty, so what do we do about that?
There are quite a few questions like that. We should not go too fast. I think we have already wasted a lot of time, because the report has been on the Order Paper for several months. We could have had a few meetings to discuss these issues, and find ways to deal with this question. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you were to rise in the House and this rule had been adopted, what we would look like to the public! I almost feel like asking for a quorum. I did not count, but at a glance, I would say there are fewer than 20 members in the House right now. Is that what we want to show Canadians?
I think if the government really wants to respond to the concerns of Canadians, if it wants to give our parliamentary system the kind of credibility it used to enjoy, we should do as we suggested in our amendment and go back to committee, consider the amendment, adopt it tomorrow in the House management committee, come back here Friday and adopt the motion, which means that Monday, we could tell Canadians we are going to test this for 20 days and then we will look at the results. During those 20 days, we could also consider whether there is anything else we should do to ensure we are giving a true picture of what is happening in the House. Why should Canadians pay so much money in taxes to have these debates televised? Because they want to be informed and they want to be able to watch what we are doing on television.
We should give them a chance to listen and to understand what we are doing. During the 20-day trial, I suggest we make sure our proceedings unfold in the kind of atmosphere and with the decorum appropriate to this place so that Canadians will be able to understand the proceedings.
I hope that by the end of the day we manage to agree on the amendment. I think the parliamentary secretary, who chairs the House management committee, will find that I am agreeable to having another meeting tomorrow, including the amendment in the report and coming

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
back tomorrow. Then, with unanimous consent, we could give ourselves a 20-day trial period.
Why 20 days? Because the way the report is worded, there is only one regulation, one specification. There are two things in the report. First, when the Speaker rises, the whole House will appear on the screen to give a view of the entire proceedings. Imagine what it will look like if there are fewer than 20 members. Second, I believe our Standing Orders include a rule that one may not refer to the absence of a member. It is pretty obvious that a member's absence will be noticed, since we each have an assigned seat. If we are not in our seat, we are not in the House. We will have to do something about this particular rule, and the 20-day trial would give us a chance to consider what could be done.
I think this is a reasonable proposal. I think the parliamentary secretary, who is chairman of the House management committee, will find that tomorrow, at the committee's Thursday meeting, we will be prepared to include the amendment, adopt the modified Standing Orders and, Friday, adopt them here in the House. And then on Monday, we can start our 20-day trial.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the Whip of our party. He knows that I do not like this wide-angle lens. I think the whole thing is a farce, I think the whole debate is. When members were debating this issue back in committee, what about discussing the idea of abolishing television during Question Period? Quite frankly, that period of the exercise in this House is the most counter-productive. If I get complaints, and I am sure all members hear the same ones about what goes on in this House, they are about this phoney Question Period that we all participate in.
We said we were talking about House reform here. That would be real reform. I do not know what the national media would do, they would have to figure out a new way to compete for their 15-second clip. It seems to me that 90 per cent of the time they get it from Question Period. If Canadians knew how that worked.
Everybody gets their clipping service every morning. The opposition gets its clipping service and the government gets the same clippings, and they prepare to set up a contest.
My question to my Whip, who I know is committed to this reform, is what about discussing in committee a 20 or 30-day experiment in which we pull the camera from Question Period? What are your ideas on that?


Alfonso Gagliano: I understand the worries that the member has. I am afraid that today we have passed that stage. It will soon be seven years that I have been here. When I came here television was here, and I think it began a few years before that. I do not think that the idea of going back would meet the approval of Canadians. I will not talk for the media, I will let them speak for themselves. I am concerned about Canadians, and I do not think that they would agree.
Second, three weeks ago, before we adjourned for Easter, this House unanimously passed a report from the House management committee recommending that committees be televised. As a matter of fact, I suppose that right now there is a meeting of the subcommittee of radio and television of the Board of Internal Economy to find the money to implement that report, which was passed unanimously by this House and proposed by the government. Now not only will we have the House televised but there will be a permanent room where certain committees on a certain important subject, one committee at a time, will be televised in a permanent room. As a result of costs and because we want to see how it is going to work we approved audio coverage of all the committees. This cannot be implemented right away because we have to find the money.
Going back and taking away the cameras from this House is not a realistic proposition in the 1990s, moving toward 2000.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. friend and his remarks on this particular motion. He made a couple of assertions that I found interesting. One is that he assured us, and me in particular as he used my title in his remarks, that if we went back to the committee for our committee meeting tomorrow he would agree
April 29, 1992

to the report providing it had the limitation for an experimental basis. I just want to confirm this with him.
I need to know if he can also assure me that we will not have to go through another concurrence debate, that it will be agreed to without debate so that we do not have to then be back in the position we are in today of wasting time in the House. Failing that he can give me that commitment, is he then prepared to let the House divide on his amendment and the main question of concurrence either as amended or, if the amendment were defeated, to put the main question right away? We could do that in the next few minutes. Can he give me the assurance of one of those other two options?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa- Vanier said that before I said it and I said it in French. If this amendment which says that the report be sent back to the committee, and I will read the amendment so that we understand what we are talking about because we are negotiating on the floor of the House of Commons, as soon as I sit down maybe we can negotiate more to make sure that we are clear. However, I can say that as far as I am concerned if this amendment is passed and if the committee can put this amendment into its report tomorrow I do not see any problem. It is our amendment. Once this amendment is part of the report we have no problem.
If the House leader agrees with the amendment I do not see any problem.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, as I sat here and listened to this debate, which has gone on for more than two hours, I began to wonder why people were getting so exercised. So I went out and got a copy of the committee's report.
Sitting here there is little doubt left in my mind as to why this institution is receiving such a bad response from the Canadian public. We have spent two and a half hours, and by the looks of things it will go on longer than that, to debate how pretty members can look on camera while we are standing on our feet asking questions, making statements or speeches in the House of Commons. My goodness, there are more food banks in this country than McDonald's has outlets. We have high and unacceptable rates of unemployment. There are all kinds of serious problems that Canadians want us to address. I think that we should dispose of this and get on with the work we were elected to come here and do.
Routine Proceedings


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I was working in my office. I was responding to constituents' phone calls and letters. I had to get myself over here to put a few comments on the record because I do not believe what I am hearing. I cannot believe what I am seeing.
I am sure that my constituents cannot believe what is happening in this great Chamber today. We have just spent three hours debating whether that camera should be focused just on me or whether it should be a wide-angle lens to focus on my colleagues around me as well. Three hours to debate that. It is no wonder that the public is fed up with us as politicians if we cannot make such simple decisions in corridor meetings or all-party meetings rather than wasting the time of the House to do this.
When the parliamentary secretary stood up after Question Period I was sure that he was going to introduce a motion with something to do with A Lot to Learn, the report from the Economic Council telling us about how many people graduate from our schools and cannot read or write functionally. They cannot read ads with understanding. I was sure that the parliamentary secretary would get up and propose something we could debate on that topic.
No. What does he introduce for discussion? He introduces a discussion of whether we should be having close-ups or wide-angled shots in this House of Commons. I thought that maybe he would introduce something about the 1.5 million people out of work in this country. Did he do that? No. I thought he would introduce something about how to reduce, if not eliminate, the number of food banks in this country. Did he do that? No.
For three years we have been badgering this government about its program to eliminate food banks from our society. It is a shame that when the United Nations says what a great country Canada is to live in we see all these people lining up for food in food banks. I was sure that is what we would be debating in this House this afternoon.
However, what are we debating? Camera shots. I could not believe it. I thought that maybe the parliamentary secretary would bring in something about a national training program or maybe something to address the
300.000	jobs waiting for Canadians for the taking. Three hundred thousand skilled jobs that Canadians could be working at, because you cannot argue that among 1.5 million unemployed people we could not have trained
300.000	to take these high-tech high-skilled jobs. That is

