1992-12-04

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring a matter of privilege to the attention of the House.
It is my contention that my privileges and those of the House have been breached and that the actions of another person are in contempt of Parliament. I will deviate from the House to a committee for only a very brief moment. With the indulgence of Mr. Speaker, I will demonstrate how the issue affects the House as a whole.
In November of this year, in my capacity as a member of Parliament, I requested that the clerk of the sub-committee on justice reviewing the Criminal Code, Mr. Richard Dupuis, invite Mrs. Sheryl Eckstein of Vancouver to testify before the committee. Mrs. Eckstein did testify before that committee on November 24, I believe it was. It is about that issue I now wish to speak.
After her testimony, Mrs. Eckstein was intimidated by a person at the employ of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The individual in question, Mrs. Kelly Crichton of the CBC, contacted Mrs. Eckstein yesterday to inform her that the issue of her testimony had been referred to the legal department of the CBC to be looked into. The implication was that there would be a lawsuit or a threat of a lawsuit against the individual for her testimony before the committee.
I do not wish to discuss the merits of the testimony of the individual although of course I could. That is not at
issue here. The issue is whether or not this Parliament has a right to listen to any witness without the intimidation of anyone else. I do believe that right is ours.
I will make my summation brief because the bill before us today is one on which many of my colleagues wish to speak, but I do want to remind the Speaker of a few citations. Erskine May's 20th edition, page 116, states:
- all witnesses summoned to attend before either House of Parliament, or before parliamentary committees, and to others in personal attendance upon the business of Parliament, in coming, staying, and returning -
-to the House enjoy the same privileges as members of the House of Commons. In other words, they cannot be sued for anything they say or bring to the attention of the committee.
I also want to mention two other definitions. One of them involves Mr. Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada. That has to do with obstructing or interfering with a person other than a member, a person who wants to testify before either a committee or the House. I quote:
All persons who have business with the House of Commons receive the temporary protection of the House during the time they are en route to the House of Commons or to the place of the parliamentary proceedings with which they have business, while they are involved and taking part in the parliamentary proceeding and while they are returning from the parliamentary proceeding. This includes witnesses who appear before committees, whether summoned or invited, counsel to witnesses, petitioners delivering petitions to members of Parliament, and persons involved in advancing the cause of a private bill to be discussed.
I cite the following as well:
For example, whether contempt of the House had been committed by tampering with a witness would depend on the facts in each case.
In other words, Mr. Maingot says that there are, in fact, cases where this can be deemed to be contempt of the House.

December 4, 1992
Privilege
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you as well of Beau-chesne's citation 853:
Every witness appearing before the House or any committee thereof may claim the protection of the House-
-not the committee, of the House-
- in respect to the evidence to be given.
Citation 865 says that:
To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before the House or any committee or to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, the case I bring before you is quite clear. For someone to have contacted a witness who appeared before a parliamentary committee and to have threatened that witness is not an offence to be brought strictly before the committee. It is an offence against the House because of course the allegation or the threat was not made in committee. It was made completely outside of the House of Commons but in relation to the proceedings of a committee of this House.
Furthermore, I want to present the argument that were such threats to go on unchallenged, they can and would undoubtedly be repeated, that individuals from now on would no longer enjoy the security they have had from time immemorial to testify before Parliament without the threat of being sued or intimidated by anyone. That, Mr. Speaker, is far more important than anything else.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention in the unlikely event that you would be tempted to rule that this matter should be dealt with at committee, that in fact the committees are in the process of winding down for the Christmas period.
This evidence was brought before a sub-committee which has terminated its proceedings for the next few months. Therefore, the evidence on this could only be heard before committee in a number of months from now at the earliest, if at all, in the event of a prorogation of Parliament later. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you and to all my colleagues in the House that we must address this issue as an institution.
I wish also to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that were you to find that there is a prima facie case of privilege, as I claim there is, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion in order that this most important issue of the testimony of and the threat against Mrs. Sheryl Eckstein be referred to the parliamentary committee on procedure, privileges and elections.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to indicate to you that the CBC individual in question has confirmed her phone call with Mrs. Eckstein before the media in an article today by Mr. Peter Stockland of the Sun chain of newspapers. In fact she has confirmed having made the communication to Mrs. Eckstein. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is independent verification of the fact the communication actually took place.
I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues for listening to what I believe is an issue that could affect the privileges of all of us.
Finally, let us remember that the actions in question go far beyond our privileges. In my view, the actions of the individual are contemptuous of this great institution, and that is an issue which I hope you will address.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleague in bringing this issue before you and before the House. I would expect it is a matter of concern to all members of the House.
In addition to the references given by the member, I would like to refer to page 132 of Erskine May's 21st edition where it seems to be very clear that it is a breach of privilege to attempt by persuasion or solicitations of any kind to induce a witness not to attend or to give false evidence.
Without repeating the arguments, I would just like to make a couple of quick points. First, it may be relevant to your consideration that the alleged offence occurred after the witness gave evidence to the committee. In my submission that does not affect the question of the privileges of this House because the affect of the threat to sue would be chilling on future witnesses before committees or before this House. It is therefore relevant that you examine whether the threat to sue in these circumstances is a prima facie breach of privilege.
The CBC has said the basis of its concern was that the material was used out of context. That of course gets to the substance of the issue, but be that as it may a threat to sue for use of CBC material surely goes far beyond an expression of some concern of the context. That issue could have and should have been raised directly with the committee.
December 4, 1992

Finally, let me say I agree with the member that this should simply referred back to the committee. It is important for this House to establish and reaffirm the privileges that it has in hearing witnesses and having them freed from a threat of suit which as the member indicated is not likely to have had any force or substance given the rules of this House.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Glengariy-Prescott-Russell for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I appreciate the argument that my friend from Victoria has made as well about the "after the fact" alleged threat and its possible chill effect.
I have just had handed to me by my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell a copy of the Ottawa Sun article from this morning and a quick glance at it seems to suggest there may be an issue of copyright involved in this. It is not for us to judge that at this point. I think that and other issues raised by my friend from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell would properly be the subject of the committee on privileges and elections.
It seems to me there is a prima facie case here and I would support, if you should so rule, Sir, the referral of the matter to that committee.



SPEAKER'S RULING

['I do not know what the government is going to call. I am going to take a few minutes to consider the representations that have been made to me and the government can make its own decision as to whether it is calling this particular bill. I do not intend to hold up the commencement of the debate but I do want to consider my position for a few minutes.']
Mr. Speaker:: First of all I thank the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for bringing this matter to the House, the hon. member for Victoria who has made a helpful intervention, and the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government.
Some mention has been made that this matter arose in a committee and hon. members will have heard me say many times that usually matters should be put back to committee. My own feeling is that under the circumstances which have been explained to me that is not the convenient or appropriate thing to do at this time.
I have listened carefully to what was said. I think this is an appropriate case for the Chair to rule that there is a prima facie case for privilege. I would ask the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to move his motion.
Point of Order


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the matter of the threats by Miss Kelly Crichton against Miss
Sheryl Eckstein, a witness before a parliamentary committee, be
referred to the Standing Committee on House Management.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is the House in agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning Bill C-93, an omnibus bill which is to be debated under House orders in a few moments. I want to take this occasion to put some procedural arguments before the Chair.
Six sitting days ago Bill C-93 was first tabled in the House. We are here today and the government wishes to proceed with second reading, which I suggest to the Chair is the most important aspect of a bill. This is where the principles are ascertained, promoted and debated quite vigorously.
In the budget of last February the government announced that for reasons of economy it planned to fold a number of agencies into other agencies or departments doing similar work.
Bill C-93 is intended to give legislative authority to the government's announcement with regard to 10 agencies performing distinctive functions. The long title of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, is intended to mask the real complexities of the bill.
It puts forward the fiction that the bill is merely a cost cutting measure eliminating a bunch of redundant or archaic agencies. In fact an examination of the bill reveals that while it does not wind up some agencies thereby saving some money, it also makes major changes to public policy with regard to the role of government. The bill amends or repeals no fewer than 27 existing statutes and enacts one completely new statute.

December 4, 1992
Point of Order
If properly drafted the long title would indicate its purpose of terminating specific agencies by name. This would of course uncover the real purpose of the bill in the guise of cutting costs and eliminating some redundant bodies to eliminate a number of government agencies that in the course of effectively carrying out their responsibilities have become thorns in the government's side.
Superficially the principle of the bill, the government purports, is to reduce the cost of government. In reality, however, it raises the principles of maintaining-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment, the hon. parliamentary secretary is rising.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to what my hon. friend was saying. It seems to me that if there is a point of order to be made it ought to be made with expedition.
What my friend is doing is anticipating debate under Government Orders and we have not got to that yet. He is in fact beginning a debate that has not yet been called.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention.
I am listening very carefully to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I think he is reaching his point and I know that he,will be as concise as he always is.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy for the intervention of the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps I might be able to facilitate the process whereby Bill C-93 in its present form would not come forward.
I wish to remind the House of Beauchesne's 6th edition dealing with this particular matter in the following citation 634:
Speakers have expressed deep concern about the use of omnibus bills, and have suggested that there must be "a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint". Nevertheless, the practice of using one bill to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related subjects, while a matter of concern, is an issue on which the Speaker will not intervene to divide the bill.
Citation 635 states:
In the case of an omnibus bill, the Speaker has encouraged the use of motions to delete a clause at the report stage, pursuant to Standing Order 76(2) to permit the House to decide a specific issue contained in
an omnibus bill, even though the motion might offend the principle of the bill.
In support of my argument I would like to quote from Hansard of March 1, 1982 when the hon. member for Calgary Centre said in the House, as reported at page 15479, with regard to an energy bill which had been tabled at that time:
That is the title of an omnibus bill with a capital O and a capital B. Indeed, I would argue that it would be more accurately described as an "omnifarious bill", meaning of all sorts, or perhaps an "omnific" bill, meaning all-creating. Certainly there has never before in the history of Parliament been included in one proposed bill such an incredible hodge-podge and mish-mash of such disparate items.
Furthermore, in the final quote given to the Chair, the same hon. member went on to quote from the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, as reported in the House of Commons Journals for January 26, 1971, at page 284:
However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the honourable member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital O and a capital B. But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
I suggest in conclusion that this particular bill because of its width, because of the various agencies that it affects, because of the way in which it changes public policy in this country, ought to be sent back to the drafters and divided accordingly and then brought back to this House.
As Bill C-93 stands as an omnibus bill, I hope the Chair would take my arguments into consideration and send this bill back to the drafters.
I raise this point now, in response to the parliamentary secretary, because there were indications that we would be proceeding with second reading today. Maybe that is not the case. If that is not the case, that indeed gives further comfort and further ease to the government to take the bill back to the drafters and do so appropriately.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have a sense of having been here before. I think this whole argument has been gone through as recently as March 30 of this year. The budget of course was approved last March 11 and an issue was raised by other members, I think the member
December 4, 1992

for Kamloops and the member for North Island-Powell River. Indeed it was triggered by our friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond on March 30.
The arguments made by my predecessor, the hon. member for Peace River, ought to guide us in looking at the point of the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond in this particular case.
The umbrella of this particular legislation was made very clear in the budget. It indicated very clearly that the government planned to dissolve or terminate a number of corporations and other bodies for a central theme. That is the ability to cut government expenditures and, therefore, as much as possible relieve the burden on the Canadian taxpayer and to reduce the stress and pressure of this very difficult debt situation we are faced with in this country. That, said my colleague, the member for Peace River, is the umbrella. The term umbrella was used advisedly because it is found in Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 192, citation 626:
(1) Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.
We might refer in this particular case to the debates of June 8, 1988, page 16255 of Hansard. The Chair at that time agreed with the best definition. You, Sir, agreed with the hon. member for Windsor West in his quotation from page 15880 of Hansard for May 30, 1988:
The essential defence of an omnibus procedure is that the Bill in question, although it may seek to create or to amend many disparate statutes, in effect has one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.
You, Sir, at that time said that the Chair was grateful to the member for Windsor West for those words and that they had assisted you greatly in arriving at your decision. I would submit that the facts of the point my friend has raised are virtually four square with the points raised on June 8, 1988 and again in the point of order raised by this same member on March 30, 1992 and that it should not be difficult for you to make the same decision on this occasion so that the business of the House might proceed.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know what the government is going to call. I am going to take a few minutes to consider the representations that have been made to me and the government can make its own decision as to whether it is calling this particular bill. I do not intend to hold up the commencement of the debate but I do want to consider my position for a few minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Shirley Martin (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find it appropriate to move the adjournment of the House. The appropriate ministers are not here.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should know that he cannot move the adjournment of the House under a point of order.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate on Bill C-93, an act that will help restructure and streamline the operations of government in order to improve both efficiency and service to Canadians.
Part of the reason I am pleased to begin this debate is that certainly one of my concerns prior to my election to Parliament back in 1988 was the whole business of how government delivered service and programs and how did we best provide to the people of Canada the things that were of value to them. I believe that this bill goes a long way in that direction.
As proposed in the February 1992 budget, passage of legislation before us today will allow for a number of government operations to be consolidated or merged with other operations of government. The 1992 budget reflected the advice received by the Minister of Finance

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
during his extensive pre-budget consultations with Canadians from all walks of life and from all regions of the country. While he heard many differing views on how best to meet the economic challenges faced by Canada, he heard one particular view over and over again. Put simply, it was that the structure of government did not yet reflect the realities of the new global economy.
We are reminded on a daily basis that the world economy has changed dramatically in the past decade, in particular accelerating technological advancements have extended competition beyond national boundaries. In the process international markets and customers we once considered secure are now up for grabs. To be competitive and preserve our markets, Canadian firms have had to be more efficient. They have had to face the challenge of cutting costs without sacrificing quality in order to provide superior goods and services at lower prices than our competitors.
Despite the hardships of an international economic slowdown, there are indications that Canadian businesses and their employees are succeeding. An array of recent statistics points to the fact that the international competitiveness of Canadian industry is on the rise. For example, the growth in unit labour costs in Canada has dropped from about 8 per cent in early 1991 to 1.5 per cent in the first half of this year. Only the U.S. has a better 1992 record among the G-7 countries. Not coincidentally, Canadian exports rose 9.5 per cent in the first half, reaching a record of $13 billion in August. Certainly in my constituency I can confirm that businesses are saying it is still continuing so there is good news there.
However, the need to restructure to increase our international competitiveness is not exclusive to the private sector. Government must also become leaner, more efficient and more productive. Where services are duplicated they must be merged. Where programs are obsolete they must be eliminated. Where savings can be achieved, particularly in administrative overhead, they must be realised.
In effect, governments must continue to serve their constituents effectively but they must do so with less resources. In so doing, governments will be taking the kind of actions that the private sector is having to take and has been taking for quite some time. They will
demonstrate to Canadians that they are not insulated from the real world and that they are responding to the same competitive pressures that are buffeting the private sector.
On a practical level, reducing expenditures will help to control the deficit and the national debt which in turn will lead to lower interest rates and a reduced tax burden for Canadians and Canadian businesses.
We on this side of the House have worked to reduce the size and cost of the federal government. We have restrained federal spending, including public sector wages. On Wednesday of this week there were some additional actions announced that were most important in that direction. We have implemented the Spending Control Act and the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account to ensure that fiscal responsibility is a matter of law. By privatizing over 20 Crown corporations we have reduced the public payroll by some 50,000 employees.
Nevertheless we realize, as do Canadians, that the task of streamlining the federal government and making it more efficient is not yet complete. Bill C-93 is another step in that direction.
The budget implementation government organizations bill is the second of a series of omnibus bills designed to give effect to the government's streamlining measures announced in the 1992 budget. The purpose of the bill is to reduce government overhead and to provide services to Canadians more efficiently.
The bill includes the necessary amendments required to give full effect to the budget decisions affecting 15 different organizations. I want to consider now the specific organizations addressed in Bill C-93.
I would note that any pulic servants affected by the reorganizations in this bill will be covered by the government's work force adjustment policy. The policy provides for notice of layoff, opportunities for alterntive employment and arrangements for termination of employment.
The legislation provides for the winding up of the Agricultural Products Board. Over the years the board has provided an important service in stabilizing markets for agricultural commodities. However, the function can be exercised more efficiently on the basis of an amended
December 4, 1992

Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act with the support of the Department of Agriculture.
Along similar lines, the positive features of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will be retained after the corporation is folded into the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. In particular, financial assistance will continue to be available for new and existing businesses that are likely to make a substantial contribution to industrial development and employment opportunities in Cape Breton Island outside of the coal producing and steel industries. ACOA's new statutory powers will be restricted to Cape Breton Island and a portion of mainland Nova Scotia around the town of Mulgrave.
Dissolving the ECBC and carrying over its specific statutory powers to ACOA will eliminate a duplication in program delivery and the administrative overlap which that duplication entails. For example, the post-merger staff complement of ACOA's Cape Breton office is projected to be reduced by 23 person-years from 72 to 40. ACOA clients in Cape Breton will be the beneficiaries of increased efficiency in promotion, financial assistance and development of industry on the island.
Passage of Bill C-93 will result in the creation of a new, single cultural agency by combining the Canada Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. I want to emphasize that despite fiscal pressures, our government has continued to provide significant levels of funding for the arts and the humanities. We believe that Canadian culture has a vital role in fostering a vigorous and unified nation.
The new agency will deal with a full range of cultural matters, including international cultural programs and international academic relations currently under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs. Under the provisions of the act, the new council will be required to take Canada's foreign policy into account in fulfilling its mandate.
The merger will result in increased efficiency in the delivery of programs and services such as grants to artists, promotion of the arts and the provision of scholarships in the social sciences and humanities. As a result, we will enhance our capacity to project our
Government Orders
national personality and the expression of our culture abroad.
To realize savings in administrative overhead, the government proposes to fold the Canadian Commercial Corporation into the Department of Supply and Services. However, given the nature of the CCC's function, its dissolution will be phased in. Nevertheless, administrative savings of $1 million have already been identified from the corporation's 1992-93 appropriation of $14.9 million.
The CCC facilitates exports by Canadian suppliers, particularly defence products to foreign governments. Last year, the total value of orders obtained by the corporation on behalf of some 500 Canadian suppliers totalled $678 million. Moreover, the CCC's business involves more than 2,000 ongoing contracts in a least 50 countries. Therefore, we propose a gradual dissolution of the CCC until the Minister of Supply and Services is satisfied that there will be no detrimental effects on our exports and our trade relations with other countries. In the interim, the CCC will remain a corporate entity.
The government also proposes that Emergency Preparedness Canada be folded back into the Department of National Defence. This is an appropriate action given that Emergency Preparedness Canada was housed within the Department of National Defence prior to 1988 and still reports to the Minister of National Defence.
The budget papers did note that EPC's functions in relation to planning and co-ordinating civil emergency preparedness remain essential. However, its separate organizational status is not necessary for the effective fulfilment of that mandate. Moreover, folding EPC back into the Department of National Defence will allow for its functions to be continued at a lower cost in administrative overhead.
Bill C-93 additionally provides for the amalgamation of the RCMP External Review Committee and the RCMP Public Complaints Commission into a single body entitled the Independent Review Commission for the RCMP.
As was the case with the agencies being replaced, the new body will be independent from the RCMP. It will deal with public complaints concerning the conduct of RCMP officers and review appeals and grievances for members of the RCMP.

