1992-02-06

Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the President of the Queen's Privy Council, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the 24th annual report of the Public Service Staff Relations Board for the year ending March 31, 1991.


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



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-329, an act to amend the Income Thx Act (exemption of wages from garnishment).


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


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, under section 224 of the Income Tkx Act, if the minister becomes aware of wages payable to a tax debtor, the minister has the right to seize up to 100 per cent of those wages until the debt is completely paid off.
This bill proposes to amend that section of the act so that a certain proportion of wages will be left to the tax debtor to live on in the meantime.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt today to move two motions that I was unsuccessful with yesterday.
The first one is a travel motion on the arms export subcommittee. I move:
That, notwithstanding the order made on December 3, 1991, the subcommittee on arms export of the Standing Committee of External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel to Winnipeg and Victoria from March 23 to 27, 1992 instead of February 10 to 14, 1992.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Routine Proceedings

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in reference to a committee, I move:
That, notwithstanding any order or practice of this House, the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, which was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on February 3, 1992, be deemed referred as well to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a number of petitions with thousands of names of people from rural Canada who are petitioning this government to zero rate water for potable supply.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, when the GST came in unfortunately it put a tax on water in rural Canada. These Canadians, in fact Canadians throughout Canada, want this government to take the GST off water.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 based on the human rights violations in Guyana. I must say that this petition was generated by a couple, Mr. and Mrs. Erb, who spent some time in Guyana and observed firsthand the problems in its elections. They urge the Government of Canada to consider making conditional any future development assistance to Guyana on the holding of fair and free elections by May 30, 1991.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present some petitions signed primarily by residents of
the Prince George, B.C. area but other parts of British Columbia as well. The petition calls upon Parliament to respect the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers and also expresses concern about the further contracting out of jobs in the public sector.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of the residents of the city of Penticton, British Columbia, who are outraged at the possibility and the notice that they have had that their post office will be closed.
Almost one-half of the members of the community of Penticton are petitioning Parliament through me, stating that Canada Post is closing and privatizing post offices. Canada Post will be closing the Penticton post office on February 10, 1992 and converting this post office to a commercial service centre only for commercial use.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to stop this closure and the privatization of postal services and to ensure that the citizens and taxpayers of Penticton, British Columbia have a full service post office which is directly run by Canada Post Corporation.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and indeed a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from the North Thompson valley in British Columbia who are concerned about the intentions of a Vancouver-based company with connections in Los Angeles to build a dam and divert the North Thompson River partly into the United States.
The petitioners are asking that the Canadian government state categorically once and for all that the rivers of Canada are not for sale.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, residents of Kamloops, British Columbia and two or three of the surrounding rural areas are concerned about the inadequate funding for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The petitioners are concerned about the increasing level of lawlessness as they define it in their communities, and they are asking that the federal government
February 6, 1992

take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the RCMP is properly funded.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition concurrent with that presented by my colleague from Kamloops.
A number of my constituents from the city of Nelson, the villages of New Denver and Silverton, and the communities of Winlaw and Hills refer to the fact that Multinational Resources has announced the intention to dam the North Thompson River at Belmont to divert water to the Salem-San Diego, California area.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am very pleased to present, especially in view of some current events outside of this House, is a petition signed by some 137 of my constituents from virtually every community within my riding.
The petitioners point out that in recent months, the federal government was violating terms of its collective agreements with its own employees by contracting out the work of Public Service workers. Their belief is that the federal government was violating the human rights of its workers by not paying equal pay for work of equal value.
The signatories to this petition urge the Government of Canada to obey its own laws in future and to bargain in good faith to the loyal and hard-working, and world-respected public servants who are employed by the Government of Canada.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce a petition to this House on behalf of Canadians who are urging the government to take action when it comes to the thousands of refugees who are in Canada and who are trapped in the backlog.
Routine Proceedings
Many of these refugees are suffering from personal and economic hardship. As their future is being decided, their families abroad are really in a very difficult situation.
These petitioners call on the government to step up its actions when it comes to refugees and at the same time exercise compassion.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise this morning in this House and present a petition of 50 signatures by Canadians who are upset at the price of gas.
The petitioners want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that gasoline prices are higher than they believe they should be.
Some provinces have eliminated the vehicle licence fees for parts of the provinces so that gas disparity can be overcome.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to correct this injustice to motorists.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my gallant and hon. colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has presented a petition along the same lines as the one I have.
It is signed by numerous residents of the Ottawa region, including Old Chelsea, Quebec; Smith Falls, Ontario; Ottawa, Ontario; and Gatineau, Quebec. These petitioners are opposed to the high gas prices being charged in this region, particularly the differences between here and southern Ontario. They call upon Parliament to urge the government to correct this injustice for Ottawa area motorists.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 51, 147, 182 and 192.

February 6, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River): With respect to mail delivery (a) does Canada Post intend to discontinue the use of relief letter carriers who act when regular letter carriers are absent, and, if so, will mail be delivered on that route when the regular letter carrier is absent (b) does Canada Post intend to establish the principle that they do not have an obligation to deliver the mail every day from Monday to Friday and, if so, does it not accept the principle that Parliament has imposed an obligation on Canada Post to have such delivery?


Hon. Andre  Harvie@Minister of State and Leader of the government in the House of Commons: Insofar as Canada Post Corporation is concerned:
(a)	It is Canada Post's intention of reducing, where possible, all hours paid but not used in productive work. Where an employee is absent, that route will be delivered by the order of priority contained in the collective agreement.
(b)	Canada Post has every intention to deliver all committed mail, Monday to Friday.


Ms. Copps: Since September 26, 1985, with respect to Henriette Haddad's kidnapping, was action taken by the Department of External Affairs and, if so, (a) by whom (6) who was approached (c) what is the nature of this action?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Please see attached a list entitled "Chronology of Events" describing actions undertaken by External Affairs and International Trade Canada and indicating:
(a)	who initiated the action,
(b)	who was approached, and
(c)	the nature of the action.
RE: HENRIETTE HADDAD-MISSING


[Stage Direction]
30 Sept. 85-Consular Operations telexed Canadian Embassy Damascus to report the disappearance and to request the embassy to seek assistance in locating Mrs. Haddad from its contacts.
04 Oct. 85-Locally engaged staff in Beirut were advised of the disappearance and requested to make enquiries.
08	Oct. 85-Beirut locally engaged staff confirmed that they had advised officials of AMAL (the Shiite pro-Syrian militia) and PSP (Druze military faction) of the disappearance and that theses officials had quote promised to look for her unquote.
14 Oct. 85-Canadian embassy in Damascus reported that there was a strong suspicion that the kidnapping was directed not to Haddad but to her passenger on some private matter.
25 Oct. 85-Telexes were sent from Ambassador Jacques Noiseux in Damascus to Nabih Berri and Mar-wan Hamade, senior representatives of AMAL the Shiite pro-Syrian militia, and the PSP Druze faction respectively, enlisting their assistance in locating and releasing Mrs. Haddad.
30 Oct 85-Canadian Embassy Damascus was advised by Beirut contact that extraordinary efforts were being make in West Beirut by AMAL (as well as the Syrians) to discover the whereabouts of Mrs. Haddad and her companion. It was learned that the latter had been forced to sign and endorse several personal cheques and recipients of those cheques, allegedly eight persons suspected of being members of Hizbollah.
01	Nov. 85-Canadian Ambassador Noiseux in Damascus met Druze PSP Leader Walid Jumblatt and Marwan Hamade. PSP leaders committed themselves to do everything possible to assist in locating Mrs. Haddad. The Ambassador thanked them and emphasized the importance which the Canadian Government attaches to this matter.
19 Nov. 85-Telegrams were sent from Ambassador Noiseux to religious leaders of Hizbollah, Sheikh Mohammed Mahdi Chamseddine and Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah expressing the Canadian govt's deep concern for Mrs. Haddad and seeking assistance in determining her whereabouts and well-being, and in expediting her release.
02	Dec. 85-A letter was received by Ambassador Noiseux from the office of Sheikh Fadlallah indicating that Mrs. Haddad was not of their concern, that they were opposed to all acts of kidnapping, and that they would make enquiries from friendly sources and others.
14 Feb 86-A diplomatic note was sent to Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveying Canada's deep concern for Mrs. Haddad, and informing that she was
[Stage Direction]
believed to have been seen by a recently released fellow detainee. She was reported being held in Basta, Fath Allah Street, West Beirut and that the person responsible for her abduction was a member of the Hizbollah organization. The Canadian Embassy requested the assistance of the Syrian authorities in effecting her release.
24 Aug. 88-A diplomatic note was sent to the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa requesting assistance in the matter of the abduction of Mrs. Haddad.
07 Nov. 88-A diplomatic note was sent to the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa to the effect that Mrs. Haddad was not being held by Hizbollah and that they had no information concerning her whereabouts.
31 Aug. 90-Telephone call from Constantin Haddad followed up by letter of same date advising he had information to the effect his mother would be released within 20 days and requested that travel documentation be prepared for her return to Canada. This information was relayed to the Canadian Embassy Damascus by telex of 04 Sept. 90 with instructions to offer required consular assistance.
29 Oct. 91-A diplomatic note from Canadian Embassy Damascus was sent to the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs soliciting assistance in the search for Mrs. Haddad.
31 Oct. 91-A letter was sent to the United Nations Secretary-General's Assistant for Special Assignments, Mr. Giandomenico Picco, from Canada's Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Yves Fortier, soliciting assistance in locating Mrs. Haddad.
11 Nov. 91-A letter was received by Ambassador Fortier from Mr. Picco assuring that the Secretary-General attaches great importance to the safe release of all hostages and abducted persons, and will continue to pursue his efforts until the problem is resolved.
26 Nov. 91-A meeting was held by the Minister's Chief of Staff, Ruth Archibald, with Constantin Haddad accompanied by two members of the committee formed to free Mrs. Haddad, Mrs. Angeline Foumier-Tombs and Mr. John Humphrey. Assurances of the Department's determination to pursue all leads towards a final solution were given to the committee.
Routine Proceedings
06 Dec. 91-Cdn Ambassador to U.N. met with Iranian charge d'affaires to U.N. Follow-up letters were sent to Iranian, Syrian and Lebanese Heads of Missions the same day.
09	Dec. 91-A diplomatic note was sent by Canadian Embassy in Washington to the U.S. State Department asking them to ask the returning U.S. hostages if they have any knowledge of Mrs. Haddad's situation. The matter was raised informally this week during a meeting on another issue.
10	Dec. 91-Canadian Ambassador to Lebanon and Syria, Martin Collacott, met with Lebanese officials in Beirut. The Minister of the Interior gave assurances that he was taking this matter very seriously and expressed his commitment to gather information for a final report.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs promised the full cooperation of his ministry in transmitting any useful information.
Sheikh Fadlallah, the spiritual head of Hizbollah, denied any knowledge of Mrs. Haddad, reiterated that Hizbollah is not involved in the taking of hostages, Lebanese or foreign; however, he promised to communicate to the Canadian government any information which his organization might be able to obtain.
Mr. McGuire: With respect to the recent crash of the CC130 Hercules near Alert, N.W.T., were CH113/113A Labrador helicopters sent from Gander, N.S., Greenwood, N.S., and H-enton, Ont. to the crash site, and, if so (a) where were these helicopters at the time of the rescue of the survivors (b) what type of helicopter was used to transport the survivors (c) does the government intend to replace the CH113/113A in the next few years?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: As
part of the response to the crash of a CC-130 Hercules aircraft near Alert, N.W.T., CH-113/113A Labrador helicopters were sent from Gander Nfld, Greenwood, NS, and Trenton, Ont.
a) At the time that the CH-135 Twin Huey rescue helicopter arrived at the crash site (see b below), the disposition of the three Labrador helicopters was as follows:
(1)	The Labrador from Gander was unserviceable in iqaluit (Frosbisher Bay) NWT as a result of mechanical problems encountered while en route to the crash site;
(2)	The Labrador from Greenwood was back in Greenwood as it was forced to return due to weather; and