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
what I thought we would be taking the time of the House to debate.
What are we debating? Cameras, what kind of shots we should be taking. In my riding, the people are very concerned about street safety. They are trying to take the law in their own hands against my wishes, because again this government says it will do something. But no. Time and time again we have asked the government that when there is a crime bust to return the assets of those drug busts to the local community so that money can be used to fight drugs in the riding. I thought that maybe that is what we were going to be debating. No. We are debating camera shots.
Last week during the break I invited the member for Broadview-Greenwood to talk to the entrepreneurs in Parkdale-High Park, which he agreed to do. The business people were very interested in debating alternate tax systems. They were very interested in the single tax system. They were very interested in simplifying the complicated tax system we have. They were discussing how to get rid of or refine the GST so it will not affect their businesses so negatively.
I thought that surely after the break, after all the members have talked to their constituents, members would come back and talk and debate about how to help the small businesses in urban centres, large urban centres, small towns, and rural areas. However, that is not what we came back with. We came back with a motion on cameras in the House of Commons.
This tells the public one thing. This government is bankrupt of ideas. It has no meaningful legislation to bring into this House to debate. It is bankrupt of ideas. Any government that bankrupt of any creative ideas does not deserve to govern. Its only choice, its only alternative, is to call an election. It is bankrupt of programs and ideas.
I am appealing to the public to put pressure on this government to call an election. That is the only solution. Let us stop wasting the taxpayers' money by wasting the time of this House the way we did this afternoon. Let us go into an election. Whoever wins, fine; let them bring in meaningful programs.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Parkdale-High Park and say that I agree with most of what he had to say.
Before I do that, I would just like to inform the House of a little anecdote that happened to me one day in Question Period when I rose to ask a question. I posed the question and all the time someone from another party was sitting behind me, which does happen sometimes. While I was posing the question that person was shaking his head. When I got back to my riding, I received a phone call asking me why my colleague from the same party was shaking his head while I was asking the question. I explained that where I was sitting there just happened to be a member from another party placed behind me because the House was not large enough for everyone.
For instance, two seats over is a Conservative member sitting there. Right behind me I have Liberal members but behind them are Conservative members. On the other extreme, some of my colleagues have NDP members sitting next to them. Some have Independent members or members from the Bloc Quebecois. That has not been addressed. The Whip of our party mentioned how wide the wide angle would be. That is a problem that may have to be addressed and maybe on an experimental basis might be a little better.
Like my colleague from Parkdale-High Park, I would have preferred today to discuss the economic problems our country is facing. I would have preferred to discuss unemployment in my riding.

I would have preferred to talk about unemployment in my riding, the high unemployment in the Kedgwick area and unemployment in the St. Quentin area.

I would have preferred to talk about the problems at the Atholville mill and how to get it back on line. I would have preferred to speak about the mill in Dalhousie. I would have preferred to talk about how the city of Campbellton has a number of projects that have to be realized to help the economy.
April 29, 1992



I would have preferred to talk about the docks in Pointe Verte and Petit-Rocher and the plan presented by the village of Petit-Rocher and Beresford.

I would have much preferred that rather than have the House waste time on this type of issue. It is no wonder Canadians are asking: "What is going on up there?"
I would like to ask the hon. member to elaborate a little more on what he was saying, to elaborate a little more on why he thinks Canadians have lost some confidence in this House, not only because of the antics of the House but maybe some of the policies of this government.
I agree with the hon. member. This government is bankrupt of ideas. It is obvious with the type of proposal we see here today and the major concerns we have across the country.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member put his finger right on the issue of why we as politicians have so little respect. Had this House been debating for the last three hours the very issues that my colleague wants to debate, because they affect not only his constituents but constituents across the country, Canadians watching us, be it wide angle, be it teleshot, be it the side shot, be it a rear shot, would have a greater respect for all the politicians and for this Chamber. They would know we were then addressing the problems facing this country: the problems of unemployment, the problems of street safety, and the problems of food banks. He makes a very valid point. If we want Canadians generally to have a higher respect for politicians-and I think it will come- we have to do exactly what my colleague is saying.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the hon. member who just spoke left his office and came down here to gain a platform and delay what we were trying to do even further.
He talks about it but he comes down and causes even more-


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the Chair might wish to inform the hon. member opposite that he is in fact imputing motive which
Routine Proceedings
indeed is not appropriate, nor is it a tradition that we in this House have adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I too was working in my office a few minutes ago and had the television monitor on in my office. I was trying to follow this particular debate with one ear as I did my work. Like my hon. colleague from Toronto, I felt compelled to come over here and participate in this debate because I am absolutely sure that this debate going on in the past while has not given us politicians a very good name. I do not think it has added anything to our reputation.
As my hon. colleague from New Brunswick said a few minutes ago, there are other things that we should be debating. There are certainly more important issues before the country than the one that we have before us right now. I think of the economy, jobs and plant closures, not only plant closures but plants being moved across the border. There is concern about NAFTA, the free trade agreement, the GST and national unity. There are a lot of things that we should be talking about here today.
I am sure that there are viewers from coast to coast in all 10 provinces and the territories asking themselves why we are debating wider camera angles in the House of Commons. I want to say something about that specific issue. It would be nice from one point of view. People would know more about Parliament, about this particular House. If they saw this House through their television sets and the many empty seats, as is usually the case around here, they could understand what is going on.
I remember the first time that I visited a legislature many long years ago. It was back in the fifties. I did not know anything about the institution. I knew nothing about the assembly. I did not know what the work was about. I came into the legislative building in the city of Winnipeg and found almost no one in the Chamber. There was a speaker all right and he was all agitated and excited. Whatever he was talking about seemed to be pretty important to him, but the few people who were around did not seem to be interested. I gather that a lot of MLAs were outside doing other things. I can remember my first conclusion was: My, these people do not take