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
Consolidating these two similar agencies will achieve savings in administrative overhead, eliminate duplication of services and allow for increased efficiency and program delivery. This action will result in the reduction of seven person-years and one Governor in Council appointment and annual saving of about $1 million.
Efficiency gains will also be realized by merging the Copyright Board, the Trade Marks Opposition Board and the Patent Appeal Board to form the new intellectual property tribunal. Its duties will include the fixing of royalties which the performing rights societies may collect in return for granting licences for the performance of dramatic or musical works. The tribunal will also decide on how royalties should be divided, including those generated by the retransmission of television and radio signals. The intellectual property tribunal will arbitrate dispute on copyright royalties and decide opposition and cancellation procedures arising under the Trade Marks Act.
As recommended by an independent report, the tribunal will bring together an expanded wealth of intellectual property law and expertise into one organization. Industry sectors involved in the use of intellectual property will benefit through improved service and greater expertise among board members. Given that the tribunal at times will rule on government decisions it will be independent of the government.
The legislation also provides for the merger of the Procurement Review Board and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Following the merger, the new organization will be named the international trade and procurement tribunal and report to Parliament through the Minister of Finance.
Amalgamating the PRB and the Cll 1 is a logical course of action. As members will know, these two entities provide similar services pertaining to complaints from Canadian and American suppliers about unfair trading practices. While the PRB's authority is limited to government procurement decisions within the scope of the free trade agreement, both bodies conduct investigations, hold hearings, uphold or dismiss complaints and if necessary determine remedies.
The new entity will provide increased administrative efficiencies from the sharing of personnel and overhead. For those who fear that the expertise accumulated by the PRB will be lost in the merger, I want to assure them this is not the case. As the new name implies, the international trade and procurement tribunal will have a separate division that will deal solely with matters of government procurement.
The government also intends to wind up the Petroleum Monitoring Agency. Its functions will be assumed in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. For those who are unfamiliar with the PMA, the agency publishes semi-annual and annual ownership surveys of the petroleum industry as well as other specific reports as requested by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to whom the PMA currently reports.
This streamlining action builds upon the efficiency gains that the PMA has achieved over the years which have already allowed for a steady decline of its size and budget. It also reflects the fact that administratively an independent agency with 10 person-years and a parttime chairman is not the most effective manner in which to perform the monitoring function. Monitoring the petroleum industry within EMR will result in annual savings of $300,000 over the PMA's 1991-92 budget and will require two less person-years.
Finally, the Veteran's Land Administration will be wound up and its function and responsibility will be transferred directly to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This merging of VLA operations with those of the department will allow greater economies while ensuring that the interests of veterans are fully protected.
I want to emphasize that the VLA program is not being abolished. Rather, the legislation merely reflects the fact the program is in its final phase. Established during the Second World War, the VLA program provides loans and other assistance to veterans purchasing property for farms and homes. However, no new loans have been made since 1977 and as of April 1, 1992 there were 10,603 loans outstanding as opposed to 144,000, 20 years ago. Given the declining VLA workload, it is appropriate that its separate agency status be terminated.
December 4, 1992

As I have described, Bill C-93 will result in significant administrative savings and increased efficiency in the delivery of government programs and services to Canadians.
It reflects the government's commitment to ensure that tax dollars are not wasted on funding duplicated services or excessive administration. The bill makes sensible changes in a reasonable way while ensuring that the national interest is served. Accordingly I would urge my hon. colleagues to ensure speedy passage of this most important piece of legislation.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I want to participate in this debate. I am anticipating that the Chair will rule in favour of my suggestion that the bill ought to be sent back to the drafters in order that it be brought back in its appropriate form.
Nevertheless, I wish to direct my comments to one aspect of Bill C-93 and that has to do with the amendments to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. In this particular bill, as has been referred to by the hon. member opposite, the Government of Canada will be shutting down Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. This was an agency put in place to facilitate and enhance economic development on the island of Cape Breton. That was part and parcel of Bill C-103 which was introduced back in 1987.
For the benefit of the House and those who are viewing our proceedings, I wish to share with the hon. members opposite as well as other members in the Chamber the historical significance that individuals in Cape Breton believe Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation could play now and in the future.
Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation was supposed to assume the role and responsibilities of the industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. History is important, for in studying history we can learn what we have done well and what we have done not so well.
In 1967 the Government of Canada at the behest of the then member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso, who now sits in the other place, presented a piece of legislation before the House of Commons to create the Cape Breton Development Corporation. At that time the coal industry was in massive difficulty. Unemployment was rampant on the island. Economic opportunities were practically non-existent.
Government Orders
As a measure of goodwill and to try to enhance real opportunities the government of the day and particularly that member who was a minister of the Crown introduced the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It had two divisions. One was the coal division, the second was the industrial development division.
The purpose of the bill I would like to read into the record. At that time it was succinctly defined by the hon. Allan J. MacEachen in the House of Commons when he spoke on the motion introducing the corporation's enabling legislation: "To acquire, reorganize and rehabilitate certain coal mining works and undertakings on Cape Breton Island, to conduct coal mining operations in the Sydney coal fields and to promote and assist the development of industry on Cape Breton Island to provide employment outside the coal producing industry and to broaden the base of the island's economy".
It had two divisions with its own president, its own board of directors and its own mandate. It is important to remember this for the purposes of debate. Devco has had some successes and it has had some failures. I do not think anyone in this Chamber would doubt that. Having the two divisions enabled those individuals who are involved in the coal mining sector to have some sense of security for their future and some hope as to where we might go.
Since we are specifically talking about industrial development, I want to share with members what my colleague, Senator Graham, said in the upper House on May 26, 1988 from the Hansard of the Senate, page 3500. He talks about the industrial development division:
The industrial development division continues to fulfil its mandate by doing what the coal division cannot do in many of those communities whose history and economy are deeply rooted in coal. Among other things, the industrial development division provides urban and industrial infrastructure, supports the entrepreneurial development programs and supports local self help organization. We must underline and emphasize that the corporation is not two separate divisions with two mutually exclusive mandates; in reality, the mandate and the direction are the same, to modernize and diversify the Cape Breton economy.
The corporate mandate may be protected in legislation, but it is corporate policy that determines the results. The Cape Breton

Development Corporation has, through the policy decision, chosen to be socially responsible to the people of Cape Breton Island.
That was the essence of the corporation and that was in essence the work of the Industrial Developoment Division. The former chairman of the board of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, Dr. Theresa Mac-Neil, said in part:
The social conscience of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has long been possible by the work it assigned to the Industrial Development Division. It is possible through program retention to duplicate the current activities of the Industrial Development Division. That is not a problem. However, in doing so, the essence of the Cape Breton Development Corporation is being lost.
I share that with members of the House because historically we had the Cape Breton Development Corporation which was to do a number of things, as I have indicated, and the government comes along in October of 1986 and creates the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That is in part I of the bill. In part II of the bill it did away with the Industrial Development Division and created what we now have, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, which the government now wishes to do away with.
In the Speech from the Throne on October 1, 1986 the Conservative government announced its intention to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in order to "facilitate and co-ordinate all federal development initiatives in that area".
That was October 1, 1986. This announcement was made by the Prime Minister on June 6, 1987 in Saint John with unbelievable fanfare. There was a huge press conference, a big news release, and a big reception. So vital was this new program that a mere six months later, a mere 14 months after the original announcement in the Speech from the Throne, the implementing legislation was finally introduced in the House of Commons in December of 1987.
The government's hypocrisy is rather breathtaking. It tells Atlantic Canadians that they are the real decision makers behind ACOA, which we know is not correct, and then warns them that they will be held culpable if ACOA fails.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was given a budget of $1.05 billion. All the wonderful press people
and the writers in The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star and The Montreal Gazette and The Vancouver Sun used to say my goodness, what an unbelievable amount of money for Atlantic Canada.
I know my time is coming to an end, but I just want to close with this and then I can continue the debate afterwards.
That was $1.05 billion over five years, roughly $200 million a year for four individual provinces. It amounted roughly to $86.96 per person. That is what the announcement then made with regard to ACOA.
I see my time is up, but I hope to continue the debate after Routine Proceedings.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 11 o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, today La Presse reported the following, and I quote:
Minister of Defence Marcel Masse has decided to take concrete steps to ensure that francophones are able to work and advance within the armed forces in their own mother tongue.
"The Chief of Staff and the Minister of Defence have decided it is imperative that all courses (basic occupational) shall be offered in French starting September 1993", the minister announced when he appeared yesterday before parliament's official languages committee.
In doing so, Mr. Masse wants to remedy a major deficiency in the department and the Armed Forces which was pointed out by a departmental official languages committee.
According to a report published on November 15 this year, 41 per cent of the basic courses for various occupations are still not available in French. Basic technical training for officers is given in French in only 10 per cent of the cases.
"This is a situation we cannot tolerate, and changes must be made as soon as possible", said Mr. Masse. He added that in five years' time, all basic technical training courses should be available in both languages, for all branches of the service and all occupations.
December 4, 1992


MULGRAVE, NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, a David and Goliath battle is shaping up in eastern Nova Scotia.
David is the town of Mulgrave, population of 951. Incorporated in 1923, Mulgrave is a proud town with a proud past. In recent years it has struggled against difficult odds to attract jobs for its residents. Unemployment in the town is between 23 per cent and upwards of 50 per cent depending on the measure one uses.
Goliath is the Royal Bank of Canada, the country's largest bank with assets of $132 billion and profits of $983 million in fiscal 1991.
The Royal Bank has decided to close its branch in Mulgrave which has been there for 81 years and consolidate its operations across the Strait of Canso in Port Hawkesbury. As a result, Mulgrave residents will lose the only bank in their community. They will have to travel a minimum of 28 kilometres round trip to obtain basic banking services.
This may be a small matter to the Royal Bank of Canada more accustomed to handling big accounts like Olympia and York, but it is no small matter to the residents of Mulgrave.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk.


CORN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCERS
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, corn and soybean producers in Ontario have suffered a devastating harvest.
A cold, wet growing season has produced one of the worst harvests in memory. As well, continued wet conditions this fall have prevented many farmers from harvesting their crops. Moisture levels in the crops that have been harvested are incredibly high.
Farmers are spending precious funds to dry corn that may only be suitable for animal feed. Many producers are finding that corn and soybean standing in the fields
are moulding and will be unsuitable even for animal feed.
I am pleased the Minister of Agriculture is providing assistance to these producers who are unable to harvest their crops. Farmers are devastated by this crop loss. I appreciate the Minister of Agriculture responding so quickly to the needs of the producers in Ontario.


SHELTERED WORKSHOPS
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, once again the NDP is showing that its pretence to be the conscience of the nation and the protector of the disadvantaged vanishes the minute it holds power and has its hands on the purse-strings.
In a cruel blow without warning, the NDP government in Ontario cut $5 million from sheltered workshops for mentally disabled individuals. Further cuts of up to $1 billion in social services may mean the complete elimination of sheltered workshops. In this region alone 200 individuals are on the waiting list and 200 more may soon be out on the streets.
Yesterday, on the International Day of the Disabled, 700 participants, parents, care workers and volunteers, rallied to protest the inhumanity of the NDP government.
I plead with the NDP members in this House. Talk to your colleagues in Toronto. Tell them to stop harassing, punishing and depriving our most vulnerable citizens.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, a constituent in my riding left her job in a home for mentally handicapped persons because of the mistreatment of the residents. She reported the information to the licensing board and the mental health officials and applied for UI. She was disqualified from UI for 12 weeks for quitting her job.
Now, a year later, the licensing body having investigated the home has cancelled its licence and removed the residents.

December 4, 1992
Under the government's new proposals, not only would she have been disqualified for 12 weeks but she would also have been denied any UI.
We should be congratulating this woman for standing up for the rights of the disadvantaged, not punishing her by denying her unemployment insurance.
With the threat of no unemployment insurance, others may not be so courageous putting the health and safety of group home residents at risk.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise to applaud the small business employment and investment package announced on Wednesday.
To encourage small business to expand and hire new employees, UI premium costs will be capped at 1992 levels. New enterprises will have a UI premium holiday for 1993.
Rules on investments in small business by RRSPs and labour-sponsored venture capital funds will be simplified and financing options expanded.
As well, a one year 10 per cent investment tax credit will be available for purchases of new machinery and equipment by small business in farming, fishing, mining, oil and gas, manufacturing, construction and long-haul transportation.
These measures will help those 800,000 private sector small business enterprises which are the engine of economic growth and the major source of job creation in this country.


VIMY BAND
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, in an attempt to reduce costs, the Department of National Defence is considering relocating the historic Vimy Band currently stationed at CFB Kingston to CFB Borden.
Moving the Vimy Band would require the transfer of 35 military personnel at an estimated cost of $409,500. By
comparison, relocating to Kingston the CFB Borden staff would require the expected transfer of eight personnel at a total cost of $96,300. This makes no sense.
Since its founding in 1952, the Vimy Band has been stationed in Kingston. Its ties with the community are very important for Kingston area residents and for the members of this great group of musicians.
If the department is serious about cost savings, look elsewhere. This scheme is ill-founded, ill-conceived and a major upset to the lives of 35 talented and competent musical soldiers.
I urge the department to re-examine this issue very carefully.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, when the government was bringing in free trade, the opposition parties declared their full support for GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. They said that we should enhance trade through multilateral negotiations.
The Liberal and NDP love GATT except when politics intervene. When it comes to complying with GATT on patent protection for brand name pharmaceuticals bringing our patent protection to the international standard of 20 years, then the opposition is against GATT.
Are the Liberals and the NDP in favour of GATT or not? How would they negotiate complex trade agreements? Will they be for or against GATT next spring when it concludes?
I look forward to learning of their positions.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, on Sunday, November 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, we will remember the Montreal massacre and I will remember the many women in my riding who have been murdered on the streets and officially forgotten.
December 4, 1992

What action has the government taken for women facing violence? The mini budget provided no job creation, no shelters, and no child care to help women escape violent situations.
Instead, it victimized women with punitive new unemployment insurance restrictions. It announced a 10 per cent cut per year in funds for organizations fighting violence. It cut $136 million from native communities dealing with the pain of violence. These escalating cuts are added to previous $1 million cuts to programs for immigrant, native and poor women.
It is not enough to have more research into violence. It is not enough for government members to wear white ribbons. They must stop hurting women.


NEW BRUNSWICK YOUTH STRATEGY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Five years ago in November 1988 an experimental project was initiated between the federal government and the Government of New Brunswick to assist young people in the frequently difficult transition from a school environment to the permanent workplace.
The program was intended to address both those who drop out of school as well as those who were graduating but unable to find a working career path.
The New Brunswick strategy was concentrated through store-front access centres for youth throughout the province where ease of contact would be followed by individual assessment counselling and direction. These new initiatives were designed to complement current labour market training and educational activities.
Through the youth strategy, government at all levels in New Brunswick, the private sector, labour, educators and youth groups worked together to strengthen the links between education and the world of work.
In March 1993 this pilot program will be completing its fifth full year with considerable evidence of success. It represents a combined federal and provincial investment of more than $120 million. Hopefully-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon member's time has expired. The hon. member for Haldimand- Norfolk.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment figures came out today and the news is not very good. The national figure rose to 11.8 per cent for November but the numbers are even more disturbing for the youth of this country.
The youth unemployment figures released today indicate that 438,000 young people do not have jobs. That is 18.4 per cent of Canada's youth. In October 406,000 young people were out of work. In other words, 32,000 more young Canadians have joined the ranks of the unemployed.
Canada's young people have lost confidence. They have lost confidence in what their futures hold and certainly lost confidence in what this government will be doing for them.
The recent Tory economic statement illustrates the government's lack of commitment to Canadian youth who are hoping for some action and a plan for economic growth. Unfortunately Canada's youth see no relief in sight and they have lost hope.
We need to address the problems of youth. We need to make youth issues a priority. In other words, we need a government which can give Canada's young people opportunity-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peterborough.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I am going to read a quotation from a female author involved in a project funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare: "I have a vision. My vision is of a time where women are respected and treated as equals. It is a time where women feel safe in their homes, on the streets and in their places of work. As a mother, it frightens me to think that my daughters, like all women, are vulnerable to abuse and violence by men".

December 4, 1992
Unfortunately, her vision is far from reality. The Montreal massacre of 1989 showed that violence against women is pervasive.
As we approach the second National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, let us pause to reflect on the damage violence has inflicted upon Canadian women, their families, and society as a whole. Let us resolve today to work toward that vision of true equality because anything less is unacceptable.



Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, few of us will forget the pain and horror we felt three years ago on December 6, 1989 when 14 young women's lives were taken in the brutal massacre at l'Ecole Polytechnique.
Our nation grieved and from our grief emerged determination not just to remember but to act, to act to put an end to violence against women and to improve the status of women in our society.
Each year in Canada 100 women are killed in domestic violence. Thousands more are abused physically and mentally. A recent survey showed that over 50 per cent of Canadian women are afraid to walk in the streets of their own neighbourhoods at night and that is a fear many of us understand.
[Translation)
We must act. Every one of us must act. We must put an end to fear and to these horrifying statistics. The government must show leadership. That is why I ask the government to reverse this decision to cut grants to women's groups. I ask the government to bring back the Court Challenges Program.

Violence is everyone's responsibility, men and women, in every community in this country.


NATIVE STUDENTS
Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, on November 29, 1991, the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and stated that self-fulfilment of the aspirations and the destiny of aboriginal persons in this country required many things including opportunity and encouragement, but education was the most important ingredient of all.
The Minister of Finance's economic statement did not exempt post-secondary education funding for native students. This area is already seriously underfunded.
The Blood tribe of Alberta will be forced to defer 358 native students who are eligible for funding this year alone. This is just one example.
Native students across this country are being denied the opportunity to build a future for themselves.


SMALL BUSINESSES
René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, we all know small business is one of the major areas where employment creation can occur in Canada. I want to congratulate the government in its statement the other day recognizing the important role that small business can play.
I am quite pleased with the increase to $250,000 in the limit for the Small Businesses Loans Act and particularly the inclusion of a provision that allows for some of that funding to be used for working capital requirements.
That is an excellent step. I congratulate the government for including a waiver of UI premiums for additional employees hired by small business and also for the tax credits for the purchase of capital equipment so important to the modernization and improvement of the competitiveness of business.
This government knows how important small business is to Canada. It has proven it by its statements in the House in the last few days.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, the government's latest budget once again gives the largest cut, proportionately speaking, to our International Development Assistance Program.
December 4, 1992

The primary objective of our overseas International Development Assistance Program is poverty alleviation. Mass starvation, low health and education achievements, devastating agricultural practices of four-fifth's of the world's poor contribute directly to the degradation of our global environment.
At the earth summit in Rio this year, our Prime Minister preened, and uttered the following: "Sustainable development is not a slogan; it is a prerequisite of our prosperity and a safeguard of our identity. It is also a standard of our responsibility to humanity". This government's standard of responsibility is abysmal.
This Prime Minister has no credibility. This government has no credibility. At a minimum, let the government acknowledge that effective poverty alleviation and sustainable development are achieved through our nongovernment organizations.
Respond to the Auditor General's concern about our support to institutions such as the World Bank and Regional Development Banks. Assure no cuts to the budget of our NGOs. Put some credibility into the Rio words of our Prime Minister.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
On Wednesday afternoon when I was listening to the minister, I kept telling myself, these guys just do not get it. I have the proof today; the big increase in unemployment during the month of November. Every working day
4.000	people are added to the unemployment list in Canada; 4,000 persons for every working day.
To face that problem, the minister came in with a public works program of infrastructure that will create
4.000	jobs, not every day of the month, but over a period of two years. We made suggestions regarding the policies of this government of high interest rates, a high dollar, high deficit, municipal infrastructure program and they said no, no, no, no.
Oral Questions
If the minister and the government feel they are right, why not tell the Prime Minister to do the right thing and go the Canadian people so that they can decide who is right and who is wrong.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, quite frankly, that is the only suggestion that I heard as I listened to the debate for the last couple of days: Call an election, no details, borrow some more money and spend a lot of it on infrastructure. On what types of infrastructure? Are there programs ready? Nobody really knows. Just throw money at the thing and then walk away.
Well, that is one suggestion and that is fine. There were some other suggestions which I hope that I can elaborate on.
Indeed, I am troubled by the latest unemployment statistics. I know that all members in the House are troubled by them. I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to remember one fact and it is that employment has grown in six of the last seven months. There have been
77,000	new jobs created, 104,000 permanent jobs since August. What we have here is one of the largest increases in the work force on record, some 89,000. While there have been jobs created, the growth of the labour force by 89,000 has caused the unemployment insurance figure to go up in percentage terms.
While I know the figure of 11.8 per cent is very disturbing, what is encouraging is that 13,000 new jobs were created in the month of November.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Finance.
In the province of Quebec, the unemployment rate has now reached 14.3 per cent.
In November this meant an increase of 1.6 per cent, the highest increase in the number of unemployed workers in Quebec in a single month since employment statistics were first" available.
The Minister of Finance has proposed a fantastic project which consists in repairing two bridges in the Montreal area. That is supposed to deal with the problem.

Oral Questions
Does the Minister of Finance have any idea of the despair that exists in Montreal and the province of Quebec? Last night, I was in Montreal, and there were for sale and for rent signs all over the place.
When will the Minister of Finance finally understand that this fight against inflation at any price is an absolute disaster? When will he act responsibly to give Quebecers a glimmer of hope and change his economic policies which have been condemned across the country by business people, workers, social groups, in fact everyone? When will the government finally understand that the time has come to change its economic policies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member would sort of sneeze at $500 million being invested in infrastructure programs that can commence almost immediately. I think it is important. In addition, there are a number of private sector initiatives that can be undertaken.
I understand the seriousness of the problem, but I can assure the hon. member the steps that we announced in the economic plan on Wednesday are genuine, are real and they will be acted upon with dispatch.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The
Minister of Finance constantly asks us for suggestions. Yesterday in Montreal I saw the places where Mayor Dore told me he was ready to begin work immediately. I saw the mayor of Laval not very long ago. He told me that he has specific projects on file that would put people to work immediately, two or three days after the government decision.
Why does the government absolutely refuse to accept this proposal from the Canadian union of mayors and municipalities, who are ready to invest one-third in each of these projects? The provincial governments are ready to go ahead, only the federal goverment is blocking it.
Why does the government stubbornly refuse to trust the municipalities, which could put people to work tomorrow morning? .Why does the minister not see the good sense in it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are acting. There will be tenders called for improvement to the bridges which are federal government property, $125 million in that particular area, $75 million on another group of transportation priorities, $36 million on the Montreal Port Corporation. All of these things will create a number of jobs and will create economic activity. The total effort will provide a number of new jobs and encourage the engineering and the construction sector. These things are going to start almost immediately.
In addition to that, there are a number of steps that have been taken to stimulate the small business sector incentives, improvements in access to capital, improvements in terms of providing incentives to hire more people; all of these things. The small business sector is very vibrant and alive and well in the province of Quebec. I expect that they will utilize the programs we announced and utilize them very effectively.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: In the same vein, Madam Speaker, the minister is directly depriving the unemployed and their families of $2.4 billion.