February 6, 1992
Routine Proceedings
(3)	The Labrador from Trenton was flying to the crash site and was approximately 3 hours south of Eureka, NWT, over Ellesmere Island.
b)	The helicopter used to evacuate the survivors was a CH-135 1\vin Huey from 408 Squadron, CFB Edmonton, which had been transported by a CC-130 Hercules to Alert as part of the Major Air Disaster Response Plan.
c)	The fleet of CH-113/113A Labrador helicopters is scheduled to be replaced by up to 15 new Search and Rescue helicopters between 1998 and 2001.
Question no. 192-Mr. Mifflin:
With respect to the LLADS (Low Level Air Defence System), in the statement of requirement (a) what is its purpose (b) what is it designed to defend and against whom (c) what is the total project cost of the Program in 1991 (d) how much has been spent and how much equipment does this represent (e) what is the planned spending on this project (i) in future years (ii) how much equipment does this represent (f) what is the projected annual PO and M cost?


Hon. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: a) The original purpose was to provide a modem and effective air defence capability for the Canadian Forces personnel and equipment assigned to NATO. The purpose is now being adjusted in line with Government policy announcement of last September. The air defence equipment will now serve to protect Canadian Forces personnel and equipment in newly defined roles and tasks, such as the potential expeditionary commitments of a land brigade and two squadrons of CF-18 aircraft.
b)	LLAD is designed to protect army formations (such as brigades) or vital assets (such as airfields, aircraft, or other installations) against a low level air threat. This threat could come from high performance aircraft, helicopters or other aerial vehicles.
c)	The Treasury Board approved total project cost was $1.135M, though it is anticipated that the project will be completed significantly under this original budget estimate.
d)	Previous years' expenditures total $495M and an additional $170M has been budgeted for this fiscal year (FY 91/92). These sums represent the bulk of prime mission equipment, large stocks of ammunition and logistic support, as well as infrastructure and project management costs. Specifically, it includes delivery of:
a.	all Skyguard Fire Control Units (10);
b.	all 35mm T\vin Guns (20);
c.	18 of 36 ADATS launch Control Equipment;
d.	operational and logistic stocks of 35mm ammunition;
e.	an initial lot of ADATS missiles;
f.	the bulk (over 90%) of logistic support for the Ttoin Gun and Skyguard Fire Control Units;
g.	a small percentage of logistic support for ADATS; and,
h.	related construction.
e)	Eighteen ADATS units are being assembled and tested and remain to be delivered along with the bulk of spares, test equipment and other support items needed to maintain ADATS throughout its life. Planned expenditures for future years are estimated at approximately $350M.
f)	It has been estimated that the operating and maintenance cost for the entire gun system (TWin Gun and Skyguard Fire Control Units) and ADATS would have been approximately $55M per year for the original fielding and operating plans. Obviously, if the future force structure operates a smaller percentage of these two equipment fleets, then adjustment to the O&M estimates will be reflected accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Coopen I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker I should advise the House that yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on behalf of his party raised a point of order with respect to the rule which governs the Speaker and the House relating to emergency debates.
February 6, 1992
[Stage Direction]
I indicated at that time it probably would be in the interests of the situation if the matter was heard briefly this morning and I will hear the hon. member in just a moment. .
I should indicate that the hon. member for Algoma, I understand, has an application and I will hear that subsequently. I will hear the point of order first.
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I have on two previous occasions to speak on this particular matter. I will deal very briefly with Standing Order 52 and a number of the subsections which are contained therein and also the wide latitude which is given to the Chair in determining whether or not a subject matter is deemed under that particular provision of the Standing Orders.
I read for the Chair paragraph 387 from the sixth edition of Beauchesne's where it says:
From time to time, this procedure has been referred to as "an emergency debate"; this however is not exclusively the case. Standing Order 52 gives considerable discretion to the Speaker in deciding if a subject is a proper matter to be brought before the House in this way. The Standing Order is clear that the question be specific and must require urgent consideration. It must deal with a matter within the administrative competence of the Government and there must be no other reasonable opportunity for debate. But most decisions based on these conditions are bound to be subjective and few clear cut decisions can be made. In making his ruling, the Speaker may, on occasion, take into account the general wish of the House to have a debate.
I wish to share with the Chair that in the past, members of the government, and I believe the Chair has alluded to this in statements it has made, that somehow, if an emergency debate was granted it would take away from "the timely business of the government". As we all know, the government has a legitimate right to set the agenda of House business.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to members of this House that this is not the case. Because the sitting hours of the House have changed, in no way will the granting of a debate under the provisions of Standing Order 52 interfere with the business of the government which it so rightly puts before this House.
The second point is this. In the past members have tried to interpret this provision as a means or as a tool for opposition members to cause delay, using it as a dilatory tactic on behalf of the opposition to impede the govem-
Routine Proceedings
ment in whatever initiatives it has before the House. That is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my first remark, it in no way interferes with the government and its agenda and in no way could it be deemed or interpreted as a dilatory tactic.
The third point I raise for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, is the concept of reform, the reform which was talked about in the McGrath report which was tabled in this House. The McGrath report reflected the views of the House that more special debates ought to be held. The McGrath report made reference to having more special debates on a variety of subject matters.
Fourth, if this particular provision was granted on a more timely basis, and that in no way reflects upon the previous decisions of the Chair, it opens the possibility for all members of Parliament, not just those in the Official Opposition or independent members, but members of all other parties in this House, to have ample opportunity to participate in special debates.
A number of members, particularly the government House leader and myself, as well as the House leader for the New Democratic Party, have talked about reform. We have seen some reforms in this House over the last 12 months. But what better way is there for this Parliament to reform itself than to have debate on subject matters which members of Parliament feel important?
I give the example, if I may, in concluding, of the debate that is being requested with regard to supply management. It was requested on Monday, it was requested on Tbesday and it was requested on Wednesday by both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. That is a substantial number of members who believe that this matter is sufficiently important to have a debate. It is not a frivolous item; it has profound effects on the supply management system in Canada. It is of great interest, not only to those who are direct investors in the supply management system across the country but I believe it is also of great concern to a lot of Canadians. I think this would be a good example, in the spirit of reform that we at least have talked about in this Chamber, that perhaps the interpretation and discretion as exercised by the Chair may wish to take those thoughts into consideration.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, it is not a dilatory tactic. It does not interfere with the business of the government

February 6, 1992
Routine Proceedings
in any way whatsoever. It is of sufficient importance that two parties in this House and other members have spoken to this particular issue and have requested it. It is in keeping with the concept of reform maybe not to the letter of reform, but certainly in the spirit of reform, and it would provide an avenue for all members of Parliament to make that claim to the Chair.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise those points. I believe I have kept within the timeframe I indicated to you yesterday, that I would be no longer than five minutes on an issue which I believe is important, not only for our deliberations here today, but indeed in the subsequent weeks and months ahead.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I wish to add two or three short comments to the points made by my hon. friend.
I want to begin by suggesting right from the beginning that in no way are my comments to be taken as a criticism of past decisions that Speakers have made regarding debates under Standing Order 52. After all, one of the restrictions is that it must be a genuine emergency. What we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is for you to perhaps place a slightly different interpretation on that term "genuine emergency" than has been placed on it in the past. Perhaps we could have an undertaking to work on a definition in the future.
I simply want to say that Parliament means "to speak" and if there is one thing that has become clear over the last little while, whether it is the Spicer report or what we hear from our constituents, it is that they want us to speak on issues of relevance to them.
We have an opportunity to speak to legislation but often that is part of the ongoing business of the country. Often people feel that it is not necessarily a priority in their minds but something that is obviously very important and what we must do. Of course, we are always held to the relevancy of the bill or motion before us.
There is also the fact that during Question Period, which is the other obvious opportunity, we are restricted in making very short statements in a matter of seconds and, of course, during questions, you are always reminding us that this is not a forum for debate, but in fact a forum to pose a question. So we are limited there.
What we are doing tonight as a result of all-party agreement is providing some hours to allow members of Parliament, in a sense, to report back on behalf of their constituents as to their views and concerns regarding the constitutional proposals. I think it is a very positive and very progressive initiative that the House has taken.
There is a growing sentiment that people want us to respond to the important issues of the day. They want to see this institution being responsive to what I think we would all agree are critical issues facing the country. My hon. friend, the House leader for the Official Opposition has mentioned the matter of supply management. We agree that this is a critical issue confronting us. I suspect that all members of the House, from whatever region, from whatever political party, acknowledge the fact the decision that will soon be made regarding the whole matter of marketing boards and supply management programs is very critical.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you would look at this obviously and say: "Is this a genuine emergency?" We look back at precedents and are reminded that when the Tiananmen Square incident occurred, we agreed it was an emergency and we had a debate that night. However, when we had the major cutbacks to VIA Rail or the collapse of the fishery, they were not considered immediate emergencies and consequently, there were no emergency debates around these issues in spite of requests from various members and rightfully so. In no way am I criticizing the decision because I think when you saw that although these were serious issues and members would have liked to have made comments, they were not genuine emergencies at that particular moment.
I would like to add my voice to that of my colleague and say we have to find some way to provide an opportunity that will not jeopardize the House time in its efforts to do business because I think that we acknowledge the fact the government has an agenda; the business of the land must be conducted. Perhaps loosening up on our interpretation of the emergency debate will allow this institution to be more responsive to the concerns and needs of the country, to provide members of Parliament with an opportunity to be more responsive
February 6, 1992