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
their jobs very seriously; they are not doing any work at all.
Here I am about 40 years later, or something like that, and now I am a member of this House. I know a bit more than I did 40 years ago as you do, Mr. Speaker, and the rest around here. We all know that just because this House has few occupants at any given time does not mean for a moment parliamentarians are not busy. I do not think I have to go through the whole litany of responsibilities that members of Parliament have, everything from meeting delegations, committee meetings, to writing letters. There is a whole host of responsibilities.
I was thinking that if I came into the House at any given time and found everybody here, all 295 of us, I would probably believe there was something wrong, that not all MPs were taking their responsibilities seriously. There are some very serious responsibilities outside this Chamber and we cannot be two places at the same time. I do not have to tell you that, Mr. Speaker. You know perhaps better than anyone in this House that there are a lot of responsibilities outside the Chamber and just because an MP is not in his seat does not suggest for a moment he is not doing his job.
Given the level of understanding in this House-and I wish it were higher; I do not think it is that high-if we have wide-angle shots people are going to start wondering why a particular gentleman or woman is not in his or her seat. I just do not think it adds anything to the awareness or to the understanding of the House. I wish that were not true.
Another thing is that I believe in what we call the electronic Hansard. Some people believe MPs grandstand and resort to some unnecessary histrionics because the television camera is somewhere around. I suspect that if we go to wide-angle shots or close-up shots, if there is more coverage with the eye of the camera, it might just add to the histrionics, add to the grandstanding.
We really have to examine this issue a lot more. As one of my colleagues from Montreal was saying a few minutes ago, and he is absolutely right as far as I know, it has not been determined exactly how the wide-angle shots would be applied. Would they cover 4, 6, 10, 12, 20
or 100 seats? There are no specifications. It has not been applied in a very specific way.
We should be answering those questions before we go on with this matter. I just wanted to put those remarks on the record, Mr. Speaker, and hope you appreciate them.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few brief remarks on this issue this afternoon.
Much of the debate centres around what the member for Sarnia indicated a bit earlier today, that he felt there was agreement-I guess he qualified it as unanimous agreement in committee-for the disposition of this particular issue.
I do not believe someone walking into a meeting early Friday morning when members are missing, calling that unanimous and then immediately adjourning the meeting constitutes any kind of true unanimity.
The reason the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has proposed the amendment is quite simple. There is a concern there that we may be deviating from the original purpose of this video Hansard, the television proceedings of the House. If we look at the Hansard of yesterday, the written Hansard of the House, we get of course only those members speaking. Every now and then we will get the odd interjection, one here or one there. Similarly what we do in the House in the video Hansard is roughly the same thing. We have Mr. Speaker and we have the hon. member who is addressing the House. That is quite normal.
If we want to try something different on an experimental basis, so be it. The member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has given us the tool to do that. That is what we are seeking on this side of the House. That is why the amendment was proposed.
Earlier today in a question and answer period I invited a colleague from across the way to agree with the Liberal amendment to the motion. Unfortunately the member did not see fit to do so. He said: "Trust us. Pass this report. Give us concurrence in this", which of course is permanent. He went on to say: "Then we will subsequently agree informally only to do it temporarily and to revoke it later if it does not work". "Well", said I, "that is a little bit backward. Why do we not do it temporarily,
April 29, 1992

try it out and then if it works we will make it permanent rather than the other way around?"
What we have in this House is a good system where Canadians can watch the proceedings of the House of Commons. I think this has been very useful. It has brought this institution closer to the people. Every now and then some will say that the House of Commons is such that every now and then it is somewhat unruly and so on. So be it. This is not a television studio. This is a chamber of debate. It is not supposed to be a television studio. There is no make-up room back there when we walk in here. If one of us walks in here with a crooked tie one day or something else that is not just quite the way it is in a Hollywood studio, that is tough. That is just the way it is.
I know Mr. Speaker always looks quite apropos, but some of us do not always quite look that elegant from time to time.


David Charles Dingwall: A distinguished haircut.


Don Boudria: The member for Cape Breton-East Richmond was talking about haircuts. He and I usually go together, two for the price of one, when we go for haircuts. There is not much time involved in either case, as you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and as the member from Don Valley will probably appreciate as well.


John Harvard: A shining example.


Don Boudria: A shining example indeed. Getting back to the subject at hand, though, on this side of the House we have been reasonable to this debate. The member across the way said a little earlier that if we do not agree to this particular concurrence it means we are against parliamentary reform. That is just a little far-fetched. That is certainly quite an exaggeration.
This has nothing to do with parliamentary reform at all. We are not changing the rules of how debate proceeds in this House. We are not changing the fact that it is pretty hard to get a private member's bill through this place. We are not changing any of those things by the particular concurrence that is sought.
For a member to pretend that this has to do with the reform of parliamentary procedure is just a tad exaggerated. The member might say there are other subsequent amendments that are reforming the rules of this House.
Routine Proceedings
In due time we will get to those. Right now we are debating the 22nd report which refers to such things as changing the angle of the television shot. That can hardly be considered by parliamentary experts as being reform.
Just listen to this: "Camera angles used during Question Period should be wider so the viewers can appreciate-"


An hon. member:: How wide?


Don Boudria: I do not know. Wider than what? Presumably, wider than narrower. That is probably true, but how wide is wider? It is like asking how many bananas in a bunch. It is not something that is very easy to define.
Anyway, we are talking here: "should be wider so that viewers can appreciate the context and flavour of the House. When the Speaker rises, the whole House should be shown and when individual members rise to ask or answer a question, wider shots should be employed".
I want to speak about this business of those who answer questions. I was elected along with the member for Saint-Leonard in 1984. In 1984, there were only 40-odd members on the Official Opposition side and 210 or 211 Conservative members. There were Conservative members all over the place. All of them wanted to get on television.
On this side of the House, we had Tories at each end. They were bookends. That is what we used to call them. Remember the bookends? Of course, there are only some at one end now, so we cannot call them bookends.
Then there was the other variety of members. We used to call them the surfers. They were an assigned swat team of Conservative members who would move in behind the minister answering the question so that their mother could watch them on television at night. I am sure this is lots of fun for mommy watching the MP in question, but I am not sure that that is why we had television in this place. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure it is not the reason why we have television in this place.
What are we seeing? Are we seeing a revision of the surfer policy? Are we saying that we want to have these wider shots again so that the member for Sarnia and

April 29, 1992
Routine Proceedings
others can be in the camera shot, too, when a member answers a question? No, I hope that is not the case.
Anyway, it is not my intention to prolong this debate. I want to conclude this now because I know that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has proposed an excellent amendment. I think I sense a consensus finally in this place whereby the government will probably be made to understand the reasonableness of the opposition's amendment that was proposed today. If that is the case, if the Conservatives have finally seen the light, this has been a worth-while three hours of debate.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment negatived on division.
Amendment negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am wondering if we could get unanimous consent of this House-there have been some discussions with regard to this particular report-now that the government has indicated on the floor of the House of Commons its desire to at least concur with my suggestion that the wide camera angles for Question Period be on an experimental basis for 20 sitting days. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could give his consent to that experiment.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a marvellous idea. I do not know why I did not think of it myself. Certainly we on this side would be happy to support it.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: And so ordered.


CONCURRENCE IN 24TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 24th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House on Friday, February 14, 1992, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 27th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 11, 1992, be concurred in.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, before giving unanimous consent, I just wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands as well as the hon. member for Saint-Leonard on the efforts that they put forward in terms of this particular report which in fact will increase from 20 to 30 the number of items on the list of Private Members' Business and to increase the number of votable items from three to five. I think this is important for all members of this House, whether they be in the opposition or in the government.
I wish to pay tribute to my two colleagues, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and my colleague from Saint-Leonard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
April 29, 1992

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 28th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented in the House on Wednesday, March 18, 1992, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 259 and 271.