The minister says the recession is over. In the last week we have heard that 10,000 people at CN have lost their jobs; 2,000 people at Dofasco are going to lose their jobs; 2,500 people at CIBC are going to lose their jobs and GM workers in St. Catharines were delivered another blow, 800 more people to join the ranks of the unemployed. What do hear from the minister of employment? He calls them couch potatoes and accuses them of spending their winters in Florida. He has the nerve to say the unemployed should be proud to assist in paying off the national debt. How can the government make these gross statements and, worse still, how can it take these disgusting actions, these punitive measures against people who are already on their knees?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, there is a report, admittedly out of the United States, which indicates that under NAFTA the Canadian portion of the auto trade in North America will continue to be veiy strong, much
December 4, 1992

stronger than our population would warrant. NAFTA will, of course, help to maintain our auto trade.
I am mentioning the auto trade first because the hon. member mentioned the St. Catharines closing. We have known about the St. Catharines closing. It was announced about three months ago so we have known about that. We are willing to help in any way we can together with the province. It should be pointed out that that is 800 jobs, but 21,000 jobs were announced to be gone in the automotive industry in the United States yesterday.
We are living through a downsizing throughout North America and we are more than holding our own.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, that is an awful answer. It certainly does not send any relief to the thousands of Canadians who this week have been told by the government that they are bums, and at the same time have been told by companies that they are no longer wanted.
I ask the Minister of Finance whether he agrees with his colleague, the minister of employment, who said yesterday that many of the employed wanted to collect unemployment insurance so they could spend their winters in Florida.
Does he agree with that patently absurd statement? Is that really why he has taken these punitive measures of taking $2.4 billion directly from the hands of unemployed Canadians who are already begging for work from a government that seems to have no answers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, much of the savings that will be realized in the actions that were taken will be reappropriated and reallocated toward more training and skills upgrading. Some $3.8 billion will be spent on training and a new initiative will be undertaken with respect to the provision of co-ordinating the demands and the learning skills with the private sector so that there can be better synchronization of filling the job demands in the private sector.
What is being constituted here is a freeze of the average UI benefits. As I indicated in the House yesterday, this is not the first time it has happened. When the Leader of the Opposition was the finance minister, he cut the benefits from 66 and two-thirds to 60 per cent.
Oral Questions
There was no grandfathering. Both existing and new claimants were covered. He cut a million Canadians. At that time inflation was running at 9 per cent. At that time, the whole unemployment insurance program amounted to $4 billion. He took $935 million out of the program and nobody squawked over there. It was not a tragedy then. It was far more severe, far more serious than it is today. Why the double standard?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
I am sure if the former Minister of Finance, now the Leader of the Opposition, would repent, Canadians would be happy if the current Minister of Finance would repent too for his economic statement.
In the last 48 hours three major corporations have announced job cuts across the country totalling over
3,000	jobs. Today Statistics Canada reports that more than 80,000 people are unemployed than last month and that 60,000, three-quarters of them are women.
It is true that we have today the highest number of unemployed in the history of Canada. The measures announced by the minister this week will simply result in a net over-all job loss of 62,000 more jobs.
I want to say to the minister that it is clear that Canadians need to be getting back to work if we are to address the debt and if we are to address the pain across this country.
Will this minister withdraw his economic statement and bring in a policy that will bring hope to Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Madam Speaker, because it is an economic plan that is comprehensive, responsible, and deals with the situation as the country is today.
It provides for investment in people. It provides for investment in infrastructure. It provides ways and means to improve our trading performance. It provides for action to contain the deficit.
I believe most objective observers, in the circumstances that we find ourselves in, would find this a very credible plan. I ask the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, rather than just picking on one or two items,

Oral Questions
to look at it in a comprehensive way and maybe she may change her mind.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the 1.6 million unemployed Canadians will not find the minister's statement, by any objective means, useful to them in their future and what they can see as the future of their children.
[Translation\
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance another question. Women are always the first victims of the economic crisis. This morning, Statistics Canada showed that once again.
If the government does not want to answer the appeals from those it calls bleeding hearts, those it accuses of whining, how will it answer the 60,000 more women who are unemployed?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, of course I am concerned about the impact upon women. I am also concerned about what seems to be the position of the New Democratic Party and others in this House that they condone the abuse of the UI system. They not only condone it, they are encouraging it, and aiding and abetting it. I will not be associated with that kind of a position.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the government has made it very clear they do not care about the unemployed of this country. They are not prepared to bring in policies to address the most serious job crisis in the history of Canada.
The minister and members of the government talk about bleeding hearts. Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration said in this House that if a woman is being sexually harassed, "she should just quit her job.'' This is being outrageously insensitive. The minister has displayed a complete lack of understanding of the labour market and of the problems that working people have in the labour market.
I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister, when his government is making statements like that which deny the realities of the work life, will he ask that minister to resign and will his government apologize to the women of Canada?
December 4, 1992


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Madam Speaker, because the outrageous statement of the leader of the New Democratic Party and the outrageous statements of the president of the New Democratic are absolutely and totally uncalled for. The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party should ask for the resignation of her president.


SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The government insists that sexual harassment is just cause for those who quit their jobs voluntarily, but a search of the court decisions shows this is just not so. Indeed, a handbook on unemployment insurance appeals admits that just cause is extremely hard to prove.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why will he not set out a definition of sexual harassment as just cause, and do it today?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I think my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, yesterday stated clearly that sexual harassment is just cause to leave employment and that the UI department has been dealing with such cases for years.
I would recall to the hon. member that sexual harassment was included in the legislation, Bill C-21, as just cause for leaving a job; a bill that the opposition delayed for over one year.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, there are delays and delays. I was here and I am proud of it. However, there are other outrageous matters that this government deals with. It does not take care of its own public servants.

My next question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the minister of employment said that it was time for a government with enough "balls" to face reality.
Now it is clear why the government just does not understand the serious issue of sexual harassment.
December 4, 1992

Will the government change the definition of "just
cause" today?

Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons): Madam Speaker, if I understood the hon. member correctly, she said she was proud to have delayed Bill C-21 for over a year, therefore denying benefits to the unemployed at that time.

On the specific question, it is quite obvious that if opposition members read the finance minister's economic statement, besides having listened to it off and on, they would of course realize that there is no change with respect to sexual harassment. On the contrary, the situation is the same before, during and after the statement.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It follows up on a question by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton East.
It concerns his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration who yesterday, when asked about his plan to force women to put up with sexual harassment on the job by effectively taking away the possibility of UIC, said that these people have to pay their way. He stated: "These people want to spend the winter in Florida."
Did the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Minister of Employment and Immigration when he said that, and if not, what action will the Deputy Prime Minister take against the Minister of Employment and Immigration?
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration clearly indicated in this House yesterday that people who quit their jobs for causes such as sexual harassment are still entitled, after the economic statement as they were before, to UI benefits. The situation has not changed and we do not expect it to change.
Oral Questions


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who is very selective in the things that he quotes with regard to the economy. He knows full well that when he referred to the Leader of the Opposition, unemployment was at 7.4 per cent and growth was at 3.9 per cent.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has the guts to stand in his place and indicate to the people of my district who have an unemployment rate of 20.9 per cent, what he is going to do for those individuals in that disadvantaged region of the country. What programs is he going to put in place to get them back to work, or is he going to continue to kiss up to the multinational corporations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious that this member not only condones the abuse of the UI system but is encouraging it and promoting it. That is exactly the purport of his question.
What are we doing? In my statement I indicated that we were going ahead with a microwave landing system. That happens to affect an important organization in his district. It will create jobs and economic activity. It is an industry of the future.
The adjustment from coal mining and the other industries that are becoming outdated, under the training program-


David Charles Dingwall: You are on dope.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member suggests that I am on dope.


Some hon. members:: Withdraw.


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I did not hear. The hon. minister may conclude.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, in a very eloquent speech by his colleague, he praised the federal government for the actions that we were taking on the infrastructure and the improvement of the airport system, particularly the microwave landing system which is going to have an effect on his particular region.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

December 4, 1992
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
At a time when western Canadian farmers are experiencing some of the lowest prices in agricultural history, it would seem appropriate that the federal government would want to do everything in its power to assist farm families struggling to survive.
It is ironic that the federal government is intent in doing just the opposite. Farmers were deeply shocked at the recent announcement that 10 per cent of the Crow benefit will be eliminated. It will take $40 million out of Saskatchewan farmers' pockets alone at a time when they can least afford it.
Can the minister explain how this government can justify adding yet another additional blow to the economic and human suffering of western Canadian farm families?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, in the economic plan that was put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, there was a reduction in expenditures of some $8 billion. There were reductions in every area, in grants and contributions, of 10 per cent.
Those reductions will apply in the agriculture sector. It is a very difficult thing for governments to do, but the necessity of reducing those expenditures has to be shared with every one.
One thing the hon. member should understand is that the farm safety nets, GRIP and NISA, cash flow enhancements have been left intact and will be there to continue to assist the agriculture sector across Canada.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, this government knows that just as it has destroyed the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland, it is doing the same with agriculture producers in rural Canada.
For example, there has been a lot of concern over the impact ol the export enhancement program which the United States has been using to force its way into traditional Canadian markets and the failure of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement to properly protect Canadians farmers in this area.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. We all know that the Liberals have completely caved in with their opposition to the free trade agreement with Mexico and the U.S.. Why has this government caved in on the Crow benefit, while at the same time signing the NAFTA agreement that will allow the United States to raid traditional Canadians markets with its destructive export enhancement program?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to realize that there are some facts that he cannot dispute, that agricultural trade with the United States has increased 30 per cent since the signing of the free trade agreement with the United States. That puts benefit in his constituency, mine and every agricultural constituency in Canada.
The hon. member also has to recognize that there are new realities in agriculture, value added, sustainability and the ability to develop. His colleague in the province ol Saskatchewan, the minister of economic development, continues to talk about it.
If the New Democratic Party wishes to assist agriculture in Canada, there are two things it can do. It can pass the farm credit legislation that allows all rural Canada to take advantage of farm credit legislation. Also, it can pass the check-off legislation that the farm community wants so that they are able to support themselves with check-offs and enter into this new real world.
The farm community, the agricultural sector of our economy, wants to do that. They want to go ahead. Will the New Democratic Party help them?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think we have to go on. The hon. member for York North.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, the only person left in Canada who thinks that the recession is over.
The unemployment statistics released today are further evidence that we face a serious national employment crisis. The unemployment rate now stands at 11.8 per cent, which means that almost 1.7 million Canadians are unemployed. The minister must admit that the reason why these people are unemployed is because his
December 4, 1992

economic plan is simply not working. It is time for change.
When will he introduce a plan that will put Canadians back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I did indicate in an earlier response that I was troubled by the increase in unemployment rates from 11.3 to 11.8 per cent.
I remind the hon. member that there has been an increase in employment in six of the last seven months for a total of 77,000 new jobs, 13,000 new jobs in the month of November. Since August 104,000 permanent jobs have been created. I think what has to be noted here is that the labour force grew very dramatically, the biggest improvement on record, some 89,000.
Having said that, we have announced a number of initiatives in the economic plan that I outlined, initiatives which invest in growth, invest in people, invest in more effective trade, in an infrastructure and in new partnerships that have to be forged if we are to deal in an effective way with the newly emerging economy and to deal with the displacement of workers.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. minister will have the opportunity to elaborate on a supplemental.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, it is clear that this government does not understand the real problems faced by real people. The two groups hardest hit in today's unemployment numbers are women and youth, the exact same people who have the most to lose from the measures taken by this government.
Given that 60,000 women lost their jobs in November and there are over 438,000 unemployed young people, the future of this country, when will the government do its duty and help these people?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I take issue with the premise of the question where the hon. member identi-
Oral Questions
fies two groups that have most to lose. I think we are dealing with a global situation in Canada.
The Minister of Finance has recognized, as everybody here will recognize, that effectively the rate of unemployment is too high. We all agree with that and that is why we are taking those measures in order to deal with it.
The economic statement of the Minister of Finance is to do exactly that, to create 300,000 new jobs in 1993, to give incentives to small business which is the motor of the economy in order to create those new jobs for youth and women, et cetera, and to create new jobs in research and development. The leader of the hon. member's party when he speaks in Montreal forgets to mention that he is opposing legislation that will help Montreal.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It would be appreciated if on both sides of the House preambles in questions and answers would be shorter.


LANGUAGE AND SKILLS TRAINING
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who honestly must know the recession is not over.
Money in language and training skills for the province of Ontario was scheduled to be split between the employment offices and local training advisory boards. These local training advisory boards will not be in place in 1993.
Could the minister assure this House today that the $30 million allocated for local boards will be available through the employment centres as it has in the past?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I do not have an answer to that question at the moment. I wonder if I could take it as notice and get back to the hon. member as soon as I can.


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is on the same subject and for the same minister.
I want to inform the government and the minister that the minister's staff cannot answer that question either. We have attempted to get an answer.

December 4, 1992
Oral Questions
That means $765,000 and 85,000 hours of training at Loyalist College in my area alone. I would appreciate it if the minister could get both the answer for Canadians and the answer for those training facilities, to find out if that money will be available in 1993.
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons): Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has just indicated, we will provide the information. I will personally make sure the minister's staff gets the information and it is provided to the hon. member.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, Sunday, December 6, is the national day of remembrance of the tragic massacre of the 14 young women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal in 1990. We all have a responsibility to act to end violence against women.
Will the government acknowledge that rising unemployment contributes to violence against women, that the stress of living below the poverty line contributes to violence against women, and that the strain of hanging on to a job in the face of harassment and discrimination will add, not subtract, to violence against women?
Will the government, at the very least, restore the cuts announced this week to organizations that are confronting violence against women and providing support for the victims of violence against women?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Ihansport)):: Madam Speaker, we are reaching an anniversary of a very tragic occurrence in Montreal, Quebec. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women, as she mentioned earlier this week, has said that while substantial efforts have been made toward addressing violence against women, much work remains to be done to change the attitudes and the behaviours which give rise to violence within our society.
Each of us has a responsibility to break the silence and to act to deter incidents of physical and psychological abuse of women.


SEXUAL HARASSMENT
John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of state who is answering on behalf of the minister of employment.
A spokesperson for the employment department, Richard Fix, yesterday said that a woman must offer evidence to prove her case of sexual harassment or abuse in the workplace if she is to receive unemployment insurance. I quote: "For someone to quit their job it would have to be fairly serious sexual harassment and there would either be witnesses or there would be some sort of method of being able to prove the situation''.
Will the minister outline to the House very specifically what instructions are being given to the front-line workers in Employment Canada to accept statements by claimants that they have been sexually harassed?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the concept of sexual harassment with just cause was included in Bill C-21 for the first time, which hon. members of the opposition opposed for one year.
That being said, it is a recognized cause to quit employment. The minister has indicated that yesterday. That was in place before the economic statement, during, and it is still in place at this time. The minister also indicated very specifically on a number of occasions that the benefit of the doubt is given to the person making the complaint. That will continue.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and concerns delays in crop insurance settlements within the province of Saskatchewan.
It seems that the media and others are suggesting to producers that the fault lies with the federal government, but the fact is that under federal-provincial
December 4, 1992

agreement the delivery and administration of crop insurance appear to be entirely a provincial matter.
Could the Minister of Agriculture possibly clear up the confusion that appears to exist in relation to these crop insurance settlement claims within the province of Saskatchewan?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Yes, Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that Saskatchewan is the only province that has not seen fit to react rapidly to the difficult year we have had in agriculture.
Every province, although it is a joint cost shared program, administers directly the crop insurance program. Crop insurance cheques are available in other provinces, particularly our sister provinces of Manitoba and Alberta. I asked the minister in Saskatchewan some six weeks ago to try to facilitate an immediate response to the needs. There is a crop insurance program in Saskatchewan based on fixed cost and market price. That is in the contract.
Farmers are familiar with market price. That means they will know the price at the same time as they will know the final payment for the crop year. Therefore I encourage the province of Saskatchewan and its administration of crop insurance to facilitate the needs of farmers. The money is available. They have the authority. Please send it out.


FORESTRY
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry.
On June 29 the Conservative minister and member for Rimouski-Temiscouata announced a major project for a model forest in east central Quebec. In the past 12 months, Quebec has never revealed its true intentions on what it would like its role to be in this project, which is now at a stage where they should announce their intentions.
Can the minister tell me today whether a positive decision will be made before Christmas, because I have the feeling that by his refusal, the Quebec minister, Albert Cote, is penalizing Quebec forestry, tourism and environmental associations, regional municipalities, the
Oral Questions
University of Quebec in Rimouski and workers in eastern Quebec?


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a very important question. Yes, Quebec has known about a model forest. Since October 1991, we have been working through exchanges between the Minister of Forestry and his Quebec counterpart on implementing this very important project for the community.
I would simply remind the member that on our side, we have worked very hard so that the project can start as soon as possible. We are having discussions that should lead next week to an agreement which I hope will be favourable for all concerned. I hope that the Quebec minister of forestry will be sensitive to the development of his region and the development of private forests in Quebec.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He knows that the mini budget did precious little for the province of Ontario.
In response to my specific question on this matter yesterday in the House he said: "You cannot have an NDP government in Ontario that is anti-business and expect them to create jobs".
We all realize that the NDP government at Queen's Park has been a complete bust, but why does the minister believe that provincial incompetence on the economy in Ontario should be emulated by the federal government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, very simply because the provinces have an important role to play in the direction of the economy as well. They spend more money on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada than the federal government.
Today I am disturbed to note that Ontario is going to raise taxes further still. That will not augur well for jobs. That will not augur well for the business community to create new economic activity.

December 4, 1992
Oral Questions
Again today The Globe and Mail in a featured article said this about the role of the provinces: "One of the most disruptive features of the past few years has been the damage done to the private sector by provincial governments and their agencies which borrowed record amounts of money abroad. They helped push the Canadian dollar into unsustainable levels and destroyed many jobs".


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, Ontarians have an incompetent government at Queen's Park and a do-nothing government in Ottawa. What do they expect Ontarians to do?
Ontario has historically been a leading spark plug for the Canadian economic engine and it is being allowed to wither away irresponsibly. While the government may be prepared to write off Ontario politically, when will it be responsible to the nation's economic best interest and seriously attempt to stimulate the Ontario economic sector?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, we are trying desperately to offset the disruptive, destructive policies of the Ontario government. It goes beyond this NDP government because its spending goes to the root of the debt problem. The foreign debt problem that I was talking about rose by 10.5 per cent per year between 1984 and 1992 while the federal government's expenditures rose at the rate of 4 per cent per year.
That is what has been driving up our international debt. That is what has been putting pressure on interest rates and that is what has been putting pressure on the dollar. The hon. member should know that. We have taken steps to stimulate the manufacturing and processing sector. We are reducing taxes, not raising taxes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will try to get a few more questions in.


SOMALIA
Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The UN Security Council has approved a U.S. led enforcement action to Somalia to guarantee delivery of aid to hundreds of thousands of Somalians, victims of starvation and armed gangsters.
We welcome the fact that humanitarian needs are seen to merit such action. Canada has been asked to participate in this operation and Canadians want to know what is the government's recommendation to Parliament.
Will the government guarantee an emergency parliamentary debate to discuss the nature of Canada's involvement before any final decision is made by the government?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, there is no question that the resolution that was passed yesterday in the Security Council is a serious one. We have been approached to participate and I will be making an announcement on that shortly.
It is, of course, an announcement that will reflect a decision by the government. I understand that House leaders will be talking about a potential time for a discussion in Parliament as to the implications of that decision. The decision will be announced very shortly.


ABORIGINAL HOUSING
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, last year the Auditor General reported that much of Canada's aboriginal housing is overcrowded and unsuitable. We know these conditions lead to serious health and social problems, diseases, domestic violence, sexual abuse, alcoholism and suicide problems, which the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to address.
My question for the Minister of Finance is this: Why did he not in his financial statement invest in upgrading aboriginal housing when he knows that housing construction is the most labour-intensive investment of public money that can be made? It would create jobs in aboriginal communities where unemployment is extremely high. Further, the availability of decent housing would reduce the social problems that cause the tremen-
December 4, 1992

dous demand on our welfare and health budgets, and in fact contribute to reducing the deficit.
Why, instead, did the minister cut another $136 million from the program of Indian affairs?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, housing is very important to our aboriginal people in this country. For that reason we have had a 34.2 per cent increase in the funding of moneys to be spent for aboriginal housing in this country. We are continuing to increase the number of houses that are being built and we will work with our aboriginal communities to ensure that this is done.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would have liked to have had more questions today. There are two single questions that I would have liked the House to hear. Unfortunately we do not have any more time. I realize that there are two members who had asked but with all the disorder we have had today we just do not have the time.
On a point of order, the hon. government House leader.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, during the course of Question Period there was a question directed to the Minister of Finance by the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. While the Minister of Finance was answering, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond shouted out loud enough for everyone here to hear that the minister must be on dope.
I think that is uncalled for, unparliamentary, and not in keeping with the traditions of this House. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, you will know and the Chair will know that the words which I used are not unparliamentary.
Points of Order
They are not contained in any of the lists of words which are used. However, in view of the respect that I have for the Chair, if the Chair deems it to be appropriate I will gladly withdraw.
While I am on my feet, Madam Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Finance would avail himself of this opportunity because on two repeated occasions he imputed that members on this side were abusing and facilitating the abuse of the unemployment insurance.
I will withdraw my remarks and at the same time I hope the Minister of Finance will do the same.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I did not accuse the hon. members opposite of abusing the unemployment insurance program. I said that they were not only condoning but they were indeed promoting others to do that.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, what the minister said during Question Period may not have imputed motives, but what he just said now does impute motives to the opposition in this House. We are not condoning, we are not promoting the abuse. What we are condemning is the government's heartlessness.
I would suggest that unless the minister withdraws that remark that we do check to make sure he has not abused the privileges of members of this House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If we go back, the hon. government House leader reminded the House of something that was said during Question Period which the Chair did not hear. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond answered that even though the word was not in the book as being unparliamentary, I think that with his experience in the House he will know that when it causes disorder, the Chair is more than likely to qualify the word as unparliamentary. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member did withdraw.
Taking the suggestion of the hon. member for Churchill, should we, after rereading the "blues" see that there is anything wrong with the minister's statement, we will bring it back to the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

December 4, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, Beauchesne makes very clear in his discussion of Question Period that questions are supposed to be posed which deal with the responsibilities of the government of the country.
There has come to be a habit on the part of the government of the country and the loyal opposition of recreating debates and arguments from Queen's Park in Toronto.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Steven W. Langdon: I wonder, Madam Speaker, if you would rule that if there are questions that this government wishes to raise, we here would be quite pleased to answer them and should be given a chance to do so, especially given the fact that the unemployment figures that came out today, while they showed a 5.5 per cent increase across the country, showed a significant decrease in the province of Ontario.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is making a debate out of what is supposed to be a point of order. I do not think that we will get into a debate of that nature at this time.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say, on behalf of the government, we understand our hon. friend's embarrassment at what is going on at Queen's Park and we would in no way want to enlarge upon what is happening to him and his party.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York West. Is it on the same subject?


Sergio Marchi: Yes, Madam Speaker, it is on the same point of order.
I think the member from Windsor undermines my privileges in this House as a member of Parliament from Toronto. My constituents cannot get any leadership from Queen's Park or from Ottawa. I believe I have a right to represent their aspirations in this House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has already ruled on that situation and we will go on with the daily routine of business.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the activity report of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians, on the meeting of the International Bureau of the AIPLF in Luxembourg from September 3 to 6 this year.