Routine Proceedings
in reflecting the views of their constituents on critical issues of the day.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having a chance to participate in this discussion on something that I think is most important. These are very critical times for our country. We feel the pressure in the country as members of Parliament. I suspect running up to the next number of months, to the next general election, those tensions will be perhaps even extended and expanded. I think we need a way to let off a little steam, to diffuse some of the anxiety and tensions that build up in here, Mr. Speaker, when, in a House that was designed for us to speak, so few people actually have an opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents on issues of the day.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take much time but I do want to respond for a moment to the comments of my friends across the aisle.
The House leader for the Liberal Party makes four very clear and concise points which I have to say without repeating them I basically agree with. His points are valid ones. We want to see this sort of thing happen. We want to see discussion and debate among members of Parliament. But I want to draw a line here.
As you well know, and other members of this House know, we have a process in here essentially of the usual channels of discussions that go back and forth to create opportunities for dialogue, debate and how we are going to handle legislation. That process I have to say in 90 to 95 per cent of all cases works very effectively. Occasionally it fails, and that is bound to happen in a partisan institution such as the one all of us here participate in.
But the point I want to make is this: Looking at Standing Order 52, emergency debates, my hon. friend the Liberal House leader read citation 387 of Beau-chesne in its entirety. I will not repeat the whole thing but I want to focus on one phrase. The Standing Order is clear that the question be specific and must require urgent consideration.
What my friends are arguing is that in fact what the Speaker should do is reinterpret the word "urgent", re-examine and loosen up what is considered an emergency to thereby create another opportunity for debate.
My argument is that would be an abuse of this rule because this rule is designed for a very specific purpose of emergency or urgency.
We can arrive at somewhat the same results by a different process and one that is more in keeping with our traditions and is safer for the institution. That is, Mr. Speaker, if you were to do as my colleagues are advocating, to broaden the scope, in a sense the Speaker would then replace the usual channels that we try to exercise in this House.
My argument is that through the process of usual channels we can create more opportunities for debate on matters that are significant, matters that are important, but not necessarily an emergency, not necessarily urgent in the sense that they have to be dealt with or solved at this particular moment.
The House leader for the New Democrats indicated a motion that we had passed unanimously in this House yesterday to create exactly such an opportunity on the issue of the Constitution. I have to say in the spirit of reform and the McGrath task force that was referred to earlier, that is in fact what we want to accomplish. We need to see more of those. On both sides of the House members want to participate in these issues.
My argument is this: Very simply, if the Speaker were to take it upon himself or herself to reinterpret the word "emergency" or "urgency" as it has applied to this particular rule, it puts the Speaker in somewhat of a vulnerable position and is a role best left to the usual channels.
I want to signal that role is one that I think we should be looking at in the spirit of generosity and in terms of the mood and tone we are trying to bring into the House of Commons. That is one of a serious institution which has contained in it serious people who want to seriously address serious issues. It is one where we set aside our gamesmanship from time to time and really get down and give our members on both sides of the House an opportunity to discuss this issue.


David Charles Dingwall: I say through the Chair to my hon. colleague this is not intended to cause the debate undue delay. I do want to say to my colleague, as he well knows, there are a number of elements the Chair must consider before making an adjudication with regard to Standing Order 52.

February 6, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I would just like to share with him:
- the Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action and the Speaker also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
Those are the elements that the Speaker is directed to consider.
In other words the rule has been interpreted in a most I restrictive manner. The comments that are being made H today and with which I know my colleague the parlia- H mentary secretary agrees, indicate that this has been the	H
case.	I
In my comments I want to suggest to the Chair that	I
perhaps a fair way to look at it is to see the opportunities	H
for members to engage in debates on public issues of H urgent importance. I suggest to the Chair that they are H really very restricted.	I
I appreciate the intervention of the parliamentary secretary because I see again another sign of wanting to co-operate and to facilitate our desire to speak on substantive, important matters.
I do not want the hon. member opposite to leave the Chamber today with the impression that somehow we are trying to say to Mr. Speaker that we want him to have a new definition of a particular word. We do not want to get into debating the etymology of a particular word.
The hon. member, as well as the Chair, must understand that in the evolution of time what may have been an emergency a year ago may not be an emergency today. What is a genuine emergency today, three weeks from today may in fact not be. It becomes a very subjective test as opposed to an objective test.
I believe, and as my colleague alluded to earlier, the Chair has exercised prudent judgment in the past and will continue to do so. I do not think the comments of my colleague opposite should be interpreted by any member as that the Chair ought to be restricted to a strict literal interpretation of a particular word. The Speaker must have some discretion as the rules allow him to have discretion in the interpretation of that particular phrase.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I intend to be quite brief. I just want to rise to participate in this debate because although I have not been here as long as many of my colleagues who have spoken already, during the three years that I have sat in this Parliament I think there have been no more than five emergency debates and I am being generous using the number five.
Certainly, some of them had been arranged by agreement between the parties after refusal by the Chair to allow debate on the basis, I presume, that it was not an emergency.
There is Question Period, obviously, which is not really intended to be a debate.
There are the Standing Order 31 statements which are again not debate, and then there is the late show. But the difficulty with the late show is that the questions raised are normally raised weeks after they have been raised in Question Period. The sense of urgency is lost in most cases and the opportunity to debate the issue on the same day it was raised in Question Period is rare. It almost never happens. It is usually deferred for weeks and weeks because of the pile up of applications waiting to be heard in that particular forum.
Therefore, the emergency debate route, Standing Order 52, is really one of the very few opportunities, aside from supply days which the opposition must give up on its own and, of course, they are not always available, on which matters of urgent public importance can be discussed in this House.
It is my submission that if Parliament is to be relevant to the people of Canada who put us here, to discuss public issues in the fullest sense, it must have discussion and debate, not to resolve anything, not to solve a problem but to discuss it and possibly to come to some resolution later. At least if there is a discussion and an airing of the grievance, an airing of the problem then that should happen under Standing Order 52.
With the changes in the rules that have meant that the business of the House is no longer set aside for the purpose of a Standing Order 52 debate, then there is no inconvenience to the government aside from the inconvenience of having a debate.
In other words, the Speaker in allowing the debate to take place is not setting aside the business of the House. We are simply adding to the hours of the sitting of the House to have that debate take place. That is a crucial
;V'V:
(if; '
Ttv - ;


distinction that was not the case in the 1950s and 1960s and I ask the Chair to bear it in mind in the interpretation of this rule.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, just very quickly I want to emphasize that we have a Standing Order which is for a specific purpose.
First, I am very concerned that what we are doing here is pushing the Chair into a role which I do not think this particular Standing Order wants.
Second, I think we have to be very careful here. In a sense, we are moving into a veiled criticism of decisions and the process by which we have operated. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the rulings have been good. They are rulings we should support quite comfortably and completely, and we have a process called usual channels that we work out of.



SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, commented upon by the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I have listened also very carefully to the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary who has in the past years been very much involved in attention to the orders of this place and also to some steps in the reform of the orders of this place.
First of all, I want to say to hon. members that I do not take this intervention and this discussion in any way as a criticism of past Speakers, or past rulings, or myself. I want that clearly understood.
Also, it should be clearly understood by all hon. members and the public who is watching that sometimes we are criticized for not proceeding in a civilized way. This has been an example this morning of proceeding in a very civilized way.
I am cognizant of the mention made on both sides of the Chamber of the special arrangements that were done, as the hon. parliamentary secretary says, "through usual channels", in order to have additional debating time for all hon. members with respect to the serious matters of the Constitution. I certainly must say as your Speaker that the comments made in support of that on both sides of the House are proper and should be supported.
Speaker's Ruling
The difficulty that the Speaker is in under this order is that until perhaps a recommendation comes out of the members management committee and is supported by members of the House, until there is a more or a different interpretation of the word "emergency", the Speaker is still bound by that word.
Now, having said that, there are a number of things that go into a Speaker's mind when the Speaker is trying to determine whether there is clearly an emergency or whether circumstances are changing from day to day, either building toward an emergency or sometimes diminishing the emergency. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond commented upon that.
Comment has been made that there have been times in the past where, working through the usual channels that the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned, what might not have been in the strictest and narrowest interpretation an emergency debate, was, nonetheless, acceded to by both sides of the House. This was out of a general feeling that it was in the public interest and the interest of this place that a debate take place.
I am also conscious of the fact, as the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out, that after the reform committee's recommendations were-not, by the way completely accepted on this, but partially-accepted the old difficulty of a Speaker interfering with the Orders of the Day to have an emergency debate is gone. That is in the past because, as has been properly pointed out, an emergency debate would take place after Orders of the Day are concluded, except on a Friday.
Now the best approach I can take is to consider carefully what has been said. It is very difficult to ask a Speaker to unilaterally change the rules. But in determining what is an emergency, the Speaker, as has been pointed out, looks at a number of things. What may not have been an emergency at one point may become one. What might be building to an emergency might not be needed to be treated as an emergency for a number of reasons: one, because circumstances change, another might be because there is another opportunity to debate it, which is one of the things that a Speaker does have to take into account.

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
I want to say to all hon. members on both sides that I take the exchange which has taken place this morning as a constructive one, and I hope that I will be able to deal with this rule as wisely as you would want a Speaker to.
Obviously, if the rule was changed, there would be other considerations. It might make it easier to rule a debate. That has to be balanced off against what the parliamentary secretary is properly putting up, and that is the process of usual channels, which is a very important aspect of how this place operates.
I will consider what has been said and it may very well be that we could have a further discussion on the matter.
I also want to say something else, and I know that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond appreciates this. This is a bit unusual. It might be said that this is not a point of order in the usual manner. It may not be. It does not arise out of something that just happened on the floor of the House or out of Question Period, but it does address one of our orders, one of our rules, and the interpretation that ought or ought not to be given to it. I think that carried on briefly and with the civility which has been so manifest here this morning, it is probably a helpful thing.
I am going to hear the hon. member for Algoma. I know we have to deal with the specific matter which has been the subject of some discussion already this week, and I will hear it again.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 AGRICULTURE

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the motion or the request under Standing Order 52 was to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency, namely that immediate steps must be taken by the government to preserve Canada's supply management marketing board system which is now under serious threat in the GATT negotiations and, further, that the government must deal with the entire crisis facing the agrifood industry and the family farm in Canada.
It would be hard to exaggerate the fear, the concern and the anguish facing some 35,000 or 45,000 dairy and poultry farmers across the country today. They meet in rallies. They write letters to members of Parliament.
They demand a commitment from the government that the government will act in every possible way. The personal level of the problem is: Will these people survive under the proposals that have been made? They think not.
That is the human level, the important level, but in macroeconomics it is important too. It is a $10 billion group of producers. It is a secure domestic supply for those commodities which are marketed under supply management.
It is 100,000 jobs, but beyond that it is just the viability and the survivability of literally thousands of rural communities across Canada.
I ask leave of the House for an adjournment debate on this urgent matter.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have said, the matter has been before the House for several days. I think I made it very clear yesterday, in rejecting the hon. member's application, that that did not foreclose other applications.
As I mentioned yesterday, I was listening very carefully to the exchange in Question Period, both the questions and the answers. I shall do the same today and I shall reserve on this application until after Question Period.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, February 4, consideration of the motion of the Mr. Mazankowski that Bill
C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hon. member for Northumberland had the floor. She has two minutes remaining in debate.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I was commenting on the disastrous impact of the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan in my riding of Northumberland.
The fact is that since 1990 costs for providing social assistance have risen almost three times. At the moment our county has a $400,000 deficit which will have to be

borne by municipalities levying extra taxes on the backs of property owners.
As we know, our constituents are faced with more than enough taxes right now and simply cannot sustain that. The estimated caseload in Northumberland for this coming year is 20,496 over last year's number of 9,994.
I would like to conclude my remarks with a quote from one of the many letters I have received from constituents who are really fed up with government cutbacks as a way to deal with our deficit. This one comes from the retired associate minister of Trinity United Church, Cobourg, Ontario.
He writes: "If this were wartime money would be immediately forthcoming. Everyone would be working. No one would be hungry. Industry would be humming in the interests of killing one another".
"Deficit? Whoever heard of a deficit in wartime? Who gave a fig about what we spent last year in the gulf war? The moment the war ended, here we go again. We have to bring down the deficit. We have to cut back. We have to balance the budget, and we are being manipulated to think that the deficit is the enemy to the exclusion of everything else".
"What about child poverty, a horror if there ever was one, or families falling apart because of no work, or suicides of the unemployed or of the homeless in the midst of a Canadian winter? Why can't governments, either federal or provincial institute public works programs to repair roads, sewers and sidewalks or do research into alternate sources of energy? There are all kinds of things needing to be done and all these people just waiting to be put to work. Why can't governments use their power and their imagination to pull us out of our economic woes? If governments can do it in wartime with no problem, why not in peacetime?"
"Please be ensured of our enthusiastic support of any such programs you might initiate. We are all sick and tired of cutbacks and more cutbacks. Surely there is another road you can take".
I present that on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Northumberland and citizens across this country who take great exception to the continued cap on our Canada Assistance Plan which benefits those most in need in our country.
Government Orders