Mr. Karpoff: Is Health and Welfare Canada intending to proceed with amendments to Food and Drug regulations with respect to substitute milks and cheeses as outlined in the Federal Regulator Plan of 1991, and (a) if so, when will draft regulations be published (b) if not, how will substitute milks and cheeses already on the market be regulated as to labelling for nutrition?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	Provincial agriculture legislation prohibits the sale of substitute milks and cheeses and thus this is not an issue at this time. It should be noted that the nutrition labelling of foods in Canada is voluntary albeit with certain exceptions.


Mr. Harvard: Under the present Unemployment Insurance Act, do parents adopting a child receive different benefits than those provided to birth parents and, if so, for what reason?


Bernard Valcourt: No, parents, whether natural or adoptive, are entitled to the same 10 weeks of parental benefits that are paid for the care and nurturing of children. These benefits may be split between the parents in any manner and can be collected at any time during the year
Routine Proceedings
after the new-born or newly-adopted child arrives in the home.
Both natural and adoptive parents may receive an additional five weeks of parental benefits (for a total of 15), if their new-born or newly-adopted child is six months or over when it arrives in the home and is certified to have a physical, psychological or emotional problem warranting an extra period of care and nurturing.
Separate from parental benefits, a pregnant woman is entitled to 15 weeks of maternity benefits which are paid to cover the loss of employment income caused by the physical incapacity resulting from the pregnancy and birth.
The Federal Court has upheld the principle that this separate entitlement for maternity is for the physical incapacity of child-bearing and entitlement to it should not be confused with an entitlement to a UI benefit (parental) paid for a period of child-care. Maternity benefits cover no element of child-care. Unlike parental benefits, maternity benefits are available to birth mothers regardless of the status of the child. Where a child fails to survive the birth process, or has been immediately adopted, birth mothers are eligible for maternity benefits.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think I have mislaid some papers so I will have to, at this point, ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be stood.


Don Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise with you a question on the Order Paper since February 6, 1992. The time has now expired. It seems like they all expire and it seems that there are fewer and fewer of them that are actually answered on time.

April 29, 1992
Private Members' Business
I wonder if I can get a commitment from the parliamentary secretary that that particular question will be answered forthwith pursuant to the rules.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain if the hon. member is referring to question No. 228 or question No. 249, but I can indicate to him that 228 is a request of all departments and agencies and therefore is taking some time. I understand that we are close to completion. At this point I think there are two either departments or agencies that are outstanding and we will do everything in our power to get that as quickly as possible. With regard to 249 at this point I want to indicate to the hon. member there are 10 departments still outstanding and we are pushing to get that information.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is an agreement to suspend to the call of the Chair to seven o'clock and we will proceed with Bill C-67 at a later time.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, yes there has been consultation and I think it would be an appropriate thing to do.
It is my understanding that members are ready for Private Members' Business. I am not sure who is first in the rotation, but I know that my member who is to speak on the bill is here and perhaps we could start with that if it is acceptable. Or we could wait until we have it sorted and then come back.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have to check to make sure that we have our members ready and perhaps if we could suspend to the call of the Chair we would be ready in a few moments.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting for a few minutes to the call of the Chair?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.12 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to agreement made earlier, it being 7 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 36, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth) that Bill C-289, an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the hon. House leader.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could have a few more moments before we call it 7 p.m. in order to commence this debate. There was an agreement we would suspend the House to the call of the Chair at 7 p.m. so we can have a few more minutes.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no problem with that but I said three or four minutes because there were enough speakers around to go ahead and start the debate. That is why I went ahead with that. I have no problem. I can suspend it again. We have one speaker now ready to rise and then we have another one on your side. There are three speakers ready to rise now. Do you think that would be sufficient for us to commence? I will suspend for another five minutes.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.19 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6.27 p.m.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr.Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege tonight to speak on this most important and meaningful bill.
April 29, 1992

It is my firm belief that Remembrance Day, Canada's official day of mourning for her war dead, should be designated a holiday in the Public Service.
As Canadians, it is important that we recognize the contributions of those who fought for our country in these wars and that we realize the great sacrifices that these men and women gave for their country, indeed, the ultimate sacrifice on many occasions.
I urge all members of Parliament from all parties to recognize November 11. It deserves the utmost reverence by the Government of Canada. There are many things that can be said about those who served their country in war and many phrases that can be bestowed upon them.
Tonight I would like to say a few words in the hope that we can come to a better understanding and appreciation of what we have accomplished as a nation, thanks to those who served and in some cases died for their country. They did it for Canada and they did it for us. We should never be allowed to forget that.
Between 1914 and 1918, Canada sent some 625,000 men to the battlefields of Europe. For a nation of only eight million people, this was a tremendous contribution. More than 60,000 of these Canadians never returned and thousands more were maimed and disabled.
When Britain declared war, Canada as a British colony entered the war automatically. Canada was not prepared at that time. It was ill-equipped and had a permanent army of only 3,000 men who were inadequately trained. Increasingly Canadian soldiers played an active role in the war front as they became more effective soldiers.
By the end of the war, Canadians and Canada as a country and as a nation had gained a new confidence and a new reputation around the world. In fact Canada had become an integral part of the war effort. We paid and paid dearly. The price was losing a generation of young Canadians and the sheer horror of the war faced by these Canadians.
One Canadian soldier remembers the Germans' use of poison gas in April of 1915.1 would like to read from his account. He says:
Private Members' Business
I saw the whole picture of the gas attack probably like no one else did. I had never been in battle-and I have been in many-where the men were suffering in such numbers that their crying and groaning could be heard all over the battlefield. There were some who ran away. These were individuals. They were young and they were terrified. They had never seen gas before. None of us had - it was the first gas attack in history. But not a single unit skipped out-some individuals, yes, but formations, no. Suddenly, we saw the gas rolling up in a brownish-yellowish bank. It was between four and twelve feet high and it wouldn't rise higher unless it was puffed up by the wind. I went over to where the line had been broken and where there was confusion. No Canadian troops were running. The gas was dreadful and suffering was immediate. The only thing we could do was to soak our handkerchiefs in urine and hold them up over our noses. Thousands were lying around gasping and crying. They were being drowned by gas. They didn't know how to protect themselves. But we held our position.
In April of 1917, 70,000 Canadian soldiers fought in the battle of Vimy Ridge. On April 9 the offensive began. Within hours, Canadian soldiers pushed back the enemy and captured the ridge. But the cost was high; indeed the cost was high for all Canadians; more than 10,000 casualties, including some 3,000 dead.
Another soldier tells his story:
Easter Sunday, the eve of the battle, was fine and sunny. All was peaceful to the eye, as unit by unit took its way in ordered leisure up the slopes and spurs. Wonderful in their work in secrecy had been the engineers. For months they delved underground. The tunnel system ran sheer into and up the ridge, to open at the very feet of the Germans. Through these subways, passes every man of the tens of thousands who played a part in the battle. Sleep, in the rare moments, throughout the hectic week was so only if one stood flat against the wall. Our barrage which opened at 5.30 a.m. involved a gun to every 25 yards and was as regular as a clock. Nothing human could stand against it. So, from Monday's dawn till midnight of Friday the battle raged. But we were masters of our fate, filthy but triumphant and had scored a signal victory as has ever crowned Canadian arms.
Another soldier remembers.
I was wounded and went back, and there was a great crowd of people when the ship came in. All of a sudden somebody says this, "The Canadians. They've taken Vimy. Nobody did it before." And what a cheer went up. They threw chocolate bars. They threw flowers. In fact, I broke down and cried. We achieved something that nobody had done before. I think myself, that was where Canada was bom.
Indeed, Canada emerged from the war well on its way to nationhood, earning the praise, the respect and the admiration of its allies. This is the moment that Canada came of age as a nation. For the thousands who fought and gave their lives in the war, in the "war to end all wars", we must never forget.