BILL C-91 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another act in consequence thereof, and to provide for other related matters, with an amendment.
I have had the privilege of serving on many committees over my four years in Parliament and I would like to pay particular thanks for the support I received from the Legislative Council Office, the research branch of the Library of Parliament and the clerk's office. This was a very difficult bill and a very difficult process in committee. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that they were all very supportive.
I would like to comment that as a member of Parliament I always thought legislative committees were the places where we as members could do our most important function on behalf of our constituents. It was a good opportunity to review the legislation and to address the many concerns that can be raised by witnesses and by our own individual constituents.
I believe, as chairman of the committee, that we wasted at least five days of activity that were less than productive. There were more witnesses that wanted to speak and I believe there were many people that we could have-
December 4, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, the member knows well that in introducing this report, the rules do not provide an opportunity for other members of the House to make any comments on the report whatever.
When he begins verging into comments for which there are in fact very substantive answers which engender debate, it seems to me he is going beyond the rules of the House and that either you rule him out of order immediately before he proceeds any further along that line or you indicate that we will have an opportunity to answer the comments that he makes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Victoria for his remarks. I was listening very carefully to the hon. member for Ontario. At first I thought he was giving a very short report, which is done, but I was just about to do exactly what the hon. member wishes me to do, which is to tell the hon. member for Ontario that he was really out of order at that time.
I think we will go on and the report will be tabled.


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, I only had one more
sentence.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will go on without that
sentence.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
[Stage Direction]
57TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 57th report of the Standing Committee on House Management.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the eighth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
Routine Proceedings
In this report the joint committee draws the attention of the Houses to regulations which the committee believes to be ultra vires of the act, that is regulations made without jurisdiction. The alleged defects were caused, it appears, by ambiguity in the English version of section 23(d) of the Territorial Lands Act. The ambiguity does not exist in the French version.
The report recommends that the government introduce a legislative amendment to clarify the scope of the power delegated by section 23(d) and it includes a request for the tabling of a comprehensive report by the government. Until that occurs the government should be cautious in using or relying on these particular regulations.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Thomas Hockin: for leave to introduce Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Businesse Loans Act and another act in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Hockin moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-381, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (post office closures in rural areas).


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

December 4, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Francis G. LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, several rural post offices in my riding have been closed by Canada Post as part of its rural conversion program. With this policy, Canada Post has weakened its commitment to mail delivery in the rural and isolated regions of Canada. I want to change that.
The purpose of my bill is to modify the mandate of Canada Post Corporation in two ways. First, this bill would broaden how Canada Post must deliver its services. People in all regions of Canada must receive similar service, but instead of just considering the comparable size of communities, Canada Post would now have to consider regional characteristics. A town's proximity to other communities and services and its regional economic conditions are important defining factors which Canada Post has so far refused to acknowledge.
Second, my bill would include within Canada Post Corporation's mandate the goal of maintaining an existing post office in communities where it is one of the few remaining federal symbols. The traditional post office is for many communities their last link to a distinct federal government and one which they want to keep. I am proud to present this bill before the House today and call upon members from all sides to support it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chamber has heard the motion. Does the House wish to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, this petition is signed by a number of constituents in my riding who believe that managing our activities within a global environment is a shared responsibility with no geographical, cultural or political boundaries. They also believe our healthy future is the responsibility of all Canadians and their government in a growing concern for the environment to unify this country.
Therefore, they are calling on Parliament to urge the government to prepare a comprehensive paper which provides a contextual and tentative framework embracing the relationship among the environment, the economy and the Constitution so that Canadians can discuss in a unified way their importance to our future health and prosperity.

Bill read the first time and printed.



SOFTWOOD LUMBER


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I would seek leave to move a motion that this House receive a late petition for a private bill. The motion is as follows:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders 132 and 140, the petition for a private bill from United Grain Growers Limited presented on Tuesday, December 1, 1992 and reported on by the clerk of petitions on Wednesday, December 2, 1992 be deemed to have been filed within the required time limit and received by this House.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first is from a number of my constituents who note that the United States has unfairly imposed a duty on our softwood lumber exports to that country and has engaged in other trade practices which amount to harassment of Canadian producers.
They also note the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has resulted in lost jobs and devastation of the Canadian economy without providing the promised benefits. They therefore call on Parliament to take whatever action is necessary to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry against the unfair duties and also to request that Parliament act immediately to affect the cancellation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
December 4, 1992

Routine Proceedings



TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, my second petition relates to the Canadian telecommunication network. The petitioners note it is one of the country's great accomplishments and it is vital to Canadian unity and economic development.
They also note that 98 per cent of Canadian households have telephones. They are concerned that deregulation could result in the erosion of services and affordability that has happened in the United States. They therefore call on Parliament to overturn the decision of the CRTC in allowing long distance telephone competition and request that the Government of Canada make a firm commitment to exclude Canada's telecommunication system from the North American free trade agreement.



REQUEST FOR ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE IN OUR SOCIETY

Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition from Val-d'Or. Your petitioners humbly state that films depicting violence on television are dangerous and unacceptable because they encourage further violence. They say that freedom of the press should be restricted when reporting acts of violence. Repeated reporting of acts of violence on all television channels and on radio may encourage similar acts of violence.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation dealing with the above, to wipe out violence in our society, protect our children and guarantee everyone in this country a better quality of life.



SOMALIA

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition is certified correct as to form and content.
The residents who signed this petition are Canadians of Somalian descent who are now permanent residents of Canada and Canadian citizens. They are appealing to Parliament to urge the government to speed up the
processing of family reunification by posting additional immigration officers in Ethiopia and Kenya with instructions to carry out requisite checks but waive waiting periods because of the unusual circumstances involving hardship and suffering.
The family class and dependent relative members in Somalia and adjacent countries, Somalia being in the grip of civil disturbance and acute famine, are leaving relatives in limbo in Ethiopia and Kenya and enduring wretched conditions while sponsorship takes two or three years which adversely affects their stability.



BILL C-268

Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada who wish to designate a day of recognition of Canada's aboriginal inhabitants to honour native cultures. June 21 is the most appropriate day to recognize our First Nations. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the first nations of Canada.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House today with close to 9,000 signatures from Alberta and British Columbia. The petition is signed in honour of the memory of Ryan Garrioch and petitions the House to make further changes to the Young Offenders Act that need to be made in light of recent history.



CANADA RACE RELATIONS FOUNDATION

Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Kamloops, Walhachin and Montrose, British Columbia.
The petitioners want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Canada Race Relations Foundation was announced as part of the Japanese Canadian redress settlement. The Race Relations Foundation was to be funded by an endowment of $24 million, $12 million coming from the Japanese community.
The petitioners are calling up on Parliament to urge the government to consider the advisability of establishing the Canada Race Relations Foundation this fiscal year.

December 4, 1992
Routine Proceedings WATER DIVERSION
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to table in the House today, under Standing Order 36, a petition signed primarily by the residents of Valemount, B.C. in my riding who are concerned about the whole question of water exports to the United States.
They have reason to be concerned because a water diversion project just south of that community is currently under consideration. These petitioners encourage and hope that the Canadian government will ensure that there will not be any large scale diversion of water to the United States.



WESTRAY MINE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege and honour to present a large number of petitions calling upon Parliament to encourage the Governor General of Canada to recognize the bravery of the draegermen who sought to recover the bodies of the 26 miners who were trapped in the tragic explosion of May 9 in the Westray in Nova Scotia.
Shortly after that explosion, I wrote to the Governor General asking him to confer these medals of bravery. My request was supported by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, in whose constituency many of these draegermen reside.
Since that time under the leadership of Shirley Day Cornish, the wife of one of the draegermen, and with the assistance of the Tim Horton stores across the province of Nova Scotia, a large number of petitions were collected calling upon the Governor General to confer these medals of bravery as quickly as possible.
I am pleased to present these petitions to the House of Commons today.

['On the same point, Madam Speaker. If this action is undertaken by Canada it would be a significant departure from some of our previous activities on the world scene.\nMany Canadians would be concerned to have a full debate, to understand exactly what the parameters of the commitment are. I would encourage the House leaders to meet either today or early Monday to ensure there is some vehicle for a public discussion on this issue.']
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have a petition which I am very happy to present to the House of Commons.
A number of residents of Canada have signed this petition to draw the attention of the House to the fact
that they wish to designate a day of recognition of Canada's original inhabitants to honour native cultures.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268, an-act respecting a national solidarity day for the first nations of Canada.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians mostly from Manitoba.
These Canadians wish to designate a day of recognition for Canada's original inhabitants to honour our native cultures and suggest that June 21 is an appropriate day to recognize our first nations.
They call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the first nations of Canada.



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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order with regard to an exchange in Question Period which I would like to raise with the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
It concerns a situation by the United Nations Security Council to send a U.S. led military force to Somalia and the request which was made by my colleague to the minister to seek an emergency debate.
I think some letters have been exchanged by the critic from the Official Opposition and the minister responsible. The minister did say in the House that House leaders would be having subsequent discussions. In view of the parliamentary calendar which is to come to a close on December 11, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could take under advisement the suggestion that perhaps Monday evening of next week there might be a disposition for us to have a debate on this important
December 4, i992

subject matter which I think might enjoy the support of all members of the House.
I do not wish to prejudge the House in any way but I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could take that under advisement and perhaps either later this day or early on Monday indicate whether we could have a consensus on proceeding to an emergency debate on that important matter.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I think what my hon. friend is asking for is a two-track process and I would be quite prepared to agree with the first track that he proposed and that is that discussions take place among the House leaders. That is the appropriate way to do it rather than making commitments here on the floor of the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: On the same point, Madam Speaker. If this action is undertaken by Canada it would be a significant departure from some of our previous activities on the world scene.
Many Canadians would be concerned to have a full debate, to understand exactly what the parameters of the commitment are. I would encourage the House leaders to meet either today or early Monday to ensure there is some vehicle for a public discussion on this issue.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I thought we might get unanimous consent to give me more time if necessary. I am sure the House would want to hear my remarks.
Government Orders
I want to thank members for their consent so that I may complete my remarks.
Earlier today, I raised questions with regard to the procedural acceptability of Bill C-93. I hope that before the day is out we will have a decision from the Chair in terms of the points I raised.
In my remarks I made reference to the fact that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, now in place, with great fanfare some time ago was announced with a budget of $1.05 billion over five years. Individuals on the government side rejoiced that this was going to be the panacea for creating economic development in Atlantic Canada. In point of fact they have pointed to it as the lead tool for economic development.
The budgetary provisions of that particular day require careful examination. The money has roughly been $200 million a year for four provinces equalling approximately $86.96 per resident of Atlantic Canada. At the same time, the Government of Canada was providing $1.2 billion for a space station, not to suggest that we are against that.
When one looks at the need for economic development in Atlantic Canada, however, that certainly has not been a sizeable expenditure for the needs of those particular residents.
I attempted in my remarks to lay out the history of the Cape Breton Development Corporation with its two divisions, its mandate, its own president, its own board of directors. I talked about Bill C-103, namely the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, part I and part II which was Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. For all practical purposes it was to usurp the role of the industrial development division of Devco and thereby be rolled into a separate and distinct Crown corporation.
My colleague in the upper house raised a number of questions with regard to the efficacy of that particular Crown corporation. I would like to repeat what my colleague, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, at that time leader of the opposition in the other House said on June 14, 1988. He was questioning the government House leader, Senator Murray. He said:
Would I be correct in concluding that, while ACOA, as a whole, will
not be involved in infrastructure, for example, or not involved directly
in assistance to farmers, the new Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation
will still be enabled to fund projects in the field of infrastructure, in the

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
field of agriculture, as has been presently done by the industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
The response of the government House leader in the Senate was:
Yes, honourable senators, those are valid examples of activities in which Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation -
-as my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso will want to note-
-as a continuation of IDD, could continue to be engaged and in which ACOA, generally speaking, is not engaged. Again, in answer to questions from our colleague, Senator Graham, I did discuss the quite worth-while activities of ACOA in encouraging economic activities and enterprises that are related to agriculture and fisheries. However, that is not what the honourable senator is asking. The short answer to his question is yes.
Senator Murray on June 14, 1988, page 3655, goes on to say:
Honourable senators, as 1 have stated previously, the generality of the case with regard to Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is that ECBC will not be prevented from doing anything that the industrial development division of Devco is now doing.
Bill C-103 created ACOA and it created Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation in the words of the government House leader in the other place to do the duties of the industrial development division of what we now know as Devco.
That was back then. That is what they said in 1988. Senator Murray is on the record as saying the following. This is from page 3656 of the Senate debates of June 14, 1988:
Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will be a Crown corporation. It has a mandate almost identical to that of the industrial development division of Devco. As a Crown corporation, it will have a board of directors which-and I make this as a general statement-will have the same mandate and powers in respect to ECBC as the board of directors of Devco has in respect of the IDD.
I put all of this on the record to show and to underline for those in the Chamber and those who may be viewing our proceedings the ultimate in hypocrisy of a government. It gutted the industrial development division of Devco and in its place it put the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, which was to assume its responsibilities. However, it has now come to Parliament to end Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
In the debate which went on in this House those in opposition were criticized because we as a national party
opposed the ACOA bill. The reason that we opposed the ACOA bill is that the Government of Canada was attempting to utilize it as a panacea for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to which we would not subscribe. In fact, we were the only national party to oppose that piece of legislation.
The Tbiy members opposite and members of the New Democratic Party supported ACOA. They supported the gutting of the industrial development division.
Today, we now see the results of that particular measure. We have a new bill before us which is gutting, terminating forever and ever, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation which was to be the flagship of economic development on the island of Cape Breton.
We not only voted against Bill C-103 in this House, we had the other place forward amendments back to this Chamber. They happened to be amendments from our colleagues, our Liberal senators, which we supported, and which of course the New Democratic Party and the Tories opposite did not support.
So I want the record to be very clear that when it comes to economic development on the island of Cape Breton, we only have to look to the Tories and the NDP and examine the rhetoric. Examine the statements made in the press, but also look at the results and look at what is actually done.
This is a good example of a piece of legislation enacted some years ago which now in another form has come back before this institution and which we are going to do away with. That was the fear we anticipated back in 1987 and again in 1988 right until 1992.
Our worst dreams and our worst fears have now occurred. I am very sad that this has occurred. The reason I am sad is that people in my district in Nova Scotia believed Senator Murray when he said in the upper chamber, and these are his words: "These, honourable senators, are nation-building measures. Bill C-103, an act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation." It is a nation-building measure. That is what he said on May 18, 1988 on page 3431 of Senate Hansard.

December 4, 1992

If that is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is. There is a senior minister of the Crown saying in Hansard that the need for Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is because it is a nation-building measure. What do we have today? We have the likes of Bill C-93 which will gut, it will terminate Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation forever and a day thereby removing a nation-building measure.
I find it totally unacceptable that we in this Parliament would allow this government to get away with such mischief. It is mischief which has played on the hearts and the hopes of thousands of people residing in my
district.
The purpose of my intervention today is to retrace the history and the facts relating to Cape Breton Development Corporation, the history of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation as it relates to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the facts. The facts are that we have been told one thing and the government is doing the opposite.
When I think of the concern and the anguish that the people of my island have to go through, I become angry. I am angry at the way in which they have been treated, angry at the way in which governments have played with their fears, their emotions and their hopes.
As we heard in Question Period and as I reported to the Minister of Finance, the unemployment rate in Cape Breton today is 20.9 per cent. On the very day that unemployment at 20.9 per cent is recorded, the Government of Canada spells the end of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. That is something which it said several years ago was a nation-building measure. Is that fair? Is that just? Is that appropriate?
My colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys and the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, will talk about what has happened in their districts.
Over the last number of years we have seen many destructive economic things happen on the island of Cape Breton. The radar base closed. A substantial amount of money was removed from the local economy. Positions at the coast guard college, the numbers are down. VIA Rail passenger service has been taken away. Air Canada jet service has been taken away. Just the other day, two fish plants in my district had to close as
Government Orders
did many more on the island, to which I am sure my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso will allude.
Cape Breton Development Corporation has seen its person-years reduced substantially. The Sydney Steel Corporation has also been downsized from 1,500 to approximately 600. It goes on and on and on.
In 1991 Nova Scotia had 2,184 consumer bankruptcies. There were also 662 business bankruptcies. In October 1992 the record will show that consumer bankruptcies equalled 1,617 and business bankruptcies so far this year are up at 712. Bankruptcies since 1991 have reached a total of 5,175. Yet the Government of Canada has chosen a pretty tough course by closing down Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. Again I ask the Chamber and I ask the Chair: Is that fair, is that just?
The answer is that it is not fair. It is not generous. It is not becoming of any national government to do that in light of the economic carnage it has inflicted upon the people. No government should wilfully, as this government has done repeatedly over the last number of years, single out such a poor and devastated area of Canada as Cape Breton.
There are people there too. I think of the youth. I think of my son and my two daughters who live there as I do. They want to have an opportunity to grow, get an education, have a job and raise a family. What we find is a national government, aided and abetted by the way by a provincial government, whose incompetence is only exceeded by its arrogance and dislike for the people on that island.
Today in my district two coal mines are down. One is Lingan in New Waterford and the other is the Phalen colliery in New Waterford as well. A lot of miners, a lot of families, are directly affected and impacted. The problem is that water has come into the Lingan mine and they have had to evacuate that mine which was due to close in March. Approximately 350,000 to 400,000 tonnes of coal will not be mined as a result of that flooding. A lot of individuals have been displaced there and displaced at the Phalen colliery.
I do not know the cause of that flooding, but I have serious concerns as to why it has occurred. I have spoken with union representatives and I have spoken with management representatives. They have suggested that the water has come from another abandoned coal mine, No. 26-1B. There are two experts on site now examining the cause. It certainly has to reflect management practic-

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
es at that corporation and the directives given to it by the minister responsible.
I hope the Phalen mine will be up and running as soon as humanly possible, and I am sure the minister opposite would concur, but it had better be safe. Every expert, Labour Canada, CANMET and energy mines and resources, better spell out very clearly that it is safe. I will join with union representatives and their safety co-ordinator in saying that the men should not return to work if it is not proven conclusively that the mine is safe for miners to mine coal.
As we stand here today and debate the death of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, these people are worried about Christmas. They are worried about the new year. They are worried about getting back to work. I just want to put on record that I defy anyone in this Chamber to suggest or imply that those individuals associated and working at the Cape Breton Development Corporation are not industrious, hard working, determined men who wish to get back to work. There will be some who will try to paint the picture that all they want is unemployment insurance, a few benefits and that will be sufficient. That is not the case. Let no man or woman in this Chamber or outside this Chamber try to inflict that kind of gossip, that kind of big lie about the Cape Breton labour force. It is a very good labour force as studies have shown and as studies will indicate again and again.
These miners are worried about their lives and their families. They really are a special breed of people. They get up every morning, put their clothes on, go to the mine, get their lights and get on a little train. They are cramped in. They go down in the mine way underneath the ocean. They work, they get their pay and they come up. It is pretty scary for those individuals who do it, scary for their families, and particularly very scary for the children of miners.
I have made demands of the minister responsible in terms of unemployment insurance. I want to say on the record that I think the minister has attempted in good faith to be of some assistance. I want to thank him for that.
I have also urged the minister in a letter I have written to him that we have to do something for those miners who have been displaced at the Lingan colliery. We cannot just throw them adrift as if they are useless human beings. We need a package for those individuals. Some of them are not so old; some of them are a bit older. We need interim measures to provide assistance to those miners who are not without work and who have no idea as to when they will be able to return to full-time employment in the mines.
There is something else that the minister has not been overly positive about or co-operative about. That is the opening of the Donkin coal mine. At the present time at Devco in the coal division we have the Princess mine and the Phalen mine. Lingan looks like it is going to be closed. I hope not but it looks very much that way.
We have both domestic and international markets that must be supplied with coal. It only seems sensible, wise and prudent the Government of Canada, after spending in excess of $55 million on the Donkin mine project, will get it up, get it ready and proceed with economic development there too.
As much as I would like to vent my anger at the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation, I have to say in all candour that the minister does not enjoy the support of the Government of Nova Scotia. The Government of Canada could proceed unilaterally but that is not the best way to proceed. It has to proceed with the co-operation and the financial support of the Government of Nova Scotia. That crowd in Nova Scotia led by the premier, Mr. Donald Cameron, is an absolute, unbelievable bunch of incompetent individuals.
They care that much for the coal industry, that much for the people of Cape Breton and that much for the miners who work in the coal industry, as evidenced by statements made by the premier, by his refusal to retract those statements, by his attitude and by his wanton disregard for the people of Cape Breton.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation was brought in under a federal statute by the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen who sits in the other House. The minister will know that it was supported at that time by the premier of the day, Robert Lome Stanfield. It was thereafter supported throughout the years by the successor to Mr. Stanfield, Mr. Regan, who served as premier
December 4, 1992

for eight years and thereafter supported by Senator John Buchanan.
But this premier has not shown the same compassion, the understanding or the willingness to support the Cape Breton Development Corporation in its operations. In point of fact he has done everything to discredit that Crown corporation and thereby discredit the minister who is opposite today. It is a shameful display by a first minister of a province to cut adrift an entire island of people who number about 170,000, as my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso will later bring to the attention of this House.
The Government of Canada needs the support of the Government of Nova Scotia to get the Donkin mine up and running. It needs the support of the Government of Nova Scotia with regard to coal contracts from the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Yes, Devco sells coal, as the minister will attest. It sells coal to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. However, it has been the miner who has been sacrificing his life, his family's life, in order to maintain power costs in the province of Nova Scotia. It is not Donald Cameron and those clowns in Halifax. It is high time the Government of Canada takes the gloves off and stops allowing this provincial premier to get away with wanton disregard and disrespect for a people who happen to reside on a disadvantaged island.
If I were the minister responsible I know what I would do. I would disclose the kinds of shenanigans, the way in which that premier has treated the Cape Breton Development Corporation. This premier has not only attacked the people of Cape Breton Island, the miners of Cape Breton Island, but he has also attacked the management.
Maybe there is ample room there for that, but to do so in the way he has done is something we shall never forget. I urge the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation to continue to work to do the best he possibly can, show leadership and disclose what these clowns are all about in Halifax. The minister cannot say these things, but I can say them because I know the difficulties the minister is confronted with when trying to deal with that crowd in Halifax.
Government Orders
I urge him to get on with the Donkin mine. It makes sense. It will create jobs. It will put miners and their families in a much better framework. Where better is it needed than on the island of Cape Breton?
In the two minutes I have remaining, let me say this about Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. With all the economic carnage on the island, how in the name of God could a federal government today, at 20.9 per cent UIC, terminate a flagship for economic development? I will tell the House how: It is done by the Government of Canada at the support and behest of the provincial government of one Donald Cameron, the good friend of the right hon. prime minister.
I would hope that members in this Chamber would understand exactly what is taking place. It is that those of us who come from small disadvantaged regions of the country are suffering greatly. We seek hope, economic justice and fairness. We do not want any special deals, but we want to have our special relationship that we have always enjoyed with the Government of Canada renewed and invigorated in order to provide hope to those individuals who reside on that island.
The conduct of this government by introducing such dastardly legislation will affect greatly, not only today but for years and years and years ahead, the economy of Cape Breton.
I say to all that I will continue to fight. I will take my place in this Chamber and, no matter how unpopular it may be in some circles, I will stand with the miner, I will stand with the fisherman, the persons who work in our forests, the people who work in our small businesses, the young people and the women, our aboriginals, all of those individuals in Cape Breton. I will stand with them and for them to bring economic justice and fairness to the people of Cape Breton.
I urge all members, regardless of political faith, to support the Official Opposition in condemning the provisions of Bill C-93 and in particular the amendments to gut Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Madam Speaker, today I would like to deal with one aspect of this legislation before the House and first of all indicate how opposed our party is to the legislation.