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-32. The bill will have a significant impact on the constituents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior.
We are going through very difficult times in this country. We are in a made-in-Canada recession and the attempt by the government to revive the economy has been a total failure.
Its obsession to control inflation resulted in artificially high interest rates which caused the recession. The strategy prevented small businesses from borrowing in order to modernize, expand and build up a reasonable inventory. Of course manufacturers and suppliers really suffered in the process and many workers had to be laid off.
The retail chain of Sears has recorded its first deficit since 1950. The Sears company officials stated that this is the worst recession since the Great Depression. When one looks at the current statistics of 1.4 million unemployed Canadians and 2.2 million Canadians on welfare, it explains the anxiety and the despair in the population in general.
What does the government do? It introduces Bill C-32, an act to lock in the federal government's contribution under the Canada Assistance Plan to 1990 levels. Mr. Speaker, you cannot tighten the belt when there is no longer a waistline.
To make matters worse, we are now feeling the effects of Bill C-21 which has cut the qualifying period of UIC from 50 weeks to 42 weeks. Because of this recession, unemployed workers cannot find work and are therefore inflating the welfare rolls. This has a tremendous impact on the financial capacities of municipalities to maintain their services and programs as taxpayers' dollars are directed to welfare budgets. Business leaders in the country are now leaning toward a more liberal approach. They believe that the government's single-minded war against the deficit has actually created a much worse situation. In fact its ill-advised economic policies have brought the economy to a halt.
During a recession the government should temporarily relax its stand on reducing the deficit to preserve jobs and keep the economy rolling as smoothly as possible.

Government Orders
Business leaders are also favouring cutting personal income taxes instead of sales tax reductions. The government would profit by raising individual tax credits. Such action would result in people having more disposable income.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you just how the bill and all the other Tory measures have affected the residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior.
Northerners have had to put up with the cancellation of the northern tax allowance, the high cost of fuel, massive cuts in social services, and cuts in transportation such as the frequency of passenger train service and jet service to Toronto. The government's high dollar policy has affected the lifeblood of Cochrane-Superior. Its casualties in the forest, mining, and tourism industries have demoralized northerners. The exodus of our precious youth to opportunities in the south paints a very grim picture for our future survival.
We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place in Ontario. On one side we have the NDP government of Ontario which introduced cuts. On the other side we have the Conservative federal government which is proposing to put a cap on transfer payments to the provinces of B.C., Alberta, and Ontario.
This means that these provinces will once again have to pick up more of the cost if services are to be maintained at the current level. My province of Ontario is not in the best economic health and northern Ontario is in an even more desperate situation.
In light of the current economic situation I find it incredible that we are asked to support such a bill to cap the transfer payments to these provinces. To cap payments at a time when the number of welfare recipients is at an all-time high makes absolutely no sense.
One of the areas that has already suffered and will be further affected is the northern health travel grant. This grant provides financial assistance for transportation and accommodation to patients requiring specialized medical attention in southern Ontario.
Last year the province lowered the number of kilometres required to qualify and allowed companion grants. The northern health travel grant office has received twice as many claims as before. Because of a lack of funds, the department has not increased its staff.
As a result, instead of receiving the reimbursement within six weeks, it takes four months.
I have received numerous complaints from constituents. For example, a constituent has to make a trip to Ottawa every month at a cost of approximately $400 per trip but he only receives $280 from the travel grant. If it takes four months to process his claim, he will receive three reimbursements in one year. In the meantime 12 claims will have been submitted.
In my view these people are being penalized because they are ill. I must stress the seriousness of this problem and emphasize that such a situation will be further aggravated if Bill C-32 becomes law.
This bill to cap transfer payments does not hold much hope for the education system in my riding. Stress and anxiety already permeate our region to such a level that this additional pressure is totally unwarranted. In my home town, the Kapuskasing and District Board of Education has three public schools that are in dire need of major repair. The high school was built in 1956, Eastview Public School in 1961 and Diamond Jubilee Public School in 1927. The cost of operating and maintaining these facilities is astronomical. Logic dictates that a new public school be built. With the adoption of Bill C-32, it will only make it more difficult for the province to finance this project. Each and every Canadian has the right to a decent environment for learning.
This government really lacked foresight in introducing this bill at this time. I am sure you have noticed that not too many PC backbenchers have expressed their views on the bill because they simply do not agree with it. However, there is still time to say no to Bill C-32. They can say it to their finance minister.
Canadians need help, food and jobs. It is time that the Tories attach a human face to very depressing statistics. We need to kick-start the economy. We need incentives, not belt tightening.
I would like to conclude by saying that I strongly oppose this legislation. I fail to see how Bill C-32 will in any way help the people in my riding of Cochrane-Superior. As a result of the cutbacks in transfer payments, the provinces will have to cancel programs. Bill C-32 will only create more hardship for the unemployed and welfare recipients and cause serious headaches for hospital and education boards. It is a regressive bill
February 6, 1992

which will undermine the provinces' capacity to fulfil the basic needs of our society.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, among some of the more regrettable actions by this government in pursuit of its ideological path, regardless of the realities that the people of this country are faced with, this particular policy is the most damaging of all. Not only is it a restriction of the historical attempt of a central government to keep a sense of balance and fairness among the provinces through the federal government's role of being the impartial central fiscal agency in making sure that fairness takes place, but psychologically the government is putting a damper on any attempt that we must make under these circumstances to raise ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
The phenomenon of cut and run as exemplified by this capping policy by this federal government is Thatcherism and Reaganism at its veiy worst.
Although there is a great gap between the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, and the New Democratic Party, there has been a history of that party with this party, and indeed with some people known as red Tbries when they shared a sense of what the common purpose of government is in good times and in bad.
On those rare occasions when we put aside our philosophical differences in the interests of meeting national emergencies, this instrument called Parliament, and whoever was the majority in government, was used successfully to help the people of this country overcome the crisis.
That is sadly lacking at this moment. What may have been the purpose of this particular government in putting the cap in originally some months ago is no longer possible to substantiate under today's circumstance. There is not a community in this country that is not suffering grievously from a lack of employment, a lack of a mixed economy and frankly a lack of leadership from the federal government in ensuring that some prime pumping money is available.
We are now beyond the point of exacerbating the differences that we must do as politicians between the political parties. The people of this country no longer want us to play those necessary roles as we must do in
Government Orders
differences of opinion and philosophy. What they want is some action and action now before this whole country is put at risk.
As we go through the debate on constitutional matters, people feel this country is not working. People are concerned that we are spinning our wheels here in Parliament while the country is going to Hades in a hand-basket. I think it is important to seriously reconsider the necessity of keeping the CAP, listen closely to members of this House about alternative programs and, regardless of their political ideology, give them sincere consideration. In the past I have spoken at length about using RRSP funds in a municipal bond concept to refinance the rebuilding of roads, sewers and sidewalks in this country. Money on this same program would have been available if the capping had not taken place. No one holds the monopoly on ideas, but the problem is the government holds the monopoly on freezing its mind in an openness to the ideas.
I do not wish to go over again the proposal I made about municipal bonds. The Vancouver Sun newspaper printed in detail an op-ed article that I wrote on this and I will be happy to distribute this proposal that was printed in The Vancouver Sun.
Today I would like to raise another proposal. The former Liberal administration under Pierre Elliott Trudeau raised as a possibility the co-operation of those provinces involved with the energy industry, which is now suffering so grievously. Under the National Energy Program there was an attempt to have a cohesive energy policy in this country, albeit there were vast differences of opinion and disagreement. The province of Alberta did not like the national energy policy. Certainly the province of British Columbia did not like parts of the national energy policy, but at least there was a discussion about the use of that valuable resource here in Canada and for offshore markets.
Because of the free trade agreement, some restrictions now exist about our being masters in our own house and shaping our own destiny in energy. I would like to raise one specific opportunity that exists for us to create

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
jobs by using natural gas and extending our options in markets.
Currently we are nationally tied in with selling natural gas exclusively into the United States. There is no money available because of these caps to start experimenting with other possibilities.
The one program I want to suggest as a job creation program and a revenue-flowing instrument for the federal government is the sale of liquefied natural gas offshore into the Asian market. Since this idea was proposed with provincial-federal co-operation back in the early 1970s, the major opposition to it was the fact there were limited reserves of natural gas. Currently and happily, there is a great confirmed reserve of natural gas in this country.
If we eliminated the capping and gave some options in this regard to the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia and perhaps the territories, we could begin to sign offshore contracts for liquefied natural gas to be carried in Canadian ships manufactured in Canadian shipyards. Those markets could be exploited both privately and publicly for these sales.
For the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia and for the hard-pressed oil and gas sector, both private and public-what is left in Petro-Canada that is public-it would mean an opportunity led by this government to create jobs and bring in offshore investment in an industry that is deeply in need of a lift.
I am proposing four firm contracts by provincial governments under federal auspices for sales of natural gas into Korea, Japan, Taiwan and perhaps exploring the market into Hong Kong, but that is questionable. There is a need in those countries I mentioned for this consistent, variable energy supply.
In getting caps, governments are not permitted to initiate the kind of aggressive sales action that is necessary to follow through on this idea. That is why I am opposed to the capping.
Two ships built with the capacity to carry liquefied natural gas which only has an 8 per cent loss in conversion would provide $50 million immediately to the shipyards of western Canada. I say this without bias or favour to the shipyards in my own riding. On the east coast of Canada, another $50 million would also be made available.
Subject to the contracts of the sale of the LNG, we would demand at least 60 per cent of the carrying capacity. Those ships would be built here in Canada. We would demand 75 to 80 per cent of the maintenance of an LNG fleet to be able to provide jobs on a consistent basis. By capping the shares of the federal government to the provinces, the initiation of this kind of work has become curtailed.
I present, in a spirit of non-partisanship, at a time of national emergency around our economy, yet another idea of bold leadership that is needed.
I appeal to the government to understand that the people of this country want leadership, a government with will and a government with purpose. The current government only offers Canadians through this kind of legislation cuts, cuts and cuts with no hope whatsoever of alternate plans. I am disappointed to have to say that that is exactly what we are getting.
We Canadians are better than that. We can rise above our partisan differences on an occasion, as difficult as it may be for me, but this time this crisis demands that kind of leadership. Frankly, I think the Tories are exhausted. Their batteries are run down. They cannot provide this kind of leadership. The only option is either cancel this kind of legislation or, for God's sake, call an election.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to speak on a piece of legislation in this House this year, I would like to say a happy New Year to all of my constituents in Ottawa Centre as well as all Canadians across this great land.
Like the vast majority of the members of this House, I had the opportunity during the past two months to speak with many of my constituents, some of whom are quite upset about the policy of the federal government, many of whom are upset at the policy of the provincial government and those who are upset at both of them at the same time.
Along with that, I have met some very interesting groups of constituents who were not complaining. They were not complaining at all. As a matter of fact, they were making suggestions during these tough economic times. I thought I would make a habit of bringing forward those suggestions to the attention of the House of Commons every time I have a chance.
One of the suggestions that I was very impressed by was made by Brian Weatherdon of St. Andrew's church. I met with Brian not too long ago. He brought to my
February 6, 1992