April 29, 1992
Private Members' Business
In September 1939 Canada declared war on Germany. It was the first time in its history that Canada as an independent country and not a colony had entered a war. But like the First World War, Canada was militarily unprepared. Numbers were small and the army was badly equipped. Yet by the end of the war, Canada was described as having one of the best armies in the world and again as in the great war our soldiers fought with distinction. The assault on Normandy on D-Day was typical of the many landings on the beaches of that time. Another account:
All the boats were under criss-cross machine gun fire. As the first men jumped they crumpled and flopped into the water. Then order was lost. It seemed to the men that the only way to get ashore was to dive head first in and swim clear of the fire that was striking the boats. But, as they hit the water, their heavy equipment dragged them down and soon they were struggling to keep afloat. Some were hit in the water and wounded. Some drowned then and there. But some moved safely through the bullet fire to the sand, finding that they could not hold there, went back into the water and used it as a cover, only their heads sticking out. Those who survived kept moving forward with the tide, sheltering at times behind underwater obstacles and in this way, they finally made their landings. Within ten minutes of the ramp being lowered, 'A" company had become inert, leaderless and almost incapable of action. Every officer and sergeant had been either killed or wounded. It had become a struggle for survival and rescue. The men in the water pushed wounded men ashore ahead of them and those who had reached the sands crawled back into the water pulling others to land to save them from drowning, in many cases only to see the rescued men wounded again or to be hit themselves.
The Korean conflict in 1950 saw Canada rally to the support of the United Nations. Of 8,000 Canadians who fought in Korea, 406 lost their lives while another 1,200 were injured. Again, Canadians played an integral part in the war effort and many died serving their country.
As Canadians, we must always remember the incredible sacrifices that thousands upon thousands of Canadians were willing to make for this country, Canada, the country that they loved so much. We must realize why they were willing to make these sacrifices.
The Government of Canada has an obligation to reaffirm its commitment to remembrance because as Canadians, we must never forget or to let other Canadians forget. We must not forget that people from across this great nation took action and acted as one. Their contribution was unified and they unified the country.
That geographically at the time made no sense for many Canadians. This was the first time they saw themselves as a part of a larger Canada and what they, as a nation, could accomplish as one.
We are not here to glorify war. We are here simply to remember. We are here to thank all the men and women who served Canada in its time of war. We owe them all an eternal debt which we must not forget.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some surprise actually that I am rising today to speak to this bill.
I have always assumed that Remembrance Day was a special day in this country, a day on which we would observe and remember those who have fought in past wars for Canada and those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for this country.
I was actually surprised to learn that this day, Remembrance Day, is now considered to be a bargaining chip to be used by governments in negotiating contracts. In fact I find that hard to believe.
Remembrance Day is now listed in the so-called Holidays Act, but looking further one realizes that this does not give any sort of guarantee that it will remain a special day for Canadians, a day on which workers in this country can take the time to remember.
I find it very disconcerting that we now can use this day as a bargaining tool in which to give or take away certain rights in a labour contract. It seems quite disrespectful, I would suggest, to the veterans of this country and to those who, as I have said, have given the ultimate sacrifice.
I believe there have been some conflicts for the past while, but it was Canada Past last year that threw it on the table as a bargaining chip. I must commend the member for Dartmouth for raising this matter and for bringing this bill to the House.
It is very important that Remembrance Day does not diminish in this country. In fact unfortunately in many ways, it is diminishing. As time goes on, we recognize Remembrance Day less and less. I remember when I was a young boy in Moose Jaw, there was a whole host of events surrounding Remembrance Day. For weeks leading up to Remembrance Day there were numerous events taking place. Remembrance Day was a special day. It was a day when you went to the cenotaph in your
April 29, 1992

particular community and the ceremonies that took place.
There is some concern that as we move further and further away, as veterans get older and die that the day becomes less important. By taking this day we want to make sure that it will remain as a day of remembrance and not a holiday at some other time of the year or to be bargained off by the government for extra pension benefits or whatever the situation may be, that it is instilled in statute that we will remember this day.
Certainly we can do no less for the veterans of this country, particularly in light of the fact that we are making so much of the battles that have taken place. The 50th anniversary of Dieppe is coming up and so on.
I know that it is of concern to veterans in my riding. I have received letters from the Royal Canadian Legion in Lanigan which sent me a letter. I received a letter and petition from Laurie Mang who is with the Army, Navy, Air Force Veterans in the city of Moose Jaw, along with something like 15 names on a petition. Unfortunately, it is a petition I cannot introduce in the House because it is not in the proper form.
I also received another letter from the Royal Canadian Legion in Moose Jaw, again with another petition with something like 120 names. These people are concerned and are surprised that the government may in fact not be willing pass this piece of legislation.
Their sentiments were summed up quite nicely by the Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on April 2 out of concern for this bill. I am just going to read part of that letter for the benefit of those Canadians watching.
In part he writes: "Apparently the Treasury Board has reservations regarding the impact this legislation could have on future collective bargaining with Public Service unions. The Treasury Board seems to believe that entrenching Remembrance Day in this act would be tantamount to discarding a bargaining chip or potentially negotiable benefit".
He goes on to say that a great deal of confusion exists as to the actual status of Remembrance Day and this bill would go a long way toward dispelling the notion that
Private Members' Business
November 11, Canada's official day of mourning for her war dead, is a holiday. In fact, passage of this bill would reaffirm the Government of Canada's commitment to remembrance.
He continues by saying: "The Legion considers it entirely inappropriate that a bill dealing with remembrance is apparently being judged solely on the basis of several ill-defined and questionable fiscal points raised by Treasury Board. There is no doubt that a great many of the 600,000 Legion members and affiliates will not appreciate any decision on this bill which fails to acknowledge the importance of perpetuating the tradition of remembrance. Prime Minister, I sincerely request that you reconsider your position vis-a-vis this most important, symbolic piece of legislation". This is signed by J.W. Jolleys, the Dominion President.
As I said, I find it somewhat extraordinary that we are debating this bill. In fact, I am surprised that we are simply not recognizing the fact that the member for Dartmouth brought this to the attention of the House, put the bill forward and that we are not unanimously passing this bill. I do hope that enough members of the government side will find it appropriate to support this legislation.
Surely the idea of a cost should not really be a consideration. The fact is that it is already a holiday for the Public Service sector and it already exists. It is not a cost that is going to be added to the budget, it is already there.
What we are simply saying is let us make sure that this bill stays there. Let us make sure that this day retains the status that it does even if in other sectors of our country the importance of Remembrance Day diminishes in some areas, which it is going to over time.
Certainly this Parliament owes it to the veterans of this country to ensure that it does not happen in the public sector, that it does not happen in the federal sector and that we set an example for all this country to ensure that we retain the importance of this day and that it remains a day that it was meant to represent. That is the fact that November 11 was of special significance. As Canadians will know, it was the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918 that the war to end all wars, as they say, ceased. So November 11 is the day that we should