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
I listened to the original remarks this morning. It was interesting. The speaker who introduced the bill this morning for the Conservative government mentioned that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission was going to be rolled into the RCMP External Review Committee. The remark that justified this was that there would be a saving of roughly $1 million. It would eliminate duplication and it would save seven person-years.
I would like to point out that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is virtually the only agency in Canada where Canadians who have a complaint against the state police force, the RCMP, can go and be assured of a fair investigation of their complaints.
To remove this agency or to in any way weaken it by depriving it of human resources and financial resources is certainly going to ensure that the public does not have an effective agency with which to raise its complaints and ensure that its complaints will be dealt with.
I would point out that the RCMP is probably one of the finest police forces in the world, but it does have situations occur in which there are breaches of the law, where officers act inappropriately, where some officers behave in a manner whereby they should no longer remain as members of the RCMP. It is absolutely clear that in a very large organization for one reason or another you are going to have people who do not fit in.
In an organization that can use the kind of force that the RCMP can against the public, be it direct application of force, be it by intimidation, whatever, there have been some terrible examples of injustice. It is the RCMP Public Complaints Commission that has really given an opportunity for the members of the public to be assured that their complaints can be dealt with effectively and efficiently.
The attempt to roll the RCMP Public Complaints Commission into an External Review Committee that handles grievances of RCMP officers and other matters that arise out of personnel cases is a conflict of interest. It not only destroys the effectiveness of the complaints commission, but it probably creates a situation, with the elimination of financial and human resources, that will render it ineffective.
I would like to use an example of a single case. There are all kinds of cases across Canada that can be used to
justify a call by the opposition and by other people in Canada not to amalgamate this, not to cut its resources, but in fact to strengthen the resources.
The RCMP Public Complaints Commission came into being on September 30, 1988. On that night in Gibsons, British Columbia, a young man happened to be intoxicated and sleeping in a bar. The RCMP were called to take the individual out and they took that individual to jail. It was interesting that they chose to jail the individual since there was no fight or difficulty involved. The person was just asleep. They threw the individual into jail and there were a number of other people in the cell.
An altercation started in the cell and at some point during the evening the corporal of the detachment removed that prisoner from the cell. There was an altercation, the individual was injured, and it turned out quite badly.
The person was returned to the cell. The other people incarcerated with this individual throughout the night called for medical attention for the individual. The call for medical attention was disregarded. The next morning all the other individuals in the cell were sent out, no charges were laid and they disappeared.
The individual who remained, the one who had been taken into custody that night and held in the cell, was held even longer because there was an outstanding parking ticket. Later the brother appeared, paid the ticket in Sechelt and the person was unceremoniously dumped out into the street.
The person could not navigate as he had been so badly injured. A taxi driver came by, picked the person up and took him about 30 kilometres away to a hospital. The individual got to the hospital and after an examination it was determined his face had been stove in, his ribs broken and his spleen ruptured. They helicoptered him to North Vancouver where he underwent treatment and recovered.
A complaint was lodged almost immediately with the local detachment of the RCMR It was not handled in a way that satisfied the parents of the individual. The parents tried a number of routes to get some satisfaction. It took close to a year after going through the ombudsman in British Columbia, the RCMP and a whole host of other agencies.
December 4, 1992

Eventually they wound up at the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission expended a fair amount of resources to find witnesses that had moved to Ontario that were in the cells that night, got the stories from those individuals and convened a public hearing. The public hearing found that there were very serious concerns about the handling of the medical problem that evening, very serious concerns about what appeared to be an assault on the individual. As a result of the questions they came to a point where a report was written that was certainly not complimentary to the RCMP's handling of this problem.
This matter then proceeded from that hearing into a civil action. The civil action dragged on for another year and eventually the RCMP settled out of court for, I understand, $20,000 and the legal costs and the issue was over.
If it had depended upon the regular mechanisms to handle this case, there would have been no satisfaction, no hearing of the main issues in this point, no hearing of the testimony of other witnesses to it. In fact, this would have simply been swept under the carpet and another case disposed of. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission prosecuted this through to the very end and laid the entire story open to the public. In the civil action the complainant settled out of court for $20,000.
That has not been the only case. The officer involved was involved in a settlement by the RCMP with another complainant who wound up receiving a $7,000 settlement out of court. There were charges laid against this officer previously in Ladysmith in the company of other officers in assaulting an individual.
Once complaining, the individual found no satisfaction and in fact found himself in greater difficulty with the problem.
What I would suggest is that if it had not been for this effective agency, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, that the serious case would have been simply swept under the carpet. Gibsons is an area where there have been a number of assaults by the RCMP. A number of complaints by individuals in the Gibsons area and the Sechelt peninsula have been reported to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.
Government Orders
There is an incredible disincentive to do this. Let me give an example where an individual happens to be accused of impaired driving. The individual is stopped by the RCMP, an altercation results, the individual is injured in the altercation, the RCMP claims that it is justified use of force. He is taken down and charged with impaired driving but not allowed to use the breathalyser. That is the end of the evening, simply the charge results and things carry on. The minute the individual lays a complaint with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, further charges result. This individual is then charged with attempting to assault a police officer and other charges. This is the history in many cases.
I would use one more example. An individual who is a passenger in a vehicle with two other people winds up in the ferry lot of the B.C. ferries in Langdale. The police arrive on the scene. The individual at this point has not done anything. They ask him to come out of the car and he says: "I have done nothing. Why should I do that". They simply reach in, throw him out of the car and break his shoulder on the ground after jumping on him.
Again this individual makes a complaint to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. At least they know they are going to get some satisfaction in an investigation of the events. This goes on and on. I do not know exactly how many cases I have in my files of these events but it is absolutely critical that this agency remains in place. If this is happening in one area, where there has obviously been a problem, then it is imperative to keep the RCMP Public Complaints Commission working and not roll it into the External Review Committee.
Hopefully, when the opportunity presents it, we will be making an amendment that will see a separation between the review committee and the Public Complaints Commission maintained and that in fact it will be strengthened. In the previous year's annual report, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission said that its hands had been tied by the legislation. It made 30 recommendations for changes to the legislation so that it could do an effective job.
The commissioner of the RCMP does not have to give the follow-up activity taken by the RCMP against an officer who is found to have used an inappropriate procedure. That is one of the examples where if something does occur in the way of discipline for an event, the officer and the incident is found to have erred. He made a mistake. If there is some kind of action taken on behalf of the RCMP, it should go in to the public domain. If it was anybody else who had made those kinds of errors,

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
certainly that would have been a cause celebre covered by the media and others.
I want to stop just for a moment about the media handling the case. It is interesting that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission indicates the media is an effective way for people to get their case considered. That is not true. I had on a number of occasions talked to people in the media about the coverage of some of these things that were well within the public domain. I had some of the issues that I had picked up as files in this matter referred to me by the media. When I asked why they did not cover them, they said: "It is not in our best interest to cover them. For example, if we run afoul of the local RCMP, we may have problems driving our motor vehicle from A to B. We may find that when we phone the RCMP for information, we are cut off. We cannot report the news because the RCMP will not co-operate".
This is not my story. This is the story from a number of media agencies in the area I represent when I said, here is the thing that is happening in your community. It is a serious matter. Why have you not covered it? They said: "It is risky to do that". It is personally risky. It is risky from the business point of view when running a newspaper when you need access to the RCMP for the news. If you report things that the RCMP do not view with favour, then you are going to find that you are completely cut off and you do run some personal risks. These are stories conveyed to me by journalists, not just from one agency but from several agencies on the matter.
The critical point here is that we have an agency that has been in business since September 30, 1988. It has shown itself to be a determined agency in the investigation of complaints against the RCMP and that in prosecuting those have on behalf of citizens who have complaints, prosecuted their responsibilities very well.
At times the RCMP officer and the complainant get together and the RCMP officer says: "I was dead right. This was within the law. You made an error and that is what happened". That is the end of it. The individual
gets a clear explanation. The RCMP officers lays out his side of the story and is completely vindicated.
At other times, and I have seen this happen, the matter is investigated and an apology goes forward from the RCMP that states: "There may have been in the heat of the moment some things that do not follow policy, but the circumstances were so uncertain that this is what happened and we apologize for the inconvenience". The complainant accepts that apology and that is the end of it.
Other circumstances can be far more serious. Perhaps excessive use of force is implied and the individual has been badly beaten. There has been a great deal of damage and the matter goes to a hearing, or goes to court and matters take their course. Those are extremely rare.
The RCMP is a very fine police force. We see that on a daily basis. Rarely are there incidents that create havoc, that break the confidence of the public in the law enforcement agency. We must have an impartial body set apart with resources to investigate, and we must have the legal authority to investigate effectively, and prosecute to the point where some acceptable resolution occurs.
The administration of the RCMP and the office of the Solicitor General should be seriously looking at making sure that in a democracy the police are there to use force against citizens to enforce the law. It becomes a very grey area in some cases or there is actual clear misbehaviour on the part of an individual in using that force to cany out the law or the procedures. We need that agency to be there to carry on a separate investigation.
It would be my hope that it would not be necessary to get up and debate extensively in this House a motion that argues on behalf of the opposition that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission has to be maintained. It has to have additional resources, both human resources and financial resources. This House should not be looking at gutting that agency, but should be giving serious consideration to implementing the recommendations that are outlined in the last annual report to strengthen the hand of the agency.
At this time I would leave that particular area with the admonition that we will be looking seriously at moving an amendment. Hopefully, out of that amendment, we can see the government co-operate with the opposition members to separate these two agencies, maintain the separation, provide the human and financial resources

December 4, 1992

for the complaints commission to continue to cany out its good work and finally, to implement the recommendation for changes to the legislation that would make the organization more effective.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. I was especially concerned about the comments he made with respect to the police complaint procedures of the RCMP.
I can recall back in 1983 when the government of British Columbia went through a similar kind of costcutting regime that this government is currently involved in, even to the extent of using the same kinds of cliches that are used now in the division between the public and private sector, the need to downsize the number of workers, to get rid of services in government and to leave job creation up to the private sector.
However, when the cost-cutting process was done within the government of British Columbia and the dust had settled, we found out that the vast majority of programs that had been cut were things that the Conservative government in British Columbia had an ideological aversion to. The things cut were programs like family support services or funding for community groups that they considered interest groups, or help for the poor, the homeless, abused women, and abused families and that kind of thing.
That Social Credit government lost all of its support as a government in British Columbia.
It also did away entirely with the human rights commission in British Columbia because it felt that the human rights commission was advancing the cause of human rights in the province of British Columbia contrary to what Social Crediters and Tories believe.
They saw those organizations as ideologically hostile and when the dust settled the operation costs of these bodies was next to nothing. The government saved almost nothing and even after the cost cuts the deficit sky-rocketed. They did not accomplish what they were purported to be accomplishing.
Government Orders
What startles me is the number of cases that the member has brought forward from a particular area of his riding. I recognize that he may have some concern about possible retaliation and certainly the press has indicated that there is concern.
He also indicated that the Police Complaints Commission appears to have no power at the present time and as a result very little does happen with officers who do operate outside the law and become a threat to the public. They also discredit, as the speaker mentioned, the 99.9 per cent of RCMP officers who operate within the law and do a good job and perform an excellent service to the public.
I wonder if steps have been taken as a result of the decisions by the police complaints procedure and the RCMP complaint commission to remove the officers that have been responsible or if the RCMP has taken any steps to remove those officers so that they no longer constitute a threat to the public and discredit the vast numbers of RCMP officers who work for the force and work for the public at the same time.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a final comment on that particular area. I have not received a single complaint from that area in a considerable period of time.
I know there was concern within the RCMP about certain kinds of activities that had gone on there. Those seem to have been addressed and I have been informed of some extremely positive changes that have happened in that area. That information has come from the mayors of the communities and from other people who have indicated that there have been some significant changes about which they are very pleased.
I would like to follow up a comment that was made by my colleague, even closer than colleague, from Comox- Alberni concerning the social cuts, if I might use just a second. Part III of this legislation winds up the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and it transfers the international academic relations program from external affairs to the Canada Council and renames this organization Canada Council for the Arts for Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities. This is going to make the organization completely ineffective at a time when things like social science research is absolutely critical.
We are seeing some tremendous changes in the structure and operation of the economy of Canada. The social science and research operation, by being gutted

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
and rolled into another agency loses its priority and drops to the bottom. We wind up seeing things like the Deputy Prime Minister in the House today attacking the unemployed. Nothing could be more false, absolutely immoral than what was done in the House today and yesterday in attacking the unemployed and blaming them for the problem.
My colleague the Solicitor General says that is nonsense. There are members of the Conservative caucus who are talking actively today about how to get the Prime Minister to change this kind of attack on the unemployed in Canada.


An hon. member:: It will end up in cabinet tomorrow.


Raymond John Skelly: At any rate whether he is yelling and shouting about this, it is a case where this government is blaming the unemployed for the nature of the economy when the responsibility is clearly with the government. I would say that the yelling and the screaming from the Solicitor General points to guilt rather than any serious attempt to refute the charge.
Hopefully, in dealing with the international academic relations program and the Social Science Research Council of Canada, this too will be one of the things that is reconsidered. Those two agencies will remain separate, apart and able to function with the human and financial resources to do this. With that I will conclude my remarks.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, following up on the member's comments on part III of this particular bill which winds up the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, I note that in 1979, after extensive consultations and studies, these programs were moved out of the Canada Council and into the present Social Science and Humanity Research Council. Concern has been expressed both by Canadian and international academics that this funding will not be maintained through this aspect.
I note also that this particular thrust was done not after any consultation at all, but was announced unilaterally in the budget of 1992.
I wonder if the member would have any comment on the consultative process and whether, in fact, he has any
comment with respect to the lack of consultation this time around and the full consultations of the last time.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there is a volume of correspondence but I will not go through it. The International Council for Canadian Studies has written to the Prime Minister with reference to the transfers we are talking about, and it says: "Such a transfer will prove costly and ineffective. It is an instrument of Canadian foreign policy and enjoys the full co-operation of academics abroad". The question involves Canada's reputation.
There are numerous letters from the social science groups in Canada stating the same thing. The social science research groups are very critical of being rolled into this multi-tasked agency and deprived of resources will become completely ineffective. This is not our judgment, we are simply repeating the judgments of the many people who are going to be asked to judge the Conservative government in the next election when it comes.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, although a number of issues were addressed in the changes that are being brought about by the mergers of many of the programs that were addressed by my colleagues on all sides of the House, I would like to speak to one issue in very short measure and the second matter, with respect to the Canada Council and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council in a little bit more depth.
As I speak to Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House on February 25, I am quite sure members are aware that the purpose of this bill is to implement the government's decision to merge these Crown corporation and agencies.
The reason that the government did this, it said, was to be more efficient through these cost cutting measures. The question and the measure shall indicate that on the one hand one undertaking seems to have been well thought through, the second certainly merits some serious reconsideration.
With respect to the Copyright Board and the Trademark Opposition Board, which will be known as the intellectual property tribunal, I have not had too many complaints. I have had next to no concern expressed about this particular merger, which is quite fascinating seeing as how we are in the midst of doing a piece of
December 4, 1992

copyright legislation at this moment and certainly having a swinging door as the different groups come through to indicate their interest in the whole area of intellectual property law and the copyright decision-making in the interests of one party or the other.
It would seem to me that the merger must be being fairly well received, and it will enlarge the intellectual property considerations with additional expertise, I would presume. In light of the fact that I have not heard very much about this whole process, I would presume it is a positive and orderly step to have taken.
There was one observation made in another matter that I was dealing with and the answer to that was why would you be concerned? Where to place your concern in any of the things going on around here is in the procedure for nomination through Order in Council appointment.
If the Order in Council appointments to the tribunal are enlightened, carefully thought out and indicate that the people who are being appointed are people who have competence in the field, then through that selection process you thereby assure that the tribunal will function well. We will leave that tribunal in the hands of good nominations and then careful thought on the part of the new members.
The second thing that we are looking at is the merger of the Canada Council with the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and the International Cultural Relations Bureau of External Affairs.
This three-way merger will have an unwieldy moniker, from what I can see. It is to be called the Canada Council of the Arts and for Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities. The new acronym will be far more suitable, as it is called CARSH and for the purposes of the rest of this discussion, I will refer to it as CARSH because I think that seems appropriate to the picture.
This is the second marriage for these two bodies. I think you were in this House, Mr. Speaker, as the first marriage took place followed by the unhappy divorce and separation proceedings, a long-term mediation, and I believe you even sat on the committee, and extensive studies and consultations took place at that time.
Government Orders
Parliament in its wisdom saw that this was not working and allowed on the grounds of incompatibility of objectives a separation and then a divorce of the Canada Council and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.
They had two different missions; one in the arts and cultural matters, the second in more profound kinds of research into the social sciences and the humanities.
The Canada Council was really directing its energies to the building and ongoing growth and development of the cultural arts, while the science research council was doing some wonderful spade work in developing the interests of Canadians in these fields of action.
Over the last 14 years these two councils have matured, they have flourished, someone said to me that they have flowered-that is true-each in its own separate domain of expertise. Did you give me another word, Mr. Solicitor General? I am listening. Anything that is said in a positive vein is well accepted in the Canada of today. It gives hope and forward thought.
Each in its own separate domain has become really quite expert and each has served its own constituency with concern, with caring and active boards, with the participation of those boards and with competent and dedicated staffs.
Now the government in its wisdom has decided that the two should remarry, unlike the 1978 decision, without any studies, without any consultation, with no counselling and with no mediation.
The partnerships and the multi-disciplinary work that are the keystones of the efficient and collaborative co-existence of any groups, as members of this House will know, are absolutely fundamental to good business practice and good healthy inter-group relations. I sincerely hope that every effort will be made to make this work if this is the way the government intends to go. Perhaps in committee we might come up with an amendment that might take us in another direction. We will have to see what the witnesses have to say in this regard.
It is very important to reflect for a few minutes on why it was felt in the late 1970s that such a separation was in order and why an independent research council was needed. I am indebted to Chad Gaffield of The Ottawa Citizen who wrote on March 25 of this year much of the

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
background of the next few remarks that I am going to make.
Mr. Gaffield said that when the Canada Council was first formed in the late 1950s research activity in Canada was quite limited. Many Canadians had to seek advanced training in the United States or Europe and especially England.
Through the 1960s and the 1970s Canada developed research in all fields, including the humanities and social sciences. New graduate programs and new research projects were established. The result was two-fold: fewer and fewer Canadians were forced to go elsewhere for training and more research became available about the Canadian experience.
Instead of foreign trained experts applying research findings from other countries to us, scholars could use Canadian research to address, through specially dedicated Canadian studies, the important questions of concern to Canadians and incidentally to many other parts of the world. It could also look at our own growth and development in a variety of social and humanities disciplines, and, at the same time, serve the international community?
Something an awful lot of us do not appreciate is the very interesting and intricate work that is done by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. For those who have a direct interest, those of us who are here doing business in committee, are well aware of the role of the estimates. In part III of the expenditure plan there is a very well documented and thoroughly outlined program of analysis of each of the departments and all of the studies that have been undertaken by the council itself.
I thought I would give you some sense of the incredibly fine work that is done on joint ventures and individually by this particular body in the interests of Canada and in the interests of the world.
My colleague, Chaviva Hosek, and I were discussing the new historical atlas that is coming out. It is really quite exciting. It is a history of the geography of Canada and it is being done out of the grants department of the social humanities. It has set a standard that is so high and the quality is so fine that scholars from around the world are looking at this historical atlas and are planning to use it as a learning model for their own country and use the
technology that we developed in order to put this very exciting historical atlas into effect.
This helps us to find out about ourselves. Because of the content and because of its quality and because of its analytical approach it is a model to the world. I think that is something to be very proud of.
The other areas in which I thought the work of the council was quite fascinating were the priority areas where it supports research in areas that encompass five themes, four infrastructure development programs and joint initiatives and it has partnerships in interdisciplinary work.
I went from the very beginning of this and read through it with a great deal of interest. I really would encourage people to call my office and get a copy of this because it is really quite exciting to see the dynamism of the work that is done by these councils in the interest of Canada and in the interest of the international world.
It has set up management of technological change. Under the Research Council, which matches private sector contributions, two research chairs were approved and six new chairs were established in 1991-92. It is stimulating research in the areas that are very important to this government's priorities and new prosperity agenda.
The fields are research into technology and international competitiveness, environmental technology in resource based industries, management of technological changes in financial services-that is important-joint scholarships with NSERC and SSHRC, master scholarships on science policy to help direct and oversee new fields of science, new areas of training and the development of chairs in the field of environmental studies, eco-research programs, doctoral fellowships, university chairs, research grants, addressing regional ecosystem problems in an interdisciplinary perspective.
I would say that when we look at the joint funding, work put together by NSERC and by SSHRC, we see the importance of this kind of work in the interest of Canada's prosperity agenda, the global changes in the ecosystems, the policies for aboriginal peoples, policies of joint research with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, policies on aboriginal economic development, models for Indian governments in
December 4, 1992

New Brunswick and First Nations on the Constitution. I could go on and on.
I have a colleague here who is very interested in multiculturalism, my colleague from Saint-Laurent, and they are doing some very important research in the field of multiculturalism and citizenship for Canada, state of the art review of research related to that and the drawing together of all the documents of a serious import in this field.
If we look at the kind of work that has been done, we would understand why increasing interest in Canada has been fueled by the humanity and social sciences, so that by the mid-seventies a consensus emerged concerning the need for a separate agency. The results are impressive and I have just given some sense of what was so impressive; women and work, the condition of children, aging, ethics, values, Canadian literature and the list goes on.
A jury system was put in place that worked collaboratively with the universities and some post-secondary colleges. That nurtured the whole system and was very productive. Perhaps the most striking initiative is associated with the maturing of all these research fields, that of involving the collaborative efforts with the Canadian university scholars and scholars from around the world in the fields of science and engineering and medicine.
Such efforts reflect a growing awareness of the connection between these various disciplines. It is an inherent wholeness of truly important matters as we have had increased learning which demonstrates the innate relationships between these various fields of study that pervade the thought in today's society of issues that seemingly were unconnected as early on as the seventies.
This merger has caused serious consternation and a degree of unease in the arts and scientific communities for similar and yet different but very legitimate reasons. The social sciences and humanities research community was pleased by the government's commitment to a 4 per cent increase per year in its budget for the next four years. Unfortunately, yesterday's economic statement broke that promise for at least the next two years.
They are still waiting, it is true, for an affirmation that all future budgets will be reviewed by the government
Government Orders
and studied as separate estimates from that of the Canada Council which they have joined and in tandem with the budgets of the two other research councils, NSERC and MRC, to use their acronyms. Of particular interest are the communities concerned with program integration. Above all, it is concerned with its identity. Research, although having evident cultural dimensions, is not the same as the pursuit of the fine arts.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to point out to you that at the same time as the Canada Council has serious concerns as does SSHRC, Canada Council-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Maybe the Chair could rise for a minute and the hon. member would have an opportunity to check exactly what she would like to do.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be a move afoot to have a move done and I will do the deed when I get to the point where I am supposed to do the deed. Mr. Speaker, you will please advise me when that moment comes. Thank you very much.
This is very serious business because the culture of this House is part of the culture of this country. The Canada Council is also involved in this whole merger. It has serious concerns because the Canada Council addresses the concerns of the development of the arts community and it develops the essence of who we are as Canadians.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is the key to the creation of a vibrant Canadian culture which is essential to the reaffirmation of our nationhood and our sovereignty while the preservation and the exposition of our cultural heritage gives visual expression to our common history of experience and our common values and the diverse linguistic and cultural identities that mark our distinctiveness in the world of nations. It involves our writers, actors, singers, musicians and artists.
I want to advise that artists earn on average less than $1,400 a month. They need advocacy so that their role in this country can be appreciated. The advocacy organizations such as the Canadian Conference on the Arts and the Canadian Museums Association have suffered a 10 per cent cut. I think that demonstrates this government's lack of will to hear from the constituencies about the need of all our creative Canadians across this country.