attention a suggestion and an idea that I thought was worth while sharing with my colleagues in the House of Commons and, as well, with Canadians across this land.
St. Andrew's church in Ottawa is just two blocks from Parliament Hill. It has initiated a family nutrition program. A group of five to seven persons meets once a month with a facilitator to learn ways of purchasing and preparing food in order to maximize the family's nutrition based on current income. I will be speaking a little down the road about the current family income.
This program is a most creative method of diminishing the effect of child poverty and to reduce present requirements on the food bank system. Participants in this program will share their newly-learned skills with families and friends. The effect will be multiplied. As this program develops, several groups will be formed to receive this training. The total effect of this program will be dramatically increased over time.
This program was developed out of a local community partnership, the Ottawa Emergency Food and Clothing Centre which proposed the idea adopted by St. Andrew's church and the Ottawa Centretown Community Health Centre which provides staff time to train participants.
In my view, the family nutrition program is an effective community response to a fast-growing problem in communities across Canada. It is proceeding with no cost to the federal budget at all. If programs such as these were to be adopted by the Department of National Health and Welfare, or were to be initiated and operated by that department, it would cost a lot of money. If the department would endorse such an initiative and promote it as an effective program to be operated by community agencies across Canada, it is probable that many groups would soon operate similar programs at minimal cost to the Government of Canada.
This is one program that was initiated by a non-governmental, non-profit organization in my riding. I am very proud of their initiative and what they have been doing over the years for my community and for the population at large.
Government Orders
This came about the same time that the Ottawa-Car-leton Food Coalition project issued its annual report dated January 1992, entitled The Hunger Crisis in Ottawa- Carleton. Being the nation's capital, probably in the minds of many people outside of this region hunger would not be a problem here, or they might think that we are shielded, for whatever reason.
This is only to indicate some of the findings of this report. It was clearly stated, contrary to the belief of many people that those who go to the food banks might be working or might have some income, that in excess of 75 per cent of the people going to food banks in our region are in fact receiving social assistance in one way or another. Of the balance, 10 per cent are receiving some disability pension and 5 per cent are on unemployment. There is a very small percentage of people who are working who use the food bank. That percentage in our region is only 5 per cent. Five per cent of the people who are using food banks are full-time workers.
Even if we are to work in isolation at the food banks and we are to look at the income of a single parent family with two children and compare their income to the poverty line, we see the monthly income for a single parent with two children amounts to approximately $1,213, while the poverty line at the federal level is $1,952. Even though we have one of the most progressive social programs in North America, families who receive that assistance are not making any bread at the end of the month and have to rely on food banks in order to support themselves.
We have a national problem that needs national attention. The government has been reshaping and working on various ideas that deal with educating the work force and creating employment. It is timely for the government to put its brakes on when it comes to the transfer payment measures it is in the process of taking with Bill C-32 which will cap transfer payments to provinces such as Ontario where this year alone the impact would be in excess of $900 million.
The vast majority of people who are on social welfare are between the ages of 14 and 49. Over 52 per cent of people receiving social assistance programs are between the ages of 30 and 39. There is a crisis of national proportions which requires national attention.

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
We are opposed to the bill as it is before the House for third reading. We call on the government to withdraw the bill. It is untimely. It will hurt those who need our assistance and support the most.
The initiative by St. Andrew's church is great for the community. It requires the support, endorsement and promotion by different levels of government. I would like to echo what my colleagues have said about this piece of legislation. It is ill-timed. It will hurt the people of Canada. It will not address the socioeconomic problems that we have to deal with and address.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to make comments today about the government's plan to amend the Canada Assistance Plan which will essentially take money out of the hands of my constituents and indeed out of the hands of rural Canadians.
For a fairly long time we have been debating this issue. Many important points have been made by my colleagues. Many people in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk have come to me personally to talk about this bill. They are afraid of this bill. We have been told throughout Canada that Canada's poor citizens will suffer most because of this bill. Basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, utilities and household supplies will be denied to many Canadians because of this bill.
Services provided for the poor such as dental care, services provided for disabled persons, foster homes for abused children, safe housing for abused women and subsidized child care for low income families are inevitably going to be cut back because of this bill.
We will have a situation where the people who can least afford this kind of government restraint are the people who are going to suffer because of it. While the rich get richer because of this government's economic policies, the poor will inevitably have to pay the price.
This is just not fair. Given these terrible economic times, I cannot think of a worse or more inappropriate time to bring in such a piece of legislation. It seems to be a lack of common sense and a lack of real compassion for what is happening in Canada, especially rural Canada.
Is it not obvious to the government that the recession has put many Canadians out of jobs? Some are just
temporary. More and more people are going to need financial assistance from the federal government. This is certainly not the best time to introduce such legislation.
The Canada Assistance Plan has been an integral part of federal-provincial relations for almost 30 years and has been a reflection of the co-operation and the co-ordination between all levels of government in this country. In fact, it is one of those programs that binds this country together. It is one of those programs that really identifies us as Canadians and not as North Americans.
More important, it is the reflection of the Canadian values of caring, sharing and compassion that built this great country. It has been a constant since Confederation where the principle of equalization was spelled out within the Constitution. It is the principle that is holding through to these recent constitutional discussions. It is the one thing, which at the constitutional meetings that all Canadians have discussed, that is, the whole situation with equalization.
However, we seemed to have moved into a whole new era of fiscal federalism within this country. We still have our sacred Canada Assistance Plan but the limits on the transfers to the provinces have essentially gutted the program and have reduced benefits to those people who need them the most.
The importance of the programs under the Canada Assistance Plan is that it tries to deal with the whole issue of poverty, in fact, it tries to eliminate poverty. Indeed, the major problem that we have in this country is child poverty.
Of greater importance though, it attempts to lessen, remove or prevent the causes of this poverty. It is not just a matter of sending out welfare cheques, it is a matter of providing services to help people overcome these hard economic times. The government's decision to cap social assistance transfers to Ontario will unfortunately perpetuate this vicious cycle of poverty.
I would like to take this opportunity to put the issue into a rural context because rural Canada is often forgotten when decisions are made by governments which try to address these issues. It seems at times that this government has forgotten that there are poor in rural Canada.

We are in a unique position in rural Canada, and indeed, in Haldimand-Norfolk, my riding. The problems are twofold, Mr. Speaker.
First, the agricultural sector is facing its worst attack ever in the history of this country, as many farmers are moving away from the family farm and trying to move into other areas. The government has to realize that many of the problems with rural farming have to deal specifically with their own economic policies in Canada.
The second problem facing my riding is that southwestern Ontario is deindustrializing. More and more jobs throughout southwestern Ontario, especially in the manufacturing plants in the region, are being lost as these plants shut down and move to the United States. We will not get into the debate about why this is happening, although free trade does come to mind.
Increasingly in rural Canada we need a government to support us. Many of these people are facing economic hardship for the first time in their lives and they really do not know how to deal with the situation. They are applying for social services and welfare for the first time in their lives. They are scared, they are worried and they do not know where their future is going to lead them.
What do they do when they lose their jobs and see no hope at all for the place they live? They move away and as a result, unfortunately, the rural infrastructures begin to disappear.
When the government pulls these funds out of rural areas, the burden is inevitably put on the local tax base. The Minister of Finance is constantly saying: "What would you have me do, increase taxes or increase the deficit?" I tell the minister that what he is doing to my local constituents is increasing their local tax base.
If he has not gone to his own riding, I will tell him that in my own riding, people are sick and tired of paying taxes. This program is going to put more of a tax burden on them. Frankly, whatever level it is where you pay taxes, you are inevitably going to have to pay taxes because of this bill.
The effects of the decrease in Canada Assistance Plan payments on my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk will be far reaching. Rural ridings in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario really have a lot at stake. The Minister of Finance would say that they can best bear the extra burden of this. Why should the federal government
Government Orders
transfer this burden of national debt or the federal deficit on to the backs of the poor in rural Canada, in rural Ontario? Why should people who have just lost their farms or their jobs suffer because the province of Ontario has to bear this extra burden?
Obviously people should not have to. So let us stop putting this debate in terms of provinces or in terms of levels of government, let us start putting this debate in terms of people. People have a right to know why the government is doing this. During these tough economic times they need this government assistance.
This is why I question the government's timing of this issue. Why is it so intent on passing such a piece of legislation? I ask the government to reconsider this bill given the hard economic times.
I would like to conclude by saying that I am not trying to be partisan. I am not disagreeing with the government just for the sake of disagreeing. In fact, this bill, by limiting the increase in federal contributions to the Canada Assistance Plan until 1995 for the provinces of Ontario, B.C. and Alberta, is a bad idea at the worst possible time. I am sure many members on the other side of the House agree with that. It is going to affect a portion of our society that does not deserve any further hardship, including those misfortuned as a direct result of this recession.
It would seem the proud Canadian values of caring, sharing and compassion are disappearing on that side of the House. I implore the government, I implore members within its own caucus to talk to the Prime Minister and ask him to reconsider, to withdraw this bill and at the very least allow Canadians the right to tell him that this is a bad bill at the wrong time.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my party and speak on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan. I want to speak on behalf of the constituents of my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley who, in many cases in the research that I have done on the Canada Assistance Plan, have told me some of the difficulties and problems that are resulting from this legislation that has been introduced by this government.
In the short time that I have I would like to outline some of the concerns we have with the legislation and point out where the impact will be felt the most.