April 29, 1992
Private Members' Business
recognize and remember as we do now every November 11 at the 11th hour of that 11th day.
I want to conclude by saying that it is only proper, respectful and fitting that we support this bill in recognition of those veterans and of those Canadians who have made the ultimate sacrifice and in fact those who fought in those wars as well because they sacrificed as well. I would be shocked, as I know most Canadians would be shocked, if this bill fails to pass.
I urge all members to give due consideration to this bill and look within their hearts and their conscience and I am sure they will pass this bill.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words with respect to Bill C-289 which, as you know, is an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements, that in fact every collective agreement entered into pursuant to the Public Service Staff Relations Act should provide for Remembrance Day to be a holiday.
Mr. Speaker, as you so very well know, for veterans, their families, and I include myself in that, and their friends, Remembrance Day is in fact the most solemn and the most sacred day of the year. It was in fact on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month that World War I came to an end and it is that day that has been designated ever since as Remembrance Day. It is a day to be enormously thankful and grateful to all those who served in a variety of wars on behalf of Canada and many of whom paid the supreme sacrifice.
In particular on Remembrance Day in recent years we have paid tribute to and remember those who served and those who died in World War I, in World War II and in Korea, but for many many Canadians that day, that time and that moment is also a day to reflect on relatives who served in years gone by in wars and in battles in which Canada served many many years ago. For instance, a cousin of mine, Bertha Redway's father Edgar, served in the Boer War on behalf of Canada. There are many families who still proudly claim to have relatives who served in that war on behalf of this country.
As well, there are all those who served in Canadian peacekeeping forces whether it be on Cyprus or in the
Middle East or now in what used to be Yugoslavia, all of those Canadians we think of and remember on this very special day.
Each person who celebrates that day, each person who participates in that day has their own very special thoughts that come flooding back to them.
In my own case, the day that stands out the most in my memory is D-Day. That was the day my father's regiment, the Queen's own Rifles of Canada, went ashore on the beachhead at Berniere sur Mer. Within a few short hours young men, mere boys many of them, who had trained together and served together for many years in Canada and Great Britain, and then finally went ashore that morning seeing action for the first time were almost eliminated.
Company A and Company B of the Queen's own Rifles of Canada lead by the two Dalton brothers, Elliot and Charlie Dalton, both of whom were severely wounded in that action, were virtually annihilated that day in but a few short hours.
I have had the great privilege of remembering that day on two occasions now, on my own cable television program with two of my constituents, veterans of the Queen's own Rifles Regiment that went ashore that day, John Hadley and Rolf Jackson, one of whom interestingly and strangely enough is the brother-in-law of our own good colleague in this House the member for Erie, Girve Fretz. Both of them went ashore that morning with the Queen's own Rifles. Both were wounded in action. For both the war was very short.
I have other special thoughts as well that come to mind on Remembrance Day. Others in my family, my uncle, retired Colonel Frank Klenavic, who served with the RCR, the Royal Canadian Regiment, in Sicily, Italy, and northwest Europe. He later commanded the regiment in the Korean campaign.
I think as well of my former law partner, Sydney Frost, now a retired colonel who served with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the PPCLI, in Italy and Holland. He was severely wounded twice in the head. He is lucky to be alive. He recovered enough to go back into battle and was wounded again. Later in civilian life he commanded the militia regiment, the Royal Regiment of Canada which as you know, Mr. Speaker, went ashore at Dieppe.
April 29, 1992

The Royal Regiment too was decimated in that action at Dieppe. I think of many good friends who were law clients of mine who served with the Royal Regiment, went into Dieppe and later became prisoners of war and spent most of the rest of the war after 1942 as prisoners of war.
I think as well of other good friends, for example, Keith Knowles with the Irish Regiment of Canada who served in Italy and northwest Europe.
I could go on and on reciting the names and deeds of friends and relatives I think of myself each Remembrance Day. I am sure that all members of this House have thoughts of friends and relatives.
It is a time when we remember. It is a time when we become quite emotional if we had some personal connection with one of those wars or some of those battles. Fortunately or unfortunately, I am not sure what is the right word, there are now fewer and fewer of us who have some sort of personal memories of those events.
I know when World War II ended I was a mere 10 years old. I remember VE Day quite vividly. I remember VJ Day quite vividly. These are days that stand out. They are days that will always stand out in my memory.
We are now at a stage where the average age of a Korean war veteran, not the peacekeepers who have followed, but the Korean war veterans who fought in that war, Canadians, is now around 65 years of age. We are getting to a time when it is very difficult to find people, there are fewer and fewer people, who actually have personal memories about what went on.
I guess it is most important that somehow we strive to perpetuate this remembrance and this act of understanding of the sacrifices that were made for you and me and for all Canadians.
These days it is often done in school assemblies. It is not usually a holiday for the schools in my community. They honour the day with a special assembly, and they pay tribute to the events and the sacrifices.
Department stores often honour the day with a moment of silence. Everything comes to a standstill. Everyone in fact stands still, bows his or her head and recognizes that moment of silence.
Private Members' Business
There are, of course, municipal ceremonies of remembrance. There are church services, Legion services. My own Legion branch, Branch 10 of the Royal Canadian Legion, one of the oldest branches of the Legion has a Remembrance Day service the Sunday before November 11, each and every year. In fact, it has the longest continuous Remembrance Day service of any branch of the Legion in this country.
There used to be a day when it seemed to me at least that we celebrated Remembrance Day with a universal holiday, but we got away from that fact perhaps because there are fewer people with personal memories. It is perhaps because many people treat it as a holiday and do not really remember.
That is what we have to decide in this debate. What is the best way to perpetuate and symbolize Remembrance Day? Perhaps it is with a holiday, but surely not just a holiday for a portion of Canadians. If we are going to celebrate it with a holiday, surely, it should be a statutory holiday for all Canadians.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege and an honour for me to speak on Bill C-289 as it is also my belief and my wish that this private member's bill presented to the House by my colleague from Dartmouth becomes law.
Bill C-289 is an act to provide for Remembrance Day to be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements.
Since observing Remembrance Day in years 1990 and 1991, the world has moved forward at an astonishing pace. The gulf war ended with Kuwait free once more. Our Canadian forces returned home to the kind of victorious welcome given to our returning troops 47 years ago.
Dramatic changes are sweeping the Soviet Union where the people are insisting on the kind of democracy we defended half a century ago. Today, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are tormented by the ravages of war.
I wonder, as we speak to this bill that would further honour Remembrance Day, how it might have been had reporters carried today's sophisticated equipment with them in Hong Kong, Kapyong, Dieppe, Ortona or Vimy Ridge. Would we better appreciate the terrible cost of freedom had Canadians seen those battles taking place? Would we have a better understanding of the value of our own country and the awful sacrifices we have made in its name? Would we then not be entirely resolute in