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
I suggest that we should listen to Dr. Paule Leduc who appeared before the Senate finance committee in June and said that we cannot as an advanced and civilized country afford to neglect the arts. We must provide vigorous support and promote creative endeavour. With all my energies, therefore, I will try to convey to government the importance of the stake the country has in the healthy support of artistic creation. As a competent and effective director of the science council, her respected administrative skills will be thoroughly tested and certainly needed as she helps and heads this merger of the staff and the new board to take place.
I would like to finish by saying that this whole matter needs to be very carefully examined. It does not match any of the tests that were supposedly the tests for the measure of why we were undertaking this action. Therefore, when this goes to committee I would hope there would be effective time given so that we can study this and make an enlightened decision.
Before I sit down I would move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and by substituting the following:
That Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, be not now read a second time but be read a second time this day six months hence.
It is seconded by the member who was very busy giving me instructions, the member for Saint-Laurent-Car-tierville.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The amendment is in order. The debate is on the amendment. Does the hon. member have a question or a comment?


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I would like to compliment my colleague from Mount Royal who so eloquently spoke on behalf the SSHRC.
I do not know whether she was aware that the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada has issued a very poignant press release. In fact, it says that abolition of the SSHRC is turning back the clock. That is how it is described.
It talks about the research in the social sciences and humanities and how crucial it is for our understanding of and adaptation to the rapid social and technological change inherent in our emerging service and information oriented society. It is very concerned.
The member mentioned in her speech that the government had not given any prior study to this and did not provide any public rationale for this takeover other than talking about cost savings.
The association goes on to talk about the importance of what SSHRC has done in its over-all research project, about the multi-disciplinary research and over the past 10 years how many research projects they have funded. In fact, it has funded 3,398 researchers in the social sciences and humanities in the past fiscal year. That is an incredible number of research scientists. It goes on to list any number of areas where it shows concern. This is what I would like the member to address.
It is concerned about the integrity of the SSHRC granting programs. As one of the key players in Canada's over-all science and technology efforts, they are concerned it will be diminished. It is concerned that the links to other research granting councils could be threatened. It goes on and list many concerns. I would love to be able to read this wonderful communique from the Association of Universities and Colleges and have a response from my colleague from Mount Royal. Unfortunately, the time does not permit me to do that. I am sure she can get the tone of its concern. I would like to hear the member's response to those.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I think the reason for this hoist motion, which I believe is fundamentally sound, is precisely to answer the serious allegations that have been made by the universities and colleges and leaders in the field of scientific research in all three of the government bodies that are involved in the funding mechanisms. As well, the mandate that has been given to the Canada Council may have become too disparate to be handled properly at this given moment.
I would say that the whole question of staffing has not been answered. What happens when some are Public Service Alliance, PSAC, and fall under unions, and some are totally outside because they fall under a different sector now of the the Financial Administration Act?
December 4, 1992

They have an exempt status. What is happening to all the workers who are coming from external affairs now into this new organization called CARSH? They will lose their status two years down the road and access to new jobs as public servants. There is the question of estimates and whether there will be three separate estimate lines; the question of the memorandum of understanding and the relationship with the Department of External Affairs. Is it in their best interest?
There are many unanswered questions. I understand the concerns that are being raised. If you do not know where your budget is coming from, if you do not know how your budget is going to be reviewed, if you do not know how the projects coming in are going to be juried or not, if you do not know how the staff which is key to this being effective is going to take place, if you do not know what the criteria of the board selection is going to be, then my motion is very relevant. If not, certainly there has to be a sunset clause in this kind of an operation.
I thank my colleague for the very enlightened question which gave me the opportunity to explain why this motion has been put before the House and is a very enlightened one.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-93. Before I do, I would like to register my objection, if not with the procedural relevance of this, certainly with the intent of the government in combining so many pieces into this legislation.
There are many agencies in this piece of legislation to which I would like to address my remarks. I am going to be obliged to confine them to one part of the bill, namely the part that deals with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I believe that at least this part should have been separated from the remainder of the bill so that we, in the House of Commons and in committee, could study the changes that are proposed to ACOA more carefully as they address the very real difficulties which the people of Atlantic Canada and more particularly the people of Cape Breton face at this time in our history in terms of the economy of that region.
What the Government of Canada is doing in this piece of legislation is eliminating an agency, Enterprise Cape
Government Orders
Breton Corporation, which was created when the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was set up in 1987. We in this party are opposed to that action. I would like to say a few words about why we are opposed to that action and why we are so opposed to this legislation and particularly to this part of it.
Before I do, I would like to say a few words about the economic situation in Cape Breton. It has always been our lot in history to have an economic environment which has been difficult for the residents of Cape Breton. Many Cape Bretoners have been obliged as a result to find employment elsewhere.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It's because they vote Liberal.


Francis G. LeBlanc: No
heckling from the other side. This is a serious matter. This legislation concerns a matter which is of great concern to all of the people of Cape Breton. We have always faced difficult circumstances economically in Cape Breton but in the recent years, it has been even worse. Recently, the news about the economy there is very bleak.
The central sources of employment, namely the mines and the steel mills in industrial Cape Breton, have been steadily declining in terms of the number of jobs that they have been able to support. As a result of recent activities facing two mines operated by Devco, nearly
1,000	miners could be facing permanent job loss. That being in a region where the unemployment rate is already alarmingly high is a serious cause for concern on Cape Breton Island.
The steel plant as well has been facing ongoing decline in employment. Despite a great deal of capital investment over the last two or three decades, the employment that facility is able to support is as low as it has ever been. Those who remain there have serious concern about whether the steel plant will enjoy the support of the provincial government and it will be able to stay open in the medium to long term. That steel plant is absolutely crucial to the economic future of Sydney in particular because no other alternatives have been developed.
Certainly nothing this government has done over the past eight years has given the people of that part of Cape Breton any reason to hope it has created some kind of

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
alternative economic future to which the residents can aspire.
In another very important sector of our economy, namely the fishery, we have recently discovered that fish stocks in the zones adjacent to the island are in serious decline. Scientists of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans came out a few weeks ago saying that in order to prevent a total collapse of those fish stocks there would have to be serious cuts in the quota. Already that has caused unemployment in fish plants around Cape Breton Island. There is every reason to expect that in the new year there will be major job losses in the fishing industry which is another very important sector for our local economy.
In the forestry industry which so far has remained a fairly solid pillar of the island economy the long-term prospects on a global basis are at most cloudy. The mill which sustains more than 2,000 workers either directly or indirectly is one of the most efficient and well managed corporations in the pulp and paper industry. However, in the last two or three years it has faced very difficult times because of the downturn in that industry. It also faces more long-term challenges because of the new environmental trends which go against some of the advantages the mill has enjoyed by its location on Cape Breton Island.
While we have many assets that can be developed, our economy remains dependent on industries whose futures remain troubled. We have needed and relied in the past, to develop the economic strengths on Cape Breton Island, on agencies that had the island economy at heart and had the future growth of the island's economy as their main preoccupation.
What was created in the 1960s under a Liberal government was the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It had as one arm the responsibility of managing the coal mines in industrial Cape Breton and as the other arm the industrial development division which had as its mandate the responsibility of promoting a more diverse economic development across Cape Breton Island. That division, working in tandem with the main arm of Devco over nearly 20 years, did a lot to strengthen the economic base of various parts of the island until the government, when it introduced ACOA, chose to sever the industrial development division and to create the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation as a separate entity quite apart from the rest of Devco.
I was not in the House at that time, but I know that members representing us in the House of Commons and in the Senate were vigorously opposed to that part of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency enabling legislation. They saw the writing on the wall in terms of the long-term intent of this government which was to end the mandate of the industrial development division in two stages. The first stage was to separate it from Devco and the second stage, as we saw in the budget earlier this year and in this legislation, was to shut down Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation completely.
With the exception of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation which is a branch office of ACOA working out of Halifax with a very limited mandate and with a very indirect preoccupation with the future of Cape Breton Island, this will leave no agency unique to Cape Breton, unique to that part of Canada, in place with the support of federal funds to work toward the development of a long-term viable industry to sustain the future of Cape Breton. This is at a time when the pillars of our economy-the coal industry, the steel industry, the forest industry, the pulp and paper industry, the fisheries industry and the tourist industry-are facing a future which is cloudy at best and perhaps in a long-term decline.
We in Cape Breton wonder what this government has in mind in terms of a vision, in terms of a commitment to our future in Cape Breton, when it would terminate the only agency that is in place with a mandate and a commitment to foster the economic development of Cape Breton Island.
Our situation in comparison to the rest of Canada is bad and is getting worse. The disparity on Cape Breton Island is increasing and our young people who are looking for work are finding no opportunities there. They are forced to leave. Our best resource, namely our young, educated labour force, is obliged to find work elsewhere because of lack of opportunity and lack of vision on the part of this government. That diminishes the capacity of Cape Breton to attract viable, forward looking, future oriented industries.
That is happening because we have no agency with a mandate to deal with the search for solutions on Cape Breton Island. The mandates of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and Enterprise Cape Breton, two almost Bobbsey Twins in the programs offered by the government, have been confused and distracted. They have been preoccupied with nit-picking and with small
December 4. 1992

insignificant projects with no long-term economic vision for the island.
As a result the government has frittered away eight years of opportunity to do something to create a future for Cape Breton Island. After eight years the situation economically has never been more bleak. The people of Cape Breton have never been more discouraged by the absence of any real opportunity. In our main industries the future is downward and there is no apparent alternative out there for them. The government is taking away the resources needed to find a future opportunity.
That is what is at issue with this legislation. That is what is at issue with the decision by the government. It was anticipated a long time ago by our opposition in the House and by our opposition in the Senate that it was to close, to terminate, to end Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
As a passing note, the speech by the Minister of Finance on Wednesday, although I was not here and did not have a chance to study it thoroughly, does not appear to have offered any hope to Cape Breton. If anything, it has given Cape Breton more reason to distrust the motives of this government, to expect nothing from this government as far as understanding the local island economy, understanding the broader Atlantic Canada economy and understanding the need to work with the leadership in that area to find long-term viable sources of employment in Cape Breton.
If this government were serious, it would address itself directly to the some 27,000 people who are either unemployed or out of the labour force in Cape Breton at this time and would need to be employed in order for Cape Breton to be brought up to a level even broadly equal to the rest of the country in terms of its average level of employment and participation in the labour force. This government has absolutely no idea of how to do that.
This is the reason why the people of Cape Breton have lost any kind of hope in this federal government and why they want at the earliest opportunity an election to be called so that they and the rest of this country can throw this government out. Then we could have a government
Government Orders
which is fresh and which is less tired, fatigued and bankrupt of ideas in place to start dealing with real solutions for the people of Cape Breton and the rest of Canada. The government has demonstrably shown in its Economic and Fiscal Statement earlier this week and in this legislation that it is totally incapable of doing that.
For that reason I concur with my colleague from Mount Royal that this legislation, including the component on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, should not be returned for six months or, in other words, should be hoisted for hopefully an indefinite period of time. In the meantime perhaps we could have an election to set the slate anew.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's speech and I have two questions.
First, he is calling for an election. I would ask for the benefit of the House whether or not he intends to seek a nomination or an appointment in his riding. I will explain for the hon. member. A nomination meeting is an open democratic contest. An appointment from the Leader of the Official Opposition is where there might be a contest and he wants to avoid one.
Second, I would like to ask this question. The hon. member admitted he was not here for the finance minister's speech, admitted that he had not read the speech, and then went on to suggest in a number of allegations that the speech did nothing for Cape Breton. On what does he found his criticism?


Francis G. LeBlanc: The first question the minister asked had nothing to do with my remarks. It is quite irrelevant to the subject I was dealing with. I do intend to seek the nomination in Cape Breton Highlands-Canso at the appropriate time, to run again and to be elected again to this House as part of a Liberal government under our leader, the hon. member from Shawinigan.
As for the second part of the minister's question, I was on a parliamentary committee outside Ottawa on Wednesday when the minister gave his speech.
I have read summaries of the speech and portions of the economic address. I admitted that I had not as yet read the whole speech and I qualified my remarks by

Government Orders
saying that. What I did read gave me no reason to believe that there was very much in this speech for Cape Breton.
Perhaps after I have read the whole speech I will have a different point of view. If I do, at that point I will make those revised comments before this House but what I have read so far does not give me much reason for hope.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I comment to the hon. minister that there is a great Liberal fight in his riding to seek the nomination. I do not understand how that could be. I guess they figure it is an easy riding to win the next time. Do not worry, there will not be anybody appointed there.
My hon. friend is from an area of the country that has really been decimated by this Conservative government and its programs over the years. He gave a wonderful speech outlining some of the problems which have occurred not just in his riding but in all of Atlantic Canada because of the policies of this government.
I did read the majority of the speech on some of the economic background statements and I really found it lacking in any sort of direction for economic renewal in Atlantic Canada.
I know the hon. member spent a lot of time looking at this issue. He spent a lot of time reading about it and studying it. He talked to people in his own riding and throughout Atlantic Canada as to what some of the solutions would be.
Could the hon. member outline for us today some of the ideas he has that will help bring about economic growth in his area?


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we have to start working from our strengths on Cape Breton Island. That is the case in Atlantic Canada as it is across Canada.
We need some idea from the national government that its industrial policy and fiscal and monetary policies will be endeavouring to support the Canadian economy and economies in the various regions. The regions need to identify and develop their particular strengths particularly as they relate to the emerging North American and world-wide markets we face.
We have many strengths in Cape Breton. In addition to our work force we have the educational institutions. Many Cape Bretoners attend St. Francis Xavier University near Cape Breton. We have the University College of Cape Breton, the various trade schools and community colleges such as the Nova Scotia Community College at the Strait of Canso, the nautical school and other very qualified educational institutions.
We have natural resources in addition to coal and the forest industries. We have a tremendous super port in the Strait of Canso. We have a fabulous cultural richness and natural beauty across the island which is there to be developed with the support of government in partnership with the private sector in Cape Breton.
Agencies such as the industrial development division of Devco or the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation which was another possibility that the government is trying to eliminate, as well as an agency in the Strait of Canso could promote the development of the strengths of that part of the island.
With some kind of vision we can produce a focused development effort on Cape Breton Island. We can lower the awful levels of unemployment on that island. We can better use both public and private funds than in the past toward a realistic objective that can empower the people of Cape Breton.
That is where we have to go. In eight years, this government has had absolutely no vision at all in dealing with Cape Breton. It has shown no real interest, aside from offering tax incentives and tax breaks and the odd program of interest buy down and assistance to small and medium sized businesses.
Without any focus, whatever efforts might have been achieved with the dollars, meagre as they were, that were made available to Atlantic Canada and to Cape Breton in particular have dissipated.
We need to focus and to work on our strengths in Cape Breton Island. We need to identify and develop those strengths with the resources, particularly the human resources we have all around us.
I want to thank the member for his very thoughtful question and for giving me the opportunity to speak positively about the future of our island.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, in viewing Bill C-93, I am struck by problems that both the public and many government and opposition members run into when this broad-brush approach is taken by bringing in legislation under an omnibus bill.
I do not knock the government for wanting to do this in some cases. When making small housekeeping amendments it makes sense to put them into an omnibus bill.
However, in this particular case we have 10 different and diverse sections. The bill is fairly substantial. It is 84 pages long with amendments in a number of different areas to a number of different bills. It is a little hard sometimes for members of the public to keep up with exactly what sections and acts are being changed.
It would be handy for any person in British Columbia who is watching at 11.20 in the morning to go through some of the acts that this bill will change.
The bill itself is called an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992.
The bill includes ten different parts, the first of which is the agricultural products board. It then changes certain provisions in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Part III makes substantial changes in direction in the Canada Council for the Arts and for Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities Act with amendments to the Canada Council Act. Part IV amends the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. Part V changes Emergency Preparedness Canada. Part VI is the independent review commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
One will see that this trend is fairly widespread as far as what it is touching.
Part VII deals with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, making amendments to the Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, Intellectual Property Tribunal Act and various other amendments to other acts from the Financial Administration Act to the Privacy Act.
Part VIII concerns the International Trade and Procurement Tribunal and makes amendments to that particular act and consequential amendments to the
Government Orders
Access to Information Act, Financial Administration Act, Privacy Act and others.
Part IX concerns the Petroleum Monitoring Agency and makes amendments to the Energy Monitoring Act.
Finally, Part X is the Veterans Land Administration amendment.
One can see in any omnibus bill we run into the situation where it is a broad-brush approach. We have too much in one bill. I suggest there are certain parts of this bill that should have been broken out and brought to the House in separate bills. For example, if there are minor changes in the Veterans Land Administration Act I can see coupling that with small changes.
In this case we are not looking at small changes. A number of them are fairly substantial. I would like to turn to some of the substantial changes. I refer specifically to those concerning the Canada Council.
Yesterday I attended the reception put on by the Speaker in the Hall of Honour. It was celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Canada Council and the 20th anniversary of the art bank. I think part of what I picked up in talking to the people there and part of what I picked up in listening to the remarks made by the president was that there was a substantial fear of major cutbacks in the arts community.
In Wednesday's economic statement the Minister of Finance indicated 10 per cent cuts across the board and substantial cuts to arts and culture.
It was clear in speaking to the people involved with the Canada Council and the art bank that they are very concerned at the degradation of the arts and cultural community in Canada. We have heard it here today and we have heard it many times before that societies survive and thrive when attention is paid to where they came from and to where they are heading. Societies thrive when they look at and preserve the art and the culture that is so important in explaining societies at any one given time.
That is what is being attacked not only in the Minister of Finance's statement on Wednesday, but also in the February 1992 budget provisions that are now being put into place with Bill C-93.
It might be reasonable at this time to point out some of the problems the arts community has with this particular section. I would like to quote liberally from a release