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
Bill C-32 is a two-page bill. It is amazing how much damage two pages of paper can actually do in legislative form. As most members of this House know, Bill C-32 allows for the extension of the 5 per cent limit on the Canada Assistance Plan for the provinces of B.C., Alberta and Ontario. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-69 capped at 5 per cent the federal funding increases until 1992. Bill C-32 extends the cap to 1995.
Most people are not familiar with the way the federal government has worked to try to build that caring and sharing society, and are probably not aware of just what kind of work the Canada Assistance Plan does. In fact, CAP is really the only mechanism that the federal government has where it funds social assistance and social services across the country.
We talk about transfer payments and government assistance. It is in that never-never land of a host of different programs. In many cases people are not aware of the tremendous impact programs like CAP have across the country. The unfortunate part, of course, is that this government desires to off-load its social responsibilities and fiscal responsibilities. The new government in British Columbia has, according to the information I have been provided, estimates that the cuts in Bill C-32 will amount to something like $1.2 billion over the next five years.
The new government is reviewing the state of the finances before the next session of the legislature which will likely be some time in March. That government is finding out the rough financial situation it is in with the departure of the Social Credit government. It did not just clean off the shelves, Mr. Speaker, it took the shelves as well. The safe is empty. The Socreds are running around wondering just exactly what went on and, of course, the public of British Columbia is wondering as well. The onerous debt forced on the people of British Columbia by Social Credit is now being forced on those people by this government with its cuts to the CAP program.
CAP provides for 50/50 cost-sharing between the federal government and the provinces for social services. The breaking of this agreement represents a withdrawal of the commitment by the federal government to Canada's social programs. That clearly sets a dangerous
precedent for the future of all federal-provincial agreements.
I have been corresponding on a regular basis over the last year with the city of Prince George. It has a delivery mechanism for assistance to community groups that provide valuable services to our residents. It provides funding from the Canada Assistance Plan. I thank His Worship Mayor John Backhouse for the discussions we have had and also, of course, the officials at Prince George city hall.
I think the people of that community will be very surprised to learn not only what the contribution is that the federal government is making in this case to three particularly important organizations, but also what is going to be the outcome now that this government is going to put a cap on CAP. Do I have to tell these organizations and the city of Prince George that the Scrooges and the Neanderthals of the Conservative Party have decided that the services being provided by the Cerebral Palsy Association of B.C., which runs the very well and highly acclaimed child development centre in Prince George, the St. Patrick's House Society and the Canadian Paraplegic Association will be affected?
Those three organizations have been helped by the Canada Assistance Plan. Unless there is a change of heart by members of the Conservative Party, what do we tell these groups that have done this work? We will have to tell them that the assistance they are now receiving will be cut back. They will obviously be looking to the Government of British Columbia to help where it can. Of course, that government is dealing with a tough financial situation as well, as I already mentioned. A report is due soon which will show exactly how this government and the former government of B.C. ravaged the accounts of the Government of British Columbia.
The Cerebral Palsy Association, which finances the child development centre, has just over $11,000 in applications pending for fiscal 1989-90, 1990-91. St. Patrick's House Society, which receives upward of $30,000, has an application pending, as does the Paraplegic Association. We have made a contribution, Mr. Speaker.
The Government of Canada has gone into these communities with this program and the help of the local governments and said: "We can help. We can help make a better society, a more caring society". I challenge the
February 6, 1992

Conservatives to come with me to the child development centre and tell the parents and the children that they are taking away some of the money from that centre and they will not be able to continue to operate as they had before. That is the kind of thinking that this government has not done. It has not thought about what the implications are of this particular legislation. It is going to force these community groups and local governments to continually struggle for more funds and assistance to deliver these much-needed programs.
Why is it? It has been argued by many and I think there is certainly a consensus growing in the country that this government does not have a vision for Canada. I am afraid to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in fact it does have a vision for Canada. It is one that certainly is not shared by the vast majority of Canadians right now.
It is an agenda that has been rejected on the whole in the United States, certainly in the U.K. and other parts of central and eastern Europe where people are struggling to come to grips with the battle between the conservative point of view represented by the government and in some cases former communist governments. There is a struggle for social democracy that will deliver services and government to people so that they can actually have government programs and government services that people recognize and respect.
I do not think that is a vision that this government shares. It is a hard line, market-driven vision of Canada that rejects people who need help. This legislation, Bill C-32, really does just that.
The government has not paid attention to the impact it is going to have in all of our communities. I say every member of Parliament should check with their local societies and governments and ask them what they think of this legislation. The view will likely be unanimous. It is a bad bill and it should be thrown out and defeated in the House today.
Thank you very much for this time, Mr. Speaker, to really bring forward what I think are the serious faults with this legislation. I have mentioned a number of important directions that I think social policy should take in this country, directions that this government has rejected. Hopefully in the next election the Canadian public will reject this government as well.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill because the
Government Orders
intent behind it really makes me institutionally angry as well as personally angry. I very much object to the thrust of this bill.
Bill C-32 on which I am speaking really goes back to Bill C-69, which was approved by this House and which indeed limited the contribution to social assistance and social programs, among other things, for the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, the richer provinces if you like. I am speaking in the context of the over-all reduction by the government of transfers to the provinces, looking at all the 14 different kinds of transfers, EPF payments, equalization payments, and those kinds of payments which are part of our Canadian heritage of being a country in its totality, which I think is not a bad way to look at the country these days. Also, it really allows the country to be more equal from one end to the other.
I am very concerned about this bill, as I was about Bill C-69, because what this is essentially doing is hitting the lower and middle-income classes that can least afford it.
The transfer payments that I am most concerned about have been spoken about on many occasions by my colleagues from Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. The tremendous hardship it has caused our constituents has been just another blow in the negative cascading effect of one blow after the other.
I consider myself a responsible parliamentarian, like my colleagues. I am very conscious of the fact that the national debt in 1984 was $168 billion. Seventeen per cent of that was owned by offshore concerns. In other words, we owe that money to people outside of Canada.
Today, some seven years after the government came to power, it is $400 billion. I do not want to get into a long discussion about blaming one or the other. I am just quoting the facts. It is now $400 billion. Almost 40 per cent of that is owed to outside Canadian concerns, the United States, Japan and Saudi Arabia. We have lost control of our economy.
On top of that, at a time when the government knew there was a recession coming, and many eloquent and learned speeches have been made in the House on the subject, the government introduces a goods and services tax when the advice from everyone from this side of the House and I think probably a few from that side of the House as well was: "For goodness sake, if you have to do

Government Orders
it, this is not the time to do it on the backs of 32 tax increases in six years. Now you are going to hit the consumer with this. You are going to hit essentially the middle and lower income class because their expense on consumable products is much higher than those in the higher income bracket".
There are some aspects of this I want to highlight. I remember in 1984 Prime Minister Mulroney saying that social programs in Canada are a sacred trust. In the last three years we have been gnawing away at these social programs.
The government introduced Bill C-69, which cut the transfer payments, the equalization payments and reduced the CAP. Now this bill extends it to 1995. We have increased unemployment insurance payments. We have reduced the benefits associated with unemployment insurance. The insurance inputs from employers and employees have increased by more than 50 per cent in two years.
When you buy something in my province of Newfoundland right now, you automatically add 20 per cent. People cannot even afford to buy what it is they are buying. On top of that they have to add 20 per cent. On top of this, because of the reduction in transfer payments, education and medical care are being reduced. These are programs that Canadians have taken for granted. This was a national heritage. In the United States and other countries people look at you as a Canadian and say: "Boy, do you ever live in a great country". If you come from the province of Newfoundland, I think it is even better. They say: "Are you ever lucky to come from Newfoundland, that delightful part of Canada".
As Newfoundlanders and as Canadians we were always very proud to tell our foreign friends: "Yes, we have a pretty good system. We have a caring country where the richer provinces look after the poorer provinces a little bit".


An hon. member:: More than a little bit.


Fred J. Mifflin: Okay, more than a little bit maybe.
The point is that the richer provinces look after the poorer provinces. There is no other euphemism for it. I do not mind saying that I come from a poorer province. I am very proud of the fact that I come from that province. The poor aspect of it I do not think changes the degree of citizenry or the honour involved in being a citizen of this country.
Without getting too side-tracked on this, one of the universal advantages of being a Canadian was that there was a belief in Canada that your country looked after you. If you did not have a job, you got unemployment insurance. If you were sick, you did not have to worry about having a big fat wallet or a big credit in your Visa account to go to a doctor. If you had hard times and somehow lost your job or got laid off, there was a welfare system to look after you. It was a pretty good system. I hate to say as the thread of the speech I am giving here now that that is all changing.
The word I am getting from my constituents is: "We know times are pretty tough. We are not sure what you can do to change it, but for heaven's sake hang on to what we have now. Hang on to the lifelines". People no longer expect that they are going to get the safety nets they had before. The record in the last couple of years does not speak well for that.
They are afraid they are going to lose unemployment insurance totally. They are afraid they are going to lose medicare. They are afraid that the welfare payments are not going to be enough. They are scared and I do not want to add to that.
The government is saying: "The debt is too high. Therefore we are going to have to take money away from the provinces". What it is really saying is: "We are going to take money away from middle and low income Canadians". Many of them are sitting in this House in the galleries. There are the staff. I do not think that is fair and I do not think it is right.
I was on business in the United States last week and had the happy occasion to be in the company of my colleagues from the United States who are senators and congressmen. I can stand and say in this House that I probably met close to 20. The outstanding thing that I remember is that not one of them spoke to me without saying: "Hey, you're from Canada. Tell me all about your medicare system".
They are worried in the United States. They have 37 million people who have absolutely no insurance whatsoever. What happens is that people get aches and pains and they do not go to doctors because they cannot afford to go. So the aches and pains get worse. By the time they have to go, it is either too late or the bill is astronomical.
The cost for the average person for medical care in the United States is around $3,500. They spend $800 billion on medical care. If you look at that on an average per capita basis, my friends in the medical profession tell me it is astronomical. Those 37 million people are worried.
February 6, 1992