April 29, 1992
Private Members' Business
our determination to keep our wonderful country together?
On November 11 of every year we should all be permitted to take the time to remember those who fought and those who died for our freedom and to pledge at the same time that their valiant efforts will not have been in vain. They fought and often died for a proud, united and prosperous Canada.
Since the bill was introduced last fall I have received letters, telephone calls and comments from a number of constituents. The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 85 of Kapuskasing sent me a letter on April 20, 1992. Please allow me to quote from it as I believe the House will find it interesting:
This is to inform you that we at the Branch 85 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Kapuskasing support keeping Bill C-288 the Act of Remembrance Day, alive. We hope that during the third reading of the bill at the end of this month you will voice our concerns in favour of Bill C-289. As Legionnaires it is important that we keep Remembrance Day alive for those who fought and died for us as well as the many families who have been left behind.
The letter was signed by Pat Green, president of the branch. It summarizes more than adequately the true significant of Remembrance Day.
I must reiterate that I am proud of this bill. I am also proud of my constituents in the Royal Canadian Legion of Canada. They have expressed the same concerns toward Bill C-289 as did the huge majority of Canadians and 700,000 Legionnaires across Canada.
Remembrance Day should not be a negotiable item or a bargaining chip for anyone, including the Public Service, negotiating a collective agreement. I even find it distressing that it was used two years ago in negotiations between Canada Post and one of its unions.
Out of respect for those who have served and even shed their blood for us, Remembrance Day should be a special day as are Confederation Day, Labour Day and Thanksgiving.
Bill C-289 should not only be passed to include Remembrance Day as a holiday for the public servants. It should also be extended to the elementary and secondary schools of our country. These students, young and old, should be made aware of not only the horrors of war, but
they should also fully recognize and appreciate the immeasurable value of living in a free country.
This is where the education process should begin and should be permeated. Our young Canadians are being exposed to Remembrance Day via television in the news or at a ceremony at school, but they do not have the opportunity to witness the real ceremony at the cenotaph. This is where veterans are solemnly assembled to reflect on the awful consequences of war, of colleagues and friends who have either died or were seriously wounded in the name of freedom. Our young people want to know all about Remembrance Day and we should ensure their need is fulfilled.
This could only be accomplished with the full co-operation of both senior levels of government, and we in this House should be the leaders.
The adoption of this bill goes beyond partisanship that is often displayed in this House. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to set aside party lines and vote unanimously to recognize the contribution of those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces.
I strongly believe this bill is the only way to ensure that Remembrance Day remains first in our minds and hearts on November 11. This is how it should be. Let us not forget.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago we commemorated the battle of Vimy Ridge. Our Prime Minister and a parliamentary delegation went to France to participate in the commemoration of a battle that some have said was the coming of age of Canada. It may have been that, but it certainly was a demonstration to the world that this young, tiny, underpopulated country could act with heroism, with great skill, to fulfil its international responsibilities. That is something we have been doing for many decades now.
It is only a few short steps from Parliament Hill to the National War Memorial where every year now for over 70 years at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month our Prime Minister, international dignitaries and representatives of virtually every sector of our Canadian community gather to pay tribute and to remember those who fought for all of us so that we would still have the democratic institutions we are privileged to serve in this Parliament.
April 29, 1992

Private Members' Business
It was in this Parliament over 70 years ago now that that day was declared to be Armistice Day and to be kept in remembrance of those who had served and died in the First World War. It was changed to Remembrance Day in 1931. When I was a little girl it was still Armistice Day; that is what we called it. It is deeply troubling that there is even some thought that we should not take one small step to entrench this day permanently in our history as a day of remembrance.
We have to remember that it is only short weeks ago that volunteers for the Korean war were finally recognized for their service with the Korean Volunteer Medal. It is very recently that the contribution of merchant marines in the Second World War has been recognized in any way.
I am very proud of the 480 Westboro Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion in my riding. It has started in recent years a tradition that I hope will grow and spread. Westboro Branch constructed its own war memorial. For the last two years it has remembered those who have served this country so well, not just one day a year, but on the anniversary of every major battle.
Why we need to remember is because, as my colleague speaking before me has so admirably said, those who have a direct personal connection with the veterans are growing fewer and fewer. The veterans themselves are growing fewer and fewer. We see them year after year in smaller numbers still suffering, still carrying the scars of the sacrifice they made for all of us.
There are others who suffered as well. So we have the Silver Cross Mother every year at the War Memorial representing those family members who also suffered and were part of that sacrifice. This year Mrs. Alice Taylor from Ottawa West was Canada's Silver Cross Mother. She is very proud of that and I am very proud of her.
Remembering is more than simply remembering the veterans. That alone is important and that alone is valuable. Why we remember and the other things that we are reminded of in remembering them are also important. We remember what the best of human valour and achievement can be when we remember those veterans because they made the ultimate sacrifice of risking and often giving their lives for others. There is no braver thing that a human being can do.
We also remember and value the democracy they fought for. We cannot have Remembrance Day and take for granted the privileges of being a democracy. We also remember that war is not a glamorous thing and that peace is something to be sought in their memory.
I go to the Westboro Legion to attend its remembrance services several times a year. The ceremony always closes with these words, which typify what this motion is all about, which is to ensure that at least for one segment, those who work for this Parliament in delivering services to Canada, this day shall be sacred as a holiday in perpetuity.
I close as the remembrance services at my Legion close, with these words: "We will remember them, we will remember them".