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
Irom the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada on November 30, 1992. It states:
As Canadians look to the 21st century and their place in a research and innovation-intensive world economy, the federal government is turning back the clock to the 1970s with its recently tabled Bill C-93. The bill would wind up Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and transfer its programs to the Canada Council.
SSHRC was transferred out of Canada Council in 1978 after much consultation and study. This move recognized the growing importance of social sciences and humanities research to Canada's over-all science effort and gave it the profile and autonomy it needed to survive and thrive.
Lumping the social sciences and humanities with arts, 14 years later, does not make much sense, especially at a time when SSHRC has already developed partnerships with other research councils in order to find interdisciplinary solutions to our pressing medical, industrial, environmental and human resource problems.
Research in the social sciences and humanities is crucial for our understanding of and adaptation to the rapid social and technological change inherent in an emerging service and information oriented
society.
This was a quote from Dr. Claude Lajeunesse.
The communique continues: "The proposed changes were announced in the February federal budget without any prior consultation or public study. The government provided no rationale for this takeover other than general references to cost saving". The minister responsible for the Canada Council is admitting that savings from the change will be limited.
The bill also proposes to transfer the International Academic Relations Program from external affairs to Canada Council. We are concerned", states the communique, "that such a move would hamper Canadian university participation in international knowledge networks. The federal government should be facilitating this participation, not creating potential road blocks, if Canada wants to attract its university world class scholars and be plugged in to international research".
I think that emphasizes fairly clearly that this community is very concerned. The thrust of what they have been doing over the last 14 years will be watered down by their coupling with the arts community and the Canada Council. I think that is a valid and reasonable fear.
It is also clear that the arts community is concerned about various cutbacks and are concerned about the thrust of their direction and where it will be going with the consolidation of their area with that of humanities and social sciences.
The Association of Universities and Colleges also points out a number of concerns about being taken over by Canada Council. These are valid concerns and should be put on the record. It is concerned that the integrity of the SSHRC granting programs will be not be maintained after it is part of the predominantly arts and cultural agencies. It is also concerned about the role that it will have as one of the key players in Canada's over-all science and technology effort and are concerned that this effort will be substantially diminished.
It is concerned about the growing collaborative links to other research granting councils and that these links could be threatened. That is a valid concern because as you work up a network, you work up a trust among a number of different universities and a number of difference agencies. When your trust is watered down, your viability is not only questioned but also the link between what you are doing and what you want to accomplish and how much you can add to the over-all research is also watered down and questioned.
It further points out its concern that social science humanities research continues to be funded from moneys allocated for Canada's science effort and that these moneys be used exclusively to support research. Of course, it points out that the minister responsible announced a 4 per cent per year increase in SSHRC for the next four years which began on April 12, 1992.
It is further concerned that other research agencies, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Medical Research Council, will also eventually lose their independent status. I think these .are real and valid concerns.
I should also briefly quote from a couple of letters that we have received with respect to this proposal. In a letter from the International Council for Canadian Studies to the Prime Minister dated November 23, Hans-Josef Niederehe, the president, has stated: "Our concern is that contrary to its intention, such a transfer will in fact prove costly and ineffective. The cost effectiveness of the
December 4, 1992

present program, which is acknowledged by all who are familiar with it, derives from the fact that it is an instrument of Canadian foreign policy and that it enjoys the full co-operation of the academics abroad who, in effect, deliver it. To transfer this responsibility to the Canada Council, which has no experience with Canadian foreign policy and no contact with academics involved in this program abroad, is bound to incur additional costs and produce a less effective program, and in the process to expose the government to serious criticism".
I think those are valid views to which the government should pay attention.
Also, in a message from the chairman of the European Task Force on Canadian Studies, Cornelius Remie, states in his summing up letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
We have acted in good faith, urged by the encouragement of your officials, who have shown a marked sensitivity to and respect for the dictates of the academic world. If the planned transfer of the delivery of Canadian studies programs from your department to the Canada Council does not build in sufficient guarantees for the continued support of these programs abroad, there will inevitably be a widespread sense of disappointment, even betrayal, that could well undermine the investments Canada has made in this field over many years. I do encourage you not to let these investments be wasted and the support upon which these rest be eroded.
It is clear the community that has worked in good faith for the last 14 years in building up Canadian studies, humanities studies, throughout the world and throughout Canada, is questioning why a bill such as this would be brought in with no consultation with those involved, after it was switched out and set up after substantial consultations back in 1970 and prior to 1978. Now, unilaterally, the government has decided as a cost cutting measure and a measure that it has admitted will not save that much money, to go ahead and say: "You are going to become part of the Canada Council".
It is not hard to imagine that if we looked in the Auditor General's report alone we could have found the money to have kept these two entities as separate entities. We could have found sufficient funds to continue to fund this particular group as a separate entity, and in fact increase its funding without hurting any other areas. We could have also continued to fund the Canada Council to the extent that it should be funded.
Government Orders
We only have to look to the section, for instance, on the tax havens, where the Auditor General says that there are hundreds of millions of dollars, admitted in questioning in committee, that it could be well over a billion dollars being wasted or lost in tax revenues each year as a result of the tax haven loopholes that this government has brought in.
That is one of the things that I looked for in Wednesday's economic statement. I thought, well, if we have to find revenues, where will the minister look for them? He had to look no further than one week ahead of his economic statement in the Auditor General's report of November 24, opening it up and looking in that section and seeing the Auditor General's statement of "hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenues are being lost to large multinational corporations and large corporations each year".
Did I see that loophole closed in the economic statement? I looked and I looked some more. The Tories did not close the loophole because they have an election coming up. They depend on those large corporations to use some of the profits they are saving to help runs up to an election. It would be very simple to close those loopholes and try to ensure that things like the Canada Council and the Research and Social Sciences and Humanities Council are kept as separate entities. However, this government has a totally different direction. It is called help your big buddies and leave those who would not help you on their own.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Tory fat cats.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: That is right. I think the member from Kingston has it exactly. Help the fat cats and we will stay fat on the fat of the land. The member from Kingston is very astute. The fat cats are sitting on the other side and they are making those poor people worry about what they are doing. They are ruining what has been developed over a 14-year period.
Let me turn just briefly to another section before my time is up. It is in respect to the emergency preparedness. Once again, if we look at the Auditor General's report for 1989 and 1992 we will find that there is a fair amount of criticism, not for the people that work within Emergency Preparedness Canada itself, but of the bu-

December 4, 1992
Government Orders
reaucrats within it. They have not got to the stage where they can deal with a major crisis.
The government should be splitting out major parts of this bill, introducing them to the House as separate bills. It should use some of that wasted tax loophole money to ensure that groups that are hit by this legislation remain viable, independent organizations within the Canadian structure.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague who made some excellent comments on this particular legislation.
My first question is this. I note in this bill there is reference to intellectual property and I wonder what that has to do with this government.
Second, the member referred to emergency planning. If I am not mistaken, in this bill there is a reference now to the whole procedure of emergency planning coming under the aegis of the Minister of National Defence. If it has not changed in the last while, it is my understanding that there are considerable powers given to ministers of the Crown that are laid out by Order in Council as to what powers they would have in light of an emergency.
In the past, in any case, those powers were very Draconian. No one would deny the need for the government to act in emergencies, but given some of the authority that are given to ministers, would it not be better for that authority to be passed by Parliament as opposed to Order in Council by cabinet.
I would like the member to make some observations about that particular situation and how it may relate to this bill.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. He has obviously studied the area of emergency preparedness fairly carefully, being from British Columbia. He knows the problems, particularly on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland, with regard to earthquakes. This is a bigger problem if we look at things that the Auditor General touched on such as the Bhopal and Chernobyl problems.
These are things that while we are quick to say they happen elsewhere but would never happen here, we have to acknowledge that in fact those are real problems that could occur within our own country.
We have to ask how important is this. I have to agree with the member that the importance of this is so great that it should be brought before Parliament and debated. The power should be here with Parliament as opposed to allowing a minister to delegate the power to one of his chiefs.
I think the thrust has to be that we as parliamentarians have to ensure that Canadians are protected particularly with respect to such things as earthquakes that are always present in the minds of those in the lower mainland on Vancouver Island. As a matter of fact, we had an earthquake within the last year through the Okanagan region. I think we have to be very cognizant of the difficulties involved.
I think now with major chemical plants and the possibility of major problems such as in Bhopal we have to be very aware that throughout the industrial regions we have to have the ability to deal with those particular problems.
With the nuclear plants at Pickering and particularly the province of Ontario and some of the Atlantic provinces, I think there is a real problem. We say that our technology is such that we do not have to worry that much. It is not as much of a problem as it was in Chernobyl. We have to be very much aware after Three Mile Island that this could be a distinct possibility, coupled, for instance, with an earthquake in an area where there is a nuclear disaster. We have to watch that.
Look at what happened in Hanford in Washington state below the British Columbia border. If there is a major event down there are we prepared to deal with that in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta? I think the answer right now is probably no. Those are the things we have to look at and that we as parliamentarians have to deal with.
I would like to deal now with his first point, that of intellectual property. While it is a complex matter dealing with copyrights and trade mark legislation, I think it is a comment on this government that perhaps it is bankrupt in the area of intellectual abilities as opposed
December 4, 1992

to intellectual properties because it seems to me it has all the property but not much intellect.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his usual incisive speech. He has obviously studied this bill where others have probably feared to tread. It is a kind of daunting bill and I know the Official Opposition House leader called it an ominous bill. I know he meant to say omnibus bill but conceivably it could be ominous because we are not quite sure what exactly is in the bill.
I will say perhaps my colleague went a little too far when he suggested the member from Kingston was astute. I took exception to that at that particular time. Some might suggest this might be a housekeeping bill but after having gone through the bill I notice CITT, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. That is our answer to the American commerce department.
Not only do Canadian firms have to deal with negative rulings from the American side, we have had to deal with considerable negative rulings against Canadian companies by our own Canadian trade group which is really quite disconcerting to all of those Canadian companies.
At first blush one would think this perhaps is totally innocuous and it has no impact upon anyone. I suggest after further review of this bill that it could be considered not innocuous but noxious.
I think the member rightly pointed out that in all likelihood there was no consultation on this bill whatsoever. I do not know if I have a question for the hon. member. Perhaps he could comment. Tell the Canadian people who are watching out there if this is a consequential bill or inconsequential as the government would have us believe.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question I think it is very clear that there is a lot hidden within this bill. There are some things that could be looked on as housekeeping such as the Veterans Land Act. I do not necessarily look on it as a housekeeping bill. What it does is essentially fold in the Veterans Land Act under the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Perhaps if we looked at the number of people left after the two wars and the Korean War who qualified under
Government Orders
VLA, the numbers did not warrant keeping the Veterans Land Act. If that is correct then I suggest that maybe that is the route to go. There should have been substantial consultations to make sure that people understood, that veterans did not feel threatened when they heard that their VLA was being shut down. In their golden years they should be feeling secure.
Look at other things-the Solicitor General was here-with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is fairly substantial what it is doing. I cannot disagree with the thrust of the changes because it seems to me that it is taking two boards and making an independent external review board out of them. That perhaps is positive but it is a fairly substantial change. I think it is a change that should be discussed and considered. There should have been a little more consultation.
Therefore, I think the member is correct when he says that it is a fairly substantial bill, not inconsequential and not simply a housekeeping bill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate Bill C-93 arising out of last year's fateful budget.
We have had two budgets in the last 12 months. The economy is in a mess. Clearly the first budget was wrong, as we said at the time. I remember in the budget debate we made the point that the government was overly optimistic in all of its projections and had done nothing to stimulate the economy, which we felt was essential at that time.
The minister disagreed and said that everything he was doing was stimulating to the economy. We now know that was false and wrong.
We have had a second budget delivered this week which is called an economic statement, but nevertheless it had all the trappings of a budget. It indicated how wrong the minister was when you see what the deficit has done; increasing by something like $9 billion since his original projection last February. It is hard to imagine that the finance minister could have been more off base than this one has been although his predecessor was not much better.


Shirley Maheu: He is a Tory.

December 4, 1992
Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As my colleague says, he is a Tory, but our expectations still must be reasonable; perhaps not high but at least reasonable. However, I do not think we have even reason from this particular minister in these particular budgets.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Remember Allan and Marc Lalonde.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member opposite is hollering about a very capable former Liberal finance minister. He would do well to have his minister follow that example. The Solicitor General wants me to name a famous Liberal finance minister. We have two who are members of this House right now who come immediately to mind. The Leader of the Opposition was a very famous Minister of Finance and the former Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, was a very famous Minister of Finance who had a balanced budget.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: The last one ever.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As the hon. member says, the last one ever. This is all the more reason for him to be raised on a pedestal and cast in bronze. I invite hon. members opposite to see that a suitable statue is erected to the memory of this great man who is a former leader of our party and is now serving this House in the distinguished position as member for Vancouver Quadra.
I now wish to turn to Bill C-93 which the government teels offers some salvation. There are points in the bill with which we in this party are in accord. We think some of the changes are worth while. We do not always dump on everything the government does, contrary to popular expectation and certainly popular perception.
However, the points that we are in agreement with are relatively narrow ones. We concede that the winding up of the directorate of the Veterans Land Act and consolidating that work with the deputy minister's office is a sensible change, especially when no new grants under that act have been available since 1975.
We are also willing to acquiesce in some of the other mergers that are proposed in the bill. However, there are a couple that warrant very close scrutiny and ought not to take place. I want to speak specifically about the
proposal to merge the Social Science and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council.
My constituency is one that boasts veiy capable people in both fields who would be touched by this bill. Kingston has a veiy vibrant cultural community which benefits from the grants that are given by the Canada Council. Kingston has writers, painters, musicians, artists of all kinds who benefit from these grants, who are recipients of these grants. There are publishing companies that operate in Kingston and receive these grants to help them publish books that would otherwise be unavailable to the Canadian public.
The work of the Canada Council is vital and important. We have witnessed under this government cutbacks in the council's funding until recently when I understand there was some additional money provided.
The fact is the Canada Council has not fared well. Clearly the Conservative government regards culture as an optional extra. When it comes to dealing with things it feels government should do, it looks more at running a post office or road building and running a government like a business than it does in looking at things that are important for the self-expression of our people and that is in the arts.
The arts community in Canada is very important for our cultural and national identity. It is a very important method of self-expression for Canadians. It helps us realize our true identity as Canadians in operating and carrying on our separate existence on the North American continent. Any attempt to stifle or lessen the importance or the vibrancy of Canada's cultural community is a serious move and one that the government it seems to me has undertaken cavalierly and without due regard to the consequences throughout the eight years that Canadians have suffered badly under the government opposite.
In speaking in its defence there has been no particular change. However, there will be a subtle one to the Canada Council in that it will now take over responsibility for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
That body operated for quite a different purpose and that was to grant funding to researchers involved in the social sciences. Sometimes there was overlap. Sometimes the social science research impinges on cultural matters, but generally speaking it does not. It generally deals with things in terms of sociology and politics and
December 4, 1992

Private Members' Business
the study of political science and psychology and that kind of study.
Instead of keeping that as a second group the government has seen fit to lump the two together as a cost saving measure. We have seen no figures yet on how much money is to be saved by this merger.
I suggest when we look at the total savings projected from this bill and projected in the budget, they are peanuts. In the particular case of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council I am sure the savings are minuscule. Most of the staff will have to be retained to do the work.'It will do it out of the Canada Council office which may save a little in rent but I expect it had to expand offices to accommodate this group. The important work of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is carried out in the course of peer review of the applications for funding.
Most of the peer review-I think I can say all of it-is done for free. There is no charge levied by the social scientists, the sociologists, the political scientists, whoever, who sit on the review panels to decide who receives grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
There is a central processing office where the grant applications go. There is apparently some initial screening and then there is peer review of the various applications done gratuitously, free, by Canadians involved in this work across this country.
All that costs the government nothing. What it does is provide an excellent review of the work which is of benefit to the social scientists involved, but it also then assists the council in making a decision as to who and who does not get the funding.
It seems to me that given that approach, why should this group be lumped with the Canada Council whose aims and objectives are really quite different from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council? The government has decided as apparently some kind of cost-saving measure that these two bodies should operate out of one place. It is not reasonable and the government should abandon this part of the bill.
My time has expired. I will continue my remarks the next time this bill is called.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will then have 11 minutes remaining in his speech, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.

It being 3 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Guy St-Julien: that Bill C-372, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Conservative member for Don Valley East for seconding my motion today. I also wish to thank the Conservative member for Terrebonne, who seconded it the other day when I tabled this bill, whose purpose is to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.
I stand here in Parliament today on behalf of all Canadian taxpayers, the people who pay our salaries and our expenses. As I said on November 19, the purpose of this bill is to require the disclosure of expenses made by members of the House of Commons in connection with their parliamentary functions.
I propose that every member of the House of Commons shall, each year, within 30 days after October 31 and within 30 days after March 31, prepare a statement of expenses incurred in connection with a member's parliamentary functions. This bill would take effect on the first day of the Thirty-fifth Parliament, in other words, after the next election.
I think that is appropriate, since all members of this House-and there are 295-will go before the electorate in every riding of this country, and that is where, the effectiveness of a member, whatever his political stripe-whether he is a New Democrat, a Tbry, a Liberal or a member of the Bloc Quebecois or an independent member-will be judged.
What will they tell the voters? Will they be in favour of disclosure of their expenses or will they be against disclosure? In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say,

December 4, 1992
Private Members' Business
first of all, that I am not the first to consider this kind of legislation, since the subject came before the House on December 18, 1990. I suppose many members may have forgotten, or did not have a chance to read, the Votes and Proceedings of December 18, 1990, where it says under Presenting Reports from Committees that Mr. Danis, from the Special Committe on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act, presented the sixth report of the committee, which is as follows: On December 14, 1989, the House of Commons, by unanimous consent, approved the following motion: "That a special committee of the House be appointed and empowered to review the Parliament of Canada Act regarding the powers, duty and obligations of the members of the House in relation thereto and regarding the authority, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy-"
"Since its mandate began in December 1989, the work of the special committee has ranged widely over many of the legal and administrative structures relating to the House of Commons and its members. In the course of the past year, we have tabled reports dealing with such diverse matters as the general principles that guide the activities and functions of members, procedures relating to the execution of search warrants within parliamentary precincts, and extensive amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. The special committee also sat as a legislative committee in relation to Bill C-79, which arose directly out of the committee's work, and reported that bill back to the House last month after intensive study".
"Thus, over one full year, much has been accomplished; but there is much yet to do. The purpose of this report is to indicate the outstanding matters that the committee believes remain to be addressed. Some of these are related to issues discussed in earlier reports, while others flow from the passage of Bill C-79. The committee has concluded that all are important to the members of the House and the public we serve, and are therefore worthy of future consideration".
A little further, in the same report tabled on December 18, 1990 by the hon. member for Vercheres, we see the following heading: Public disclosure of expenses. We must remember that the committee consisted of members of all the opposition parties, Conservatives, Liberals
and New Democrats. I shall continue: "The committee has concluded that there should be increased disclosure of those expenses over which members have direct control." The Canadian people have a right to know how the money that is entrusted to their elected representatives is being spent. Mr. Speaker, that was on December 18, 1990. On January 14, 1991, in my federal riding of Abitibi, in my home town of Val-d'Or, I gave a press conference and read these proceedings.
In a spirit of openness and financial accountability to the electorate, information should be made available on the use of such funds. The committee remains uncertain, however, about the best way to achieve this goal. In devising a system, the principle of accountability must be weighed against the principle of the independence of members, and a proper balance struck between the two. Disclosure must be detailed enough to be informative, but not so detailed that the purpose of disclosure is lost in a mountain of irrelevant detail. The privacy concerns of employees must also be respected, as must the privileges of members. All of these aspects of disclosure, as well as all the administrative details that would need to be developed, deserve thoughtful consideration."
That is where I decided to take the lead on behalf of the taxpayers of Abitibi, Quebec and Canada. I told the media that I would publicly disclose my expenses every three months, because for me, it is essential to control expenses paid from public funds.
Given the federal government's sustained commitment to restrict spending in departments, Crown corporations, et cetera, the people of Abitibi are entitled to know how their member of Parliament spends the money given to him. In a spirit of openness and accountability, following the tabling of some bills and the sixth report on December 18, 1990, I told the media that I would go ahead and disclose my expenses.
A little later, in February 1991-it is important to give the dates. Hon. members think that I am doing this for electoral or political reasons, in order to get votes. If that were the case, I would have waited until just before the election, but I did not wait. I made this decision on January 14, following the recommendations in the sixth report of the committee on the Parliament of Canada Act which recommended that we disclose our expenses.
December 4, 1992

I have a letter here from the Speaker of the House of Commons dated February 8, 1991. I will read the paragraph on reporting expenses: "As you know, the Special Committee on the Parliament of Canada Act recognized that expense disclosure is an important subject which deserves thorough investigation." This is not just anybody; it is the Speaker of the House of Commons.
A little later, in September of the same year, I disclosed my spending in the previous quarter for the people of my riding, that is my riding expenses and my office expenses.
I see the Liberal member from a small, isolated, remote part of the Island of Montreal trying to interrupt me. Anyway, she does not even dare to publish her expenses for the taxpayers.
I have a letter here dated September 5, 1991 and signed by the Clerk of the House of Commons, one of the best clerks in Canada, Robert Marleau. He wrote this in his letter: "nevertheless, nothing prevents members from voluntarily disclosing their expenses, as you have already done-".
On September 25, 1991,1 tabled Motion M-591 in this House. It said that the member for Abitibi would table a quarterly report of all his expenses, including privileges, as of August 1, 1991. It is important for me to tell Canadian taxpayers and my constituents all I have done since December 18, 1990, when, before Christmas, I read the proceedings of the Special Committee on the Parliament of Canada Act, in which there was a really important recommendation for all federal MPs. It would set an example for Canadian public servants and all provincial legislators. That is important. Later, I made a first attempt to table a document in the House on November 5. I then asked the House for unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, a briefing note entitled, "Expenses incurred in the performance of my duties as member of Parliament for Abitibi for July, August and September 1991". I was refused the first time. On November 6, I was refused a second time and on November 7 I was again refused. I stopped, because if I did that every day, I would still be refused, and it gets on members' nerves.
That month, the Speaker of the House of Commons was presented a report of the audit of the House of Commons administration by the office of the Auditor
Private Members' Business
General of Canada. That is not just anybody. It is a study of the Parliament of Canada and members' expenses. We see in section 6, on members' expenses, that members spent $116 million or 53 per cent of the total spent by the House of Commons.
I want to say that there are several really important things in this report and I must tell Canadian taxpayers about them, because not all taxpayers have access to this report. The reason I quote some parts is that it is important in showing why I, the member for Abitibi, disclose my expenses. I am the only MP to do so even though mayors and councillors disclose theirs every month in their city or town.
Paragraph 6.9 says, "We reviewed the administration of members' expenditures and tested a sample of individual transactions, invoices and claims submitted by members for payment. Our audit of the Comptroller's financial procedures concerning members' expenditures disclosed few problems".
Members pay attention to their budget and are not wasteful. Whatever our party, we have a budget, a salary, offices, funds for travel, et cetera. And the Auditor General says that there are few problems. So why do we not publish our expenses? It is well described in the report. There is no shame in publishing our expenses. I am not ashamed and I have been practising for it since January 14, 1991. The taxpayers thought I was spending a million dollars a year. I proved that my expenses were $236,000, in addition to my salary.
There are several important recommendations in this report. Members are not informed and no statement on our expenses is provided regularly to the administration of the House or to members.
One thing I did since February 1990, after the finance minister's budget, is that I checked how much I cost. Before, I did not check. It is as if I did my weekly grocery shopping with $200 in my pocket and left the store without a bill and it cost $800. Today I can say how much I cost and I have practice with it.
In paragraph 6.39, the Auditor General says, "Public disclosure of members' expenditures needs to be expanded. We have earlier recommended that more information be made available to the members themselves, and to the board. If these recommendations are accepted, it will be an easy, and yet important, final step to make public the details of members' expenditures. We believe that publication of this information, coupled with the