One of the congressmen said this to me as I sat and discussed mutual problems with him: "You know, the economy is a big problem right now and so is medicare, but if this country is as good as we think it is, the economy will pick up. Maybe it will happen this summer, maybe in the fall, maybe next year. Who knows? It will pick up though. We have to believe that". The problem of medicare in the United States is not going to go away. It will be there when the economy has started to improve.
I find it passing strange that we would try to emulate our cousins south of the border in many areas. I am looking at things like free trade and other aspects where we are trying to set up a level playing field. Yet in the area of medicare, they are trying to emulate us and we are throwing away the system. They are trying to do what we did years and years ago.
Drawing my remarks to a close, I am very upset about this bill. Getting back to the Canada Assistance Plan, I think in 24 years this program has served to support Canadians in building a social welfare system which competed with any in the world. It was enshrined as part of Canadian legislation and gave Canadians a great sense of belonging. This legislation is now taking away that great advantage that Canadians had and will take away a little part of being a Canadian at a time when we can least afford it.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-32 which proposes to put a cap on federal contributions to Ontario, B.C. and Alberta through the Canada Assistance Plan.
I would like to speak on this bill from two perspectives, as a member of Parliament from the Hamilton area which will be especially hard hit by the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan and as a critic for disabled persons for they will also be very hard hit by this legislation.
I have recent statistics on the welfare caseload in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. In one year the number of welfare recipients increased from
18,000	to 26,000. I would like to point out that this problem is directly due to this government's economic policies. Many of these people are on welfare because
Government Orders
their unemployment insurance has expired and they cannot find another job. Many of them lost their manufacturing jobs in the first place because of the Conservative free trade deal. Some lost their jobs because the GST killed their small businesses. Some lost their jobs in the retail or hospitality industry because of the crossborder shopping which has drastically increased since the GST.
The government helped these people lose their jobs, raised the UI premiums, cut back the benefits of UIC to force them off of UI sooner and now it is cutting back on social assistance. It is the trickle down theory of poverty and it is a disgrace. Since the NDP government in Ontario has been on a wild spending spree, it is finding that it cannot afford to pay for fair welfare benefits that will actually allow people and families to live in dignity.
Between the social Neanderthals in Ottawa and the economic Neanderthals in Queen's Park, it is a wonder there are any jobs left in Ontario.
I will say that the bungling of these two governments is certainly a good thing for the re-election chances of my Liberal colleagues and myself. It is certainly no comfort to the homeless and the unemployed and the hundreds upon hundreds of children lining up at food banks every day.
The government says it is capping the CAP because Ontario is a wealthy province. I would invite the members opposite to come to Hamilton and meet the steel workers who have lost their jobs or walk down the streets and see the stores and other businesses that are boarded up because they have gone bankrupt. Let me tell you these people do not think Ontario is a wealthy province any more. The government forgets that Ontario in relative terms has been hit harder by this recession than the other provinces.
Of course the Minister of Finance keeps telling us that the government's economic policies are all directed toward deficit reduction. They are "a necessary restructuring". I would like the minister to explain that to the kids in the food bank line up: "Sorry kids. I know you don't have enough food to eat but it is a 'necessary restructuring'. I am sorry you don't have a winter coat or decent shoes but it is a 'necessary restructuring'. I am

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
sorry your parents cannot find jobs but it is a 'necessary restructuring'."
Somehow I do not think these kids will find that a very convincing explanation. Neither do I.
I would like to point out the devastating impact that this bill will have on thousands of disabled people throughout this country. Government members like to point with pride to the amendments to Bill C-18 and say: "Look, we are giving disabled persons $65 million". However, these are the same members who are voting in favour of Bill C-32 which will remove more than $2 billion from Canada Assistance Plan payments. These government members voted for legislation that will cut home care for disabled persons, that will cut health care for disabled persons, that will cut rehabilitation programs for disabled persons, that will cut funding for residences for disabled persons and will cut employment services for disabled persons.
I would hope that the members opposite would recognize that many disabled persons in this country live in poverty and are going to be seriously hurt by this bill.
Government members also point to the Prime Minister's announcement in Winnipeg of $31 million a year in programs for the disabled. These same members seem to forget that more than a year ago they voted for Bill C-69 which slashed social program funding by billions of dollars and slashed Established Programs Financing by billions of dollars. These same members seem to forget that they voted to cut the jobs strategy fund by $100 million and voted to cut social housing by $411 million. They seem to forget that they voted to reduce cash transfers to the provinces for medicare.
This government has cut social programs by billions upon billions of dollars. These programs are the very ones which disabled persons rely on to help them obtain proper accommodation, help them get out of poverty and help them live in a maximum degree of dignity and freedom.
The government has undermined all the major programs which disabled Canadians need in order to succeed. I have to wonder how these government members can sleep at night, knowing what they have inflicted
on these people who are among the most vulnerable in our country.
In the last budget speech the Minister of Finance had the nerve to say: "This government has done more than any other to improve the opportunities and to enable Canadians with disabilities to participate more fully and more fairly in the workplace in their communities and at home".
Contrast those words of the minister with the words used by the Canadian Cerebral Palsy Association when commenting on this legislation to cap the CAP: "The extraordinary suffering which it imposes on poor and disabled Canadians cannot be justified".
That is what disabled Canadians think of this legislation. The suffering which it imposes cannot be justified. That is what most of us think of this legislation. It cannot be justified.
I cannot support this bill. My party will not support this bill. Most Canadians will not support this bill.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that most occasions when we rise in the House of Commons these days, we have to qualify whether or not it is a privilege to be getting up and speaking. I certainly have to put that qualification on my remarks today because of the subject matter.
The whole situation in the country has been so devastating that to be talking about putting any kinds of restrictions on the amount of assistance which Canadians get from their federal government in a program which is as long established as this is is absolutely unconscionable.
I guess there are three questions we would ask ourselves on three particular areas at least. The first is why is this happening? Why is the federal government doing this? I think in the first case we would ask this question because of its philosophical antipathy toward the very people who receive the assistance from the Canada Assistance Plan.
The government has this image of people on welfare. Certainly the Canada Assistance Plan is designed to assist most people who are on welfare. It has this image in its mind of young, strapping, well-muscled people who are simply too lazy to work. That being the case, they
February 6, 1992

have no compunction whatsoever about putting on these kinds of restrictions.
The fact of the matter is that most of the people on assistance in Canada are not as these people envision them to be. Most of the people in Canada who get social assistance are children, which says a lot about how knowledgeable this government is on the conditions of the citizens of Canada, regardless of what age they may be.
Another large group of people who receive assistance are the elderly. If you add these two groups together, you find well over 75 per cent of the people who receive social assistance are the elderly or children.
It is interesting to speak of children. We all know and certainly the government is fond of saying that our youth is the future of our country. If it really believed that, it certainly would not be doing what it is doing.
I think it is interesting to look at some of the figures surrounding the matter of children and their plight in Canada today. One in six of the children in Canada are poor. A million children in Canada live in poverty. There is not enough time in a 10-minute speech in Parliament to be able to cover all the topics. I am not going to cover the whole matter of food banks.
We certainly all know the situation in the communities across Canada. In the rural communities, where one would hardly imagine that the situation could become so bad, people have to avail themselves of food banks. Food banks are becoming a commonplace occurrence in the rural areas as well.
Certainly we have this devastating effect on the children of our land and the elderly particularly. There are others such as disabled people who, through no fault of their own, mostly because of systemic and institutional biases in our society against them, are not able to make a living in our land. There is certainly no other reason in most cases that is not possible.
We ask ourselves another question. The second question is why is the government putting this cap on the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario? It has the perception there that these are the three richest provinces in the country.
Government Orders
The provinces look at the debt, I suppose, per capita or the deficit per capita and they see that they are not anywhere near as bad as the federal government is. We will get into why the debt per capita on the federal side is as enormous as it is later. It looks at these three provinces and says: "Their debt is not as serious as ours".


An hon. member:: It is soon going to be that bad in Ontario.


Ron Fisher: That may very well be, but having succeeded a Liberal government which was doing exactly what the Conservative government has been doing federally, it is hardly any wonder.
In any event, the federal government looks at these three provinces and says: "We cannot let them get away with this. We are going to have to punish them for being, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, marginally good managers of the economy, and for not being in debt as seriously as the federal government is."
I am not going to go into great detail in all cases, but look at British Columbia and the condition of the people who receive social assistance in that province. Remember that most of these people are children and the elderly and others as well, and they are addressed here. Look at a single employable person, as they say, in British Columbia on social assistance for a lot of reasons, and we will get into some of those later. They receive social assistance to the tune of $5,900, approximately.
Look at the poverty level, as determined by the Canadian government's own report, the National Council on Welfare. It has that wonderful Canada symbol with the Canadian flag on it. We certainly have to take its numbers as being gospel. It still leaves a deficit for a single employable person in British Columbia of $6,823. A disabled person receives in welfare $8,204, but the poverty level is the same as for a single employable person, $12,727, leaving a deficit for a disabled person in British Columbia of $4,523.
A single parent with a child, and these are certainly among the most impoverished people in our land, would receive $11,687, but the poverty level for this group of people is almost $16,800, meaning that they are $5,000 short of even being at the poverty level. These are all negative figures.

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
There are a lot of working poor in our land who receive social assistance. A couple in British Columbia is receiving social assistance of $15,000-which sounds like a lot I suppose to the members across the way who still think that $500 a month back in the days when they were young was a lot of money and are suffering under the guise that $25,840 is the poverty level-leaving a deficit in British Columbia for people with two children of almost $10,800.
I am not going to go into detail for Alberta and Ontario, but the deficits for a single employable in Alberta is almost $9,000 a year; in Ontario it is almost $5,500. Single parents, suffer a deficit in relation to the poverty level-they do not even get up to the poverty level in Alberta-of $6,546; in Ontario it is almost $2,300. Again, the couple with two children in Alberta fall short of the poverty level by $10,000; in Ontario, by almost $6,400.
We ask ourselves a third question: Why, at least in the government's rationalization of the scheme of things, is it doing this? It is saying, in addition to the fact that it has to get some of this money out of the rich provinces, that it simply does not have any money. The federal deficit has to be addressed.
The national debt has to be addressed. We have to ask ourselves how it got itself into this mess in the first place and why on earth should the elderly and the children of our land be the ones hit with the major responsibility of trying to bail the government out of something it created in many different ways, not the least of which were the tremendous benefits in tax relief which it gave to corporations, most of them multinationals. It was pointed out earlier that they were tremendously foreign-owned. The government also gave some benefits in tax relief to some of our national institutions such as the banks.
We have a situation in which the government has impoverished the land and now is tiying to get the citizens to build the country up. I guess we are supposed to lift ourselves up by our bootstraps.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party opposes Bill C-32. We have opposed it at every stage of the legislative process.
Before I indicate some of the reasons the Liberal Party opposes Bill C-32, following the NDP member I cannot help but ask myself how hypocritical it is of the New
Democratic Party here in Ottawa to be critical of this government when its friend and comrade in Queen's Park is doing just as much damage to the economy in Ontario as this Conservative government is doing in Ottawa.
Comrade Bob Rae at Queen's Park has developed a fairly negative relationship with business in the province of Ontario. He leads an anti-business government. I was going through some press clippings today and here are some of the headlines. We will see whether these headlines are conducive to a good business relationship in Ontario in order to create the jobs that are necessary.
One headline: "Ontario Business Gears up to Battle Rae's Labour Laws; Business Finds Solidarity in War of Ideologies".
What is business upset about in the province of Ontario? Yes, it is upset. I notice Bob Rae's comrades here in Ottawa are getting a little antsy and are not permitting me to speak, but I will try to ignore them.
Business is concerned about the proposed labour laws in Ontario. I would like to quote Catherine Swift, the chief economist of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a very reputable organization in Canada. She says: "We are dealing with an organized labour government. If there is one issue they will go to the wall on, it is this one".
Speaking on behalf of business, and let us not forget that it is business that creates jobs, it is business that provides the opportunities for people to create wealth in this country. She goes on to say: "We are going to oppose these reforms to the bitter end. This is the major battle we are going to have with this government".
At a time when we have in the province of Ontario
509,000	people on the unemployment roll at an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent, hundreds of thousands of people on welfare, this socialist government at Queen's Park has decided to bring in this legislation in order to satisfy its union boss friends, the union bosses who are telling Bob Rae and the provincial cabinet what to do. It is bringing in this labour legislation which has totally turned off business.
According to Norman Stewart, a vice-president of Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, the NDP government's current labour law proposals, if implemented, would scare off investment and result in massive job losses.
February 6, 1992