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dartmouth has proposed a private member's bill, Bill C-289, an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements.
Under this bill, every collective agreement entered into pursuant to the Public Service Staff Relations Act shall provide: (a) that Remembrance Day is to be a holiday; (b) that no employee in a bargaining unit shall be required to work on Remembrance Day unless it is essential for the public safety or public interest that the work be done on that day; (c) that an employee who is required to work on Remembrance Day shall receive an extra remuneration or benefit for doing so.
I wish to say unequivocally that my opposition to the hon. member's proposal is in no way directed at the obvious sincerity of his effort to highlight the importance of Remembrance Day. Nevertheless, I must emphasize that I am not at all persuaded that the proposal put forward will have the desired effect.
The federal government negotiates under the Public Service Staff Relations Act with 80 bargaining units, 17 different unions, some 187,000 unionized employees and 23,000 non-union employees. Thanks in large part to the collective bargaining process, these employees already

April 29, 1992
Private Members' Business
have a provision in their collective agreements that designates Remembrance Day as a paid holiday.
Once a benefit is covered in a law, it is no longer negotiable, for all practical purposes. If practices change or the need for a particular benefit increases or decreases, the only way to change it would be through legislation.
This bill does not meet the concerns of the members who spoke in favour of the bill in the House in that it does not help people better understand the meaning of Remembrance Day or make them aware of it. It only confirms a holiday that is already granted to public servants.
I do not believe that the holiday that federal government employees and many other workers would have confers particular importance on commemorating those who served their country or gave their life to it. For example, schools hold ceremonies in which all students take part and during which they hear about the selfless deeds done by their heroes and the debt that we can never repay them.
In my opinion, remembering what they did and not the holiday makes that day special in our eyes. This is a question on which it is very hard not to agree because hon. members may think that I am against Remembrance Day, when in fact I am talking about the need to leave it to the collective bargaining process rather than to impose a decision by legislation.
In conclusion, I agree with having all Canadians remember our heroes' valour and the importance of Remembrance Day. Nevertheless, I must conclude that the proposal of the hon. member for Dartmouth does nothing to achieve that objective.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I fully endorsed this bill in the previous sitting. I know that all members of the Legion in my riding who have come to me in support of this bill would understand that rather than continuing with my speech I would defer to my colleague from London East who was detained earlier but is now in the House and is now able to add his
voice to the long list of members who support our colleague from Dartmouth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am just looking at the record and must say that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood spoke on this bill in the first 60 minutes. Therefore, I would like to recognize the hon. member for London East.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood obviously wants to speak as much as possible on this bill because he believes in this bill, as I do, and as does my colleague from Dartmouth who has proposed this very important bill, Bill C-289. It really is an honour and a privilege for me to stand before this House in support of this private members' bill that will go a long way toward ensuring that Remembrance Day is embedded in collective agreements and is fully recognized as a holiday, and is not in legislation which can be removed at any future date.
Of course it should not be used as a bargaining chip. The President of the Treasury Board has now indicated that he cannot support this private member's bill because it would take away some flexibility from the Treasury Board in future negotiations with the Public Service.
That is a red herring in this whole argument. My colleague from Dartmouth has essentially put it in its proper context. This bill is not only important to the veterans of this country and the Legionnaires across this country who, let us not forget, have given up and sacrificed much for this country.
On our 125th birthday this year nothing would be more fitting than a tribute to those veterans who have given up so much, to their families who have sacrificed so much, to finally recognize without any question that Remembrance Day should be recognized for what it is. It is Canada's day to display its respect for our veterans and an indication of how much we appreciate what they have done for this country.
Bill C-289 essentially tries to take any ambiguity out of the future of this holiday as we have come to know and respect it for the past number of years and to put it in the collective agreements to ensure that it cannot be tampered with. For the government to even suggest that it wants to use it and that it would take away from its flexibility is an insult to this country, to every veteran in
April 29, 1992

this country, their families and the veterans who died for this country. It is a slap in the face to them.
The fact that this government has put up this red herring and has instructed its government benches to vote against this private members' bill is absolutely uncalled for and disgraceful. In fact, the Dominion president, Mr. Jolleys, wrote to the Prime Minister on April 2 when Legion members across the country became aware of this government's hesitation in supporting Bill C-289.
In fact, he wrote to the Prime Minister indicating how outraged the Legions and their members across this country were at the fact that Treasury Board would even consider this to be a bargaining chip to be used at its whim in order to achieve certain things with the Public Service.
Let us remember November 11 for what it is, that is to remember the contribution of veterans across this country. That is what this bill seeks to do. Playing politics with such a bill, I suggest as I have before, shows absolutely no respect whatsoever for the meaning of that day in Canada's history nor shows little more respect for the veterans who this bill wants to pay tribute to.
Again, I want to convey to this House that in fact the member for Dartmouth, after a considerable amount of work, diligence and consultation, managed to put forward this bill that in fact has all the support of 650,000 Legion members across this country and seeks again to take away any ambiguity presently under the Holidays Act in which November 11 is stated to be a holiday.
I do not think at this point on this particular issue that we should at all play politics with it. I would urge and hope that the government members see this bill for what it is. There are other ways, of course, in terms of negotiating with the Public Service rather than trying to take away the most symbolic and most important of holidays, that is November 11, Remembrance Day.
I would hope that the Prime Minister would heed the letter of the Dominion president and would essentially let the members of the government backbenches vote as their conscience would dictate so that in fact they can show that this House unanimously supports the veterans of this country and that, without question, we would want to ensure that November 11 is recognized for what
Private Members' Business
it is, a holiday in remembrance of veterans and what they have done for this great country.
It seems to me that if, in fact, the government did not see this as a threat to its authority, that it would not take away any flexibility in dealing with the Public Service, surely to God it would not want to use such an instrument as Remembrance Day to be able to do something with respect to the Public Service.
Who would you hurt by in fact turning down this bill? You would not be hurting the Public Service. You would be hurting the veterans. You would be hurting those people who have sacrificed much for this country. Let us not lose sight of what my hon. colleague from Dartmouth has tried to achieve, a bill that once and for all without question recognized the great contribution of veterans across this country to put into those agreements November 11 as a holiday for Canadians to recognize what Remembrance Day is about.
I am sure that each and every November 11, Mr. Speaker, you stand among many across this country in front of a cenotaph. We are there to pay tribute to those men and women who have fallen and to those men and women who have given much to this country. They have sacrificed much.
It would seem to me that this House, through this bill, would be sending a signal to our young people, to all people, that Remembrance Day should not be forgotten but should be remembered more so so that this country would not have to go through the sacrifices that it has in the past.
It is for peace. It is to recognize the great sacrifices that the men and women have made for this great country. Anything that this House can do from an educational standpoint to instil in young people, in all people, the great importance of Remembrance Day is what we should do. I think this bill does that.
Now that it is before us, if this government plays politics with it and turns it down, what kind of a signal would we be sending not only to the veterans?
What kind of signal would we be sending to those young people and other people across Canada who want to pay tribute to the veterans? We would not just be slapping veterans in the face but we would be saying to the rest of the country: "I guess November 11 does not really have any meaning because we are prepared to turn down a bill that without question would firmly put this in legislation and also in every agreement so that it cannot

April 29, 1992
Private Members' Business
be tampered with". This is one day that should be and will be remembered forever.
In conclusion, let us not forget that this bill is for recognition for the veterans. We do not want to play politics with that particular day and this private member's bill as proposed by the member for Dartmouth will essentially make that a reality.
Again, if the government feels threatened because this might take away some bargaining chip or some flexibility in its future negotiations with the Public Service, there are other ways of dealing with the Public Service in a constructive manner rather than holding such a constructive bill over the heads of the Public Service and saying that is why we cannot support it for the veterans.
I am proud to stand and support this bill. As my colleague from Dartmouth has said in his bill, it is finally recognizing, without question, the great contribution of the veterans of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hour is finished. The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being eight o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 30, 1992