December 4, 1992
Private Members' Business
publication of financial information on House administration, would enhance public accountability".
There is one thing I want to say to hon. members: It is not true that everything is public. Paragraph 6.40 on page 30 of the report on the House of Commons audit says, "Each year in the public accounts, the House reports a statement of indemnities, expense allowances and travel expenses by member. This represents only 37 per cent of members' expenditures".
Further on, in paragraph 6.43 of the same report, it says, "If the public disclosure we are recommending were put into effect at the beginning of the next Parliament, it would provide members with an opportunity to adapt to such disclosure and would provide the House administration with the time to develop the necessaiy means of providing it".
Recommendation 6.44 is as follows: "Information on all expenditures of members should be publicly available, at a reasonable level of detail, effective the next Parliament".
That is why I have been making my expenses public for several years now. I have received hundreds of letters from taxpayers from Vancouver, from coast to coast to coast, from my riding and elsewhere in Quebec and in Ontario. These are just a few of the letters of support I have received. I even got one from an 84 year old constituent congratulating me for doing this, a first in 125 years of Canadian history.
I know that I am running out of time-I do have 20 minutes-but I want the Canadian people to know how much I have cost them in 1991. My total expenditures for that year amounted to $236,901, plus my salary and so on. I have three constituency offices and one parliamentary office. Insurance costs were $578; post office box, $261; travel expenses for myself, my family and my staff, $33,670. That is not much, considering that, apart from the two Territories, my riding is the largest in Canada, with 553,837 kilometres square, including the northern tip of New Quebec.
Photocopying, $3,650; office rental in Val-d'Or, Amos and Senneterre, $25,639; stationery, office supplies in Ottawa, Val-d'Or, Amos and Senneterre, $7,337; my
staff's salaries, $110,471 gross; telephone service in Ottawa, $6,500; telephone service and equipment rental in my riding, $26,600; translation, approximately $5,000; travels in Canada and abroad, $1,233. Householder mailings did not cost me a cent. There were none this year because I wanted to save the money of the taxpayers on account of the recession. Travels in Canada-ask my family-none; travels in Canada and abroad, none; travels for sponsors, none either.
I consider government as a public institution that should abide by the same rules as a municipal board or a private company. For instance, what would happen if the management of a company decided not to produce a financial report for its shareholders? I do not think that it would last very long.
Elected members of Parliament have a duty to be transparent, whether they like it or not. There is nothing personal in making a member's expenses public. What is embarrassing about that? We are still in a recession. All governments have to tighten the belt. Elected members of Parliament must set the example for their staff. I cut my expenses and privileges to do just that because I know that change has to be instigated from the top.
In closing, I must say that the worst enemy of parliamentary democracy is secretiveness. I would like to ask you this, Mr. Speaker: to settle the issue, could I find unanimous consent in this Chamber to put this bill to a vote at the end of the day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is not agreed. I regret the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Gaspe now has the floor.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I did not get unanimous consent for my request. I noticed that the "no" came from the Liberal member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville.
December 4, 1992


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


Shirley Maheu: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I respect your judgment on the last intervention. I believe it was not a point of order. It was a point of partisanship.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It was not a point of order. I do not know where the no came from but there was a no. Therefore, we will now go to debate.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. There were two noes, one from each side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fine. The hon.
member for Gaspe.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the bill put forward by my colleague from Abitibi to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.
The purpose of this bill is to require the disclosure of expenses made by members of the House of Commons in connection with their parliamentary functions. The hon. member's bill would amend the Parliament of Canada Act as follows, and I quote: "Every member of the House of Commons shall, each year, within thirty days after October 31 and within thirty days after March 31, prepare a statement of expenses incurred in connection with the member's parliamentary functions and shall immediately deposit such statement with the board".
The board may make bylaws exempting members of the House of Commons from preparing a statement of expenses where, in the opinion of the board, the period of time between the beginning of a Parliament and the time at which the statement of expenses is to be prepared is so short as not to warrant the making of such a statement. Third, the board may make bylaws prescribing items to be included in a statement of expenses, including expenses relating to salaries of a member's employees, rent for constituency offices, travel, statio-
Private Members' Business
nery and telephone. Furthermore, the Speaker shall table before the House of Commons the statements of expenses on any of the first 30 days after the statements are deposited by the members with the Board.
The Board of Internal Economy, as created by the Parliament of Canada Act, is responsible for financial and administrative affairs concerning the House of Commons, its premises, services, staff and members.
The board may make bylaws to regulate members' use funds, goods, services and premises made available to members within the context of their parliamentary functions. It may also make bylaws concerning management and accounting of funds made available to members. The Speaker shall table these bylaws in the House of Commons within 30 days after their approval.
Finally, the board has the exclusive authority to determine, bearing in mind the nature of its functions, the proper use by members, of funds, goods, services or premises available to them on the basis of their parliamentary functions and more specifically, whether that use is in keeping with the letter and intent of the bylaws.
The Parliament of Canada Act provides for sessional allowances for members of both Houses of Parliament. It also provides that any member of each House of Parliament shall be allowed certain expenses, such as moving, travel, transportation and telecommunications expenses.
In the course of an investigation by a peace officer into a member's use of specific funds, goods, services or premises, the peace officer may request an opinion from the board on the propriety of that use.
We must remember that a member of Parliament may face charges in court in the case of unlawful use of public funds. We already have mechanisms for monitoring members expenses.
Over the years, there have been a number of changes with a view to improving the existing system. I think everyone will agree it is important to ensure that taxpayers' money is used wisely and appropriately.
As members of Parliament and elected representatives, we must have an abiding concern for the proper use of public funds. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would

December 4, 1992
Private Members' Business
like to consider in a more general way the issue of a member's accountability.
In fact, the issue raised by the hon. member for Abitibi is above all one of being accountable to the people of Canada. We are elected by the people and we are accountable to the people. We do this in various ways: through our presence in the riding where we were elected, by listening carefully to members of the community, and by always being available to help our constituents.
We are accountable in the House, when we take part in many debates on important issues when we put questions to members of the government, and when we draw attention to the problems of our fellow citizens. We are accountable through our participation on parliamentary committees, by ensuring at all times that the interests and the well-being of Canadians are always considered when important initiatives or legislation is discussed. Ultimately, we are accountable to the people at election time, when we show them what we have accomplished as members of Parliament during a given mandate. The people then decide whether or not to give another mandate to their representative it in Parliament.
We all agree that public moneys should be used in an appropriate manner. Some mechanisms are already in place to control members' expenses. It is in compliance with those rules that we will accomplish our duties as members of Parliament.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond on behalf of the New Democratic Party for a few moments. The member for Abitibi has received some notoriety on this subject, and gained perhaps both good and bad publicity.
He is a pioneer in this area and we salute him for the concept he puts forward. I know he must feel frustrated in his desire to bring forward this idea.
I have recently gone through a private member's bill that I felt was significant enough to move beyond a couple of votes and into committee. Fortunately I have reached that point. I have to thank both other parties for allowing that to happen. I also am quite aware of the long, rocky road to that final end and even when you get there, you may not be gratified with the results.
We do salute the member for his continued perseverance against great odds. I am sure he is receiving static from within his own caucus.
We must be accountable in this business of politics for the money we spend from the public purse. We must not only be accountable, we must not only be honest, but we must appear to be honest. The perception is of as much significance I suppose as the accounting.
I am sure that several members would be afraid of the static that would come forward. I just looked at my travel budget which brings me to work in Ottawa from Sault Ste. Marie once a week. I figure it out to be approximately $28,000 per year. I am sure some of the constituents back home say it is quite a price tag to send me to work on their behalf.
I should point out that it costs $670 for a return trip between Sault Ste. Marie and Ottawa at least once a week. I could travel to London, England, every week cheaper than going to Ottawa to work. That is an anomaly. That is the way the airline fares treat us and I suspect that next year it might cost $750 for a member of Parliament to get to work each week. However, that is the reality of it.
We are looking to move our office. The lease is going to run out. We now spend $800 a month for accommodation. I am disclosing my expenses, as did the member, in a forum that is not appropriate but I am not afraid to do so. It costs $800 a month rent where we are. Our lease is running out. In order to find an appropriate spot within the community we will have to pay considerably more. We have outlived our accommodation but it is very expensive to move. I am not afraid to indicate to constituents what exactly their tax dollars are going toward.
I can appreciate that some people would be fearful of manipulation of certain statistics and have grave concerns about that as an individual.
I would ask that perhaps we as MPs could take the lead from the hon. member for Abitibi and disclose, as he has done. I have no problem with that. Perhaps I have not taken that initiative to this point, but it does not mean that I am fearful of doing just that.
I am sure the hon. member has been accused of self-aggrandizement with this initiative. I am sure people have suggested grandstanding, that he is not trying to set an example for anybody; he is just trying to show up other members of Parliament. I will take him at face value since he has been at this for so long. I would
December 4, 1992

suggest he is probably very sincere in his intent, in what he is attempting to do.
With that I suspect the member appreciates this may very well be coming to a dead end sooner rather than later. The New Democrats at this point would request unanimous consent to have Bill C-372 referred to committee for further study.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: No.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an interesting concept and I congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi for having brought it forward.
He obviously has thought about the question that he has raised. I know he has persisted in attempting to file with the House his statement of expenses. I recognize this bill as the product.

This bill is the result of the efforts that he has been making in this House for a long time. I congratulate him on that but I do not think that this bill is a good one and it should not pass second reading.

What the member has proposed could be dealt with by by-law by the Board of Internal Economy. I have every reason to expect that something along these lines is being considered by that board. As the hon. member may be aware, I am not a member of it so I do not attend its meetings and I have no more information as to what goes on there than he has. But I am aware that the board has looked at the possibility of publicizing additional information about members' expenses than has been the case hitherto.
As he knows, the Public Accounts of Canada contain details of the expenses that members incur in travel. I understand the Public Accounts of Canada are delayed this year. The government does not have them ready. One suspects it is trying to fix the books; there is so much red ink in them that it has to get them printed in the proper way in black ink so that it does not show up.
Private Members' Business


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That is an imputation.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, no, no. I did not say that it had cooked the books. I avoided that. I said it is trying to fix the books and it has to get them fixed up. They are late. They should have been tabled two days after the Auditor General's report. That is the standard practice. Guess when they are coming before the House. It will be on December 10, the day before we adjourn, so we cannot ask any questions. That is what is going on.
However, aside from that, the figures will be published for travel. Last spring the management committee had before it the Auditor General who had completed a study on the House of Commons and the way it operated. The Auditor General was critical of the way this House reported on financial matters, particularly individual members, because members get many things provided for them by the House that are not charged to members' operating budgets. The recommendation the Auditor General made-and frankly in principle it is a very good recommendation-was that members' operating budgets be increased and they be charged for expenses they incur for which the House is currently paying.
That includes things like long distance telephone calls, office equipment that is available on the Hill, the travel budget generally which could be added to the member's operating budget and the expenses charged out against it, the stationery supplies which are currently provided for free, as well as householder expenses which could be charged to an operating budget.
In that way members would take some considerable responsibility for the expenses they incur instead of the current arrangement where since these things are provided for free the member is not encouraged to use any thrift or particular judgment in deciding whether or not to spend the money. The money is not accountable. The House absorbs the cost. It is free to the member so it is simply a matter of using a privilege that is extended and using it fully or less than fully. The fact is that the privilege is there.
I would be quite happy as a member to have my budget increased and then have the ability to spend the money in different ways within the budget, deciding what I think is a priority. If I consider travel a priority then I can opt for more travel. If I consider householders a priority, I can opt for more householders. If I consider telephone communication a priority, I can opt for more telephone

December 4, 1992
Private Members' Business
calls and so on. That to me is the way the place ought to were recommended by the Auditor General were im-operate. I think it is fair and reasonable.	plemented at the same time.
The question is: How much of that do we then report? Once members are on the same basis it is reasonable to expect that some reporting mechanism would follow so that people could see roughly how members spend their budgets. The total amount ought to be disclosed. The breakdown into various categories could be discussed, settled upon and made a subject of disclosure.
It is a matter for the Board of Internal Economy to deal with and pass a.bylaw concerning, and members will then be bound by it. I do not think it is necessary to do it by amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act which is what the hon. member is proposing in this bill.
Some say with some justification that it would hardly be fair that a member who lives in Yellowknife, Whitehorse or Vancouver would have the same budget as somebody who lives in Ottawa or in Kingston. Fair enough. The budgets will clearly differ because the travel component has to reflect the difference in travel costs for these members.
Every member could be granted a base of travel amount to cover exceptional trips and then be allowed a reasonable amount for trips to and from the constituency. That could take up the bulk of the trips that are now given. As it is, members are encouraged to book their trip at any time they feel like, at whatever ticket price they can get, and there is no incentive imposed on members to take trips at the lowest possible rate or to seek to get an economy fare at any time. There is no advantage in doing so because the member does not have to account for the money and it is not charged to his or her operating budget.
If it were part of the budget and the member was spending the money and having to account for it, there would be a much greater incentive for saving. It makes sense that the Board of Internal Economy looks very carefully at such a proposal.
There are lots of ways the administration of the members' budgets could be cleaned up. I am not sure the proposal put forward by the hon. member goes far enough or anywhere near far enough in solving that problem, because there are so many expenses that are not reported now and would not be reported under this bill unless the changes that I have mentioned and that
I feel this bill is a little premature. I do not think it is worth proceeding with at this stage for the reasons I have outlined. It is appropriate that the member raised the issue here. I am glad it has been discussed in the House today. I support the principle of the bill, to the extent that I believe reporting is important for members of Parliament. I think the public has a right to know more about the way we spend our money. It is public money and I am quite happy to account for it.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I rise today to speak on this bill because I believe it raises the important concept of accountability to our constituents, to those who elect us to represent their views in the House and Parliament.
The purpose of the bill before us today is to require a disclosure of expenses made by members of the House of Commons in connection with their parliamentary functions. It would require that twice a year members of Parliament publicly declare their expenses.
This is a laudatory objective but one which at the moment I cannot support. I cannot support this bill at this time for two fundamental reasons. The first is because, as explained by the Auditor General, there are not the accounting systems yet in place to allow each member of Parliament to determine with any accuracy his or her expenses. Second, because it will lead to an unjust comparison between the ways in which each MP decides to fulfil his or her role as a member of Parliament.
As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has just suggested, he might choose to put out more householders and do less travel to the riding or vice versa. That point was recognized by the Auditor General in his report of the audit to the House of Commons administration, a piece of bed-time reading with which I know Your Honour is very familiar. At page 2 the Auditor General under point 1.9 says: "A new approach to members' expenditures is needed. The House like all legislatures has a difficult balancing act. It must provide support to members to facilitate their work but yet do so with fixed resources. One of the simplest ways is to
December 4, 1992

establish specific limits and restrictions. For example the House permits members to send annually no more than four newsletters, called householders. Although this no doubt curbs wasteful use or misuse, it restricts the member to some extent. For example the member who thinks that bi-monthly householders are a more effective way to communicate than frequent trips to the constituency, cannot make that choice".
Let us go back to the first reason as laid out by the Auditor General. We know that the Public Accounts of Canada list the expenses of each member of Parliament. These expenses are broken down into three categories by indemnities, by expense allowances and by travel expenses. Those are the three large categories of expenditures.
The Auditor General examined the House of Commons administration in 1991. I first of all would like to state that he clearly concluded that all provisions approved by the Board of Internal Economy were complied with in all but a few minor cases. He stated the transactions were accurately and completely recorded.
To return to the categories of expenditures displayed in the public accounts, the Auditor General stated that three categories of expenditures did not capture all expenditures of MPs. This is because the House of Commons budget provides services to each member which are not included in these three categories. In fact, the Auditor General stated that the public accounts cover only 37 per cent of members' expenditures.
A member uses a common pool of services but does not know the cost of his own use of those services. Those services include such things as printing, telephone, postage, et cetera. I do acknowledge that we can demand, as I do, a monthly print-out of our telephone bills in order to keep a watchful eye on that. I find that to be a useful control.
In addition to these services, there are also the research and media monitoring provided by the House of Commons. Procedures have been developed which allow us to allocate overhead costs to individual members. I submit that rendering accounts which are not complete and accurate would be a meaningless exercise. I also believe that it would lead to a sense by our constituents
Private Members' Business
that they might have been deceived and thus the effect of the bill could be the opposite of what is intended.
The ultimate objective of such attribution of costs and disclosure would be to make MPs more cost conscious. I know that the hon. member for Abitibi believes that a 20 per cent reduction in Parliament's expenses could be achieved.
I am happy to note the work of the House management committee in this regard. Members are aware that in 1992 the committee for the first time undertook a vigorous and detailed study of the estimates of the House of Commons. The committee also made the budget planning document available to all members of the House and to the media. It was an important step in opening up the process and stimulating public and parliamentary debate on the cost of operation of the House of Commons.
In a further step the committee recommended that the area of MPs' travel should be reviewed to identify whether potential savings could be achieved. A large number of other issues were raised by individual members during the course of the committee work. These include privatization of various services and programs and reduction of the cost of householders.
I note that the hon. member who sponsored this bill sends only one householder per year, or previously did. I believe I heard him say that this year he had sent none, rather than the four which are permitted by our rules.
My principal objection to the bill is not with the concept of reducing costs, but how cost disclosure could be interpreted.
Let us look for a moment at what we would define as parliamentary functions. There are four main functions which Parliament fulfils: first, approval of supply or the funds necessary for the operation of government; second, law making by which policy principles and administrative mandates are approved; third, the calling to account of ministers under the framework of ministerial accountability; and, fourth, representing constituents in all of the above functions and acting as an intervener in the constituents' interactions with government. I wonder whether a dollar figure could be really attached to these

December 4, 1992
Private Members' Business
functions? This is my second reason, which I mentioned earlier, for objecting to the bill.
I want to relate certain events in the life of three members of Parliament, all of which are true and none which will reveal the name of the member of Parliament. These stories will demonstrate why the fulfilment of parliamentary functions cannot be accounted for in dollars and cents.
The first has to do with a member who is no longer sitting in this House. He represented a riding in northern Ontario and several times a year he was able to organize visits to this place by his young native constituents. He would work tirelessly through the year with local service organizations to raise money to pay the fare of these young constituents and then he would cajole and bend some arms of his fellow MPs to have these young people stay with them while they were in Ottawa. These constituents would come to Parliament and watch this place in action. A colleague would take them in to Question Period, he would guide them into the Senate, he would sit with them in committee.
Over the course of several days this member of Parliament would pay for their meals. The constituents coming from small Indian reserves in northern Ontario would not have been able to feed themselves while away from home. This member wanted these young people to experience the democratic process of this place. He wanted them to see how Parliament worked. He paid for this from his salary and his expense allowance. Those are the hard facts and figures.
But how do we account for the hours and hours of effort in making the arrangements for these teenagers to come to Ottawa? How do we account for the patience and energy required to host these students and the simple spending of time with them?
The second story is a more recent one, Mr. Speaker. A member told me that his referendum committee from this fall did not break even. It needed more contributions to be able to pay off its debts. Regardless of what position any of the elected members of Parliament took in the referendum, we all recognized the right of Canadians to participate in it and the extraordinary exercise in democracy that the referendum was. We all gladly contributed our days and nights and every last bit of energy and wit
we had to that exercise. Can we account in dollars and cents for that energy and wit?
Let us return to the question of the debt of the committee. How would that MP help that referendum committee in his riding? Well, he will organize and attend functions to raise the money necessary to pay off the debts.
My third story has to do with a member who is significantly interested in the legislative role of the MP. I know that over the course of three months on a major bill he met in committee three times per week, returning to his riding on each weekend to meet with his constituents. This MP's expenses were quite different from the previous two MPs. They were lower because of all his time spent in committee, interacting with policy experts and public servants in developing the best possible laws for this country.
The point of these stories is that each of us fulfils our function in different ways. That is one of the freedoms and the pleasures of being a member of Parliament. The way in which we fulfil our functions has different costs attached to them. It is not for me to say that my colleague who held so dearly the role of educating his young constituents about Parliament should not have done this because his expenditures might have been higher than those of another MP.
Could we say that the MP who spends more time in committee is a better MP because his costs are less than others? What is it we are measuring here?
Mr. Speaker, I would submit that a dollar accounting comparison between two MPs would not in the slightest reveal the value for dollar which the Auditor General says is the true measure of an accounting system.
The Auditor General stated in his 1991 audit of the House of Commons that he did not go beyond the documentation to consider the merits of individual transactions. I do not believe that anyone could. I do not believe that anyone could place a value on how each of us interprets and carries out our representative role.
In the 1992 report of the Auditor General he enunciated three over-all criteria for information for Parliament. These are relevancy, reliability and under-standability.
December 4, 1992

To be relevant, and I quote: "The information should be meaningful, complete and timely."
To be reliable: "The claims made should be consistent from one information source or another, and over time."
To be understandable: "Anyone who is not an expert should be able to comprehend the information."
Because MPs carry out their functions in different ways, accounting for one MP would reveal very different information than for another MP. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet the criteria which the Auditor General believes should be met.
Publishing our individual accounts would need to be qualified about how we do our business. Such publication could lead to misplaced, misleading comparisons between members of Parliament. I do not believe that it would be right to value the most highly that member who
Private Members' Business
spent the least amount of money and perhaps gave the most amount of heart to his job.
I believe that contrary to the intent of this bill, the effect could perversely be to impede democracy. For that reason I will not support the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Shall I call it four o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being four o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 7, 1992