We are dealing with an NDP caucus here in Ottawa that speaks out of one side of its mouth while comrade Bob Rae at Queen's Park is doing so much damage to the provincial economy in Ontario that it really behoves the federal NDP members here to call their friend at Queen's Park and say: "Bob Rae, back off. Back off. Create a positive climate for business in the province of Ontario in order to ensure that we can start rebuilding its economy".
As the employment critic of the Official Opposition, I have had the duty over the last number of weeks to examine very closely the unemployment situation on a national basis. We all know, as a result of the six weeks we have had in our ridings, that the country is literally on its knees. Canadians are suffering. Not only are they losing their jobs, but they are losing their homes, their cars, their businesses, their dignity. This government simply does not realize the extent of the hardship and suffering.
There are 1.42 million Canadians who are unemployed. We have to think about that-1.42 million. That is 1,420,000 Canadians "officially unemployed". There are several hundred thousand more who have dropped out of the labour market and who are no longer looking for work. That is a lot of people who are suffering.
On top of that, there are over 2 million Canadians on welfare. In the province of Ontario, as I indicated, there was a 9.7 per cent unemployment rate in December. The January unemployment rate will be out tomorrow and there is every indication that the unemployment rate will rise. There are 509,000 people unemployed in the province of Ontario. There are 1.2 million Canadians collecting unemployment insurance. Last year the total cost of the delivery of unemployment insurance was over $20 billion; $20,378,000,000.
As far as it is concerned on the international scene, Canada ranks second in unemployment of the OECD countries. Only Ireland is higher than Canada, with an unemployment rate of 16.4 per cent. In metro Toronto,
78,000	jobs were lost last year; 26,000 workers in Ontario lost their jobs in permanent layoffs of 50 or more employees.
That is the background. What does this government intend to do? With Bill C-32 it intends to limit the amount of federal transfer payments under the Canada
Government Orders
Assistance Plan to "the country's three richest provinces, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia". When you are poor, you are poor and it really does not matter whether you are poor in metropolitan Toronto or if you are poor in St. John's, Newfoundland. Regardless of where you live in this country if you are poor, you are poor. The suffering is the same. The pain and anguish are the same.
This government has decided in its warped wisdom to reduce its deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged in Canadian society. When we talk about the people who are affected by the provisions of Bill C-32, it is not the wealthy, not the middle class, but the poor, the disadvantaged, those on welfare, those children living in poverty, the disabled, the elderly.
The government says: "We have a mandate to reduce the deficit, to reduce the debt". It does not tell Canadians that in the seven years it has been in office this government has more than doubled the national debt. It has the unmitigated audacity to blame the previous Liberal administration for the difficulties this government finds itself in.
With this particular bill, the government now wants to restrict the level of federal assistance that will flow to those three provinces, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. As I indicated, there are 509,000 people in the province of Ontario unemployed, 124,000 in Alberta and
168,000	unemployed in the province of British Columbia. As far as those on welfare, 917,000 people in the province of Ontario are on welfare, 156,000 in Alberta, and 244,000 in British Columbia. The suffering exists in those provinces as well as the other provinces in Canada.
I note that there is but one minute left in my remarks. I was about to go into the history of the Canada Assistance Plan. Some members were around back then and know the work that Lester Pearson and the Liberal government did some 25 years ago to bring in the Canada Assistance Plan that has served to help needy Canadians in a very significant way. With regret, it is the Conservative government that intends to cut back.
We will fight this bill. We will continue to vote against this bill. We urge the government to implement the Liberal recovery plan that was announced by the Leader of the Official Opposition a few days ago. The government has taken a cross-your-fingers, hands-off approach to the Canadian economy, allowing hundreds of thou-

Government Orders
sands and millions of Canadians to continue to suffer. As Liberals, we will not put up with it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today is of the greatest gravity, certainly to the province of Ontario and, I am sure, equally to the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta because at this time Ontario is facing the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
It looks that much worse because of the unparalleled prosperity that occurred in our province between 1983, the last recession, until the fall of 1990. Clearly we are in an incredible financial bind in the province of Ontario.
This bill that we are talking about today, because of the mechanisms that are in place in the province of Ontario, goes directly to the taxpayers in every constituency across the province.
A speech by Mr. Rae a week or so ago indicated that municipalities and boards of education and other agencies are going to be limited to a 1 per cent increase this coming year. He has no prescription for changing the economic circumstances of the province of Ontario but he has a deficit of at least $9 billion, perhaps $13 billion. He came on the television and said: "This is the problem", and did not set out any prescription for solving it.
That situation comes right back to Bill C-32 because it was the government's initiative in the budget a year or so ago to cap the Canada Assistance Plan, a program that was brought in, as the hon. member from Toronto, our critic on employment mentioned, by Mr. Pearson and his government in the period 1963 to 1968. We undertook to provide half of the funding for general welfare assistance, child support and most forms of assistance in this country.
In seven out of the ten provinces of this country, the provincial government and the federal government share those general welfare costs on a 50/50 basis. In the province of Ontario that is not the case. In Ontario, the province picks up only 30 per cent, the federal government picks up 50 per cent and the local municipalities are saddled with the other 20 per cent. This 20 per cent, in prosperous times, is manageable but in the current
devastating situation which we face, especially in northern Ontario, it is a burden that simply cannot be borne.
I wrote to the premier of Ontario several months ago and asked that he apply, as he had committed to when he was in opposition, to sharing equally the welfare costs, as is done in seven of the ten provinces. I received a letter from the premier on January 13 in which he expressed concern for the local municipalities saying that their expenditures have doubled during the past year.
Clearly that is the case in Algoma district where we have had massive lay-offs in the uranium mines in Elliott Lake, where we have had massive lay-offs in the steel industry in Sault Ste. Marie, where the forest products industry is suffering with lay-offs and temporary shutdowns and so on. Unfortunately, in the premier's response to me, he indicates that they do provide some assistance when the unemployment goes beyond 3.5 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, we are saddled this coming winter with welfare rolls that are reported by our family and social services board to approach 15 per cent. So you can see that the criteria of the provincial government of 3.5 per cent, a great deal of it will be applied between that and the 15 per cent.
What we have here with the off-loading on to the province of Ontario when it is facing the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and the province breaking its commitment to the municipalities which it made when it was in opposition to disentangle the general welfare assistance, the assistance for single parent mothers, for foster homes, for essential living services, for disabled and handicapped people, dental care for poor families, subsidized child care for low income, safe houses for abused women. All those things are provided for under the Canada Assistance Plan and the provincial government is really not living up to that commitment. The premier of Ontario goes on and says: "The Ontario government recognizes the current financial arrangement between the province and municipality government lack accountability and simplicity". That is certainly clear. The arrangements, the regulations need to be simplified.
"We are committed to a disentanglement process to find better ways", the premier says, "to deliver our community services." He goes on to say: "A joint steering committee composed of six municipal representatives
February 6, 1992

appointed by the Ontario Association of Municipalities, OAM, and six of my cabinet colleagues are helping to realign provincial-municipal roles and responsibilities. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, David Cook, chairs the committee."
What we need is not more study by this committee but action, action that will divide those responsibilities for general welfare assistance equally between the federal and provincial governments. Bill C-32 is just exacerbating the situation. The costs are skyrocketing in Ontario and instead of sharing on a 50/50 basis, the federal government is welshing on the commitment made when the Canada Assistance Plan was set up by Mr. Pearson back in the 1960s to share equally between the province and the federal government.
Likewise, if that was being done fairly by the federal government, it would ease the burden for the province to carry out its responsibilities in sharing the cost equally between the federal and provincial governments for local welfare. Welfare costs have doubled and tripled in many municipalities at a time when many of the local ratepayers are facing unemployment themselves and difficulty in paying their municipal taxes, while at the same time the government of Ontario has put a cap of one per cent on grants to school boards. This offloads more on the local municipal ratepayers.
The government should withdraw this bill. I am sure everybody agrees with that because they realize how important the local ratepayer is in this whole chain of taxation from the municipal and federal level.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here in this House and debate third reading of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan.
Through this legislation the government will cap the Canada Assistance Plan transfers to the three provinces, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. I have spoken before on this in the House of Commons and the absolutely abysmal ramifications that this legislation, if passed, will have on Canadians living in those three provinces who are being discriminated against.
Here in the nation's capital as far back as in April 1990, when the government first announced the cap on CAP, the social services committee of the Ottawa-Carleton
Government Orders
Regional Council brought the following recommendations forward in an attempt to cut the federal government off at the pass:
That the province of Ontario be advised not to pass on federal revenue losses to the municipalities;
That the province continue to implement SARC reforms;
That the federal government be requested to retract its discriminatory capping policy with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan as it relates to the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta;
That the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton express in writing to the leaders of the three federal parties and to the local members of Parliament its opposition to the proposed limits to the increase of federal contributions to programs to alleviate and to prevent poverty under the Canada Assistance Plan; and
That the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton request that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities undertake a federal lobby campaign to intercede in consideration of the proposed legislation to reduce the share of federal contribution under CAP to the three provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
These recommendations are still good today so I will not repeat my previous speech. I would really hope that the government will listen this time. It did not the last time, especially as the evidence shows more and more strongly that this government's economic policies simply do not work and are not working for Canadians.
During the debate at second reading in September, I mentioned that the three affected provinces will lose $2,135 billion in federal transfers over the five-year period through 1995-96. These numbers are from the government's own estimates. These provinces during these hard economic times cannot afford to lose this money. And certainly the province that I know the best is the province of Ontario and we all know that Ontario is being hit very, very hard in this recession.
The Canadian economy is mired in its worst economic crisis since the great Depression. The Conference Board of Canada is reporting a new low in consumer and business confidence. In September 1991 Canada regis-

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
tered its first merchandise trade deficit in 15 years. In the first 10 months of 1991 Canada's merchandise trade balance fell by $2.6 billion compared to the same period in 1990.
Some analysts are forecasting a double-dip recession. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has gone even further by stating:
-the Canadian economy is hovering on the brink of a 'triple-dip' recession. Trade, employment and shipments data for October and November point to a serious decline in export production during the fourth quarter of 1991.
Let us look at all of this in human terms. There was a record number of bankruptcies in Canada last year. Our oil and gas industry is in a shambles. More than 1,700 people are facing lay-offs at Imperial Oil. Thousands of jobs in manufacturing have simply vanished forever in Ontario. Unemployment opened the year 1991 at 9.3 per cent and closed the year at 10.3 per cent. Today, more than 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed. Many workers have lost their jobs permanently. Even worse, many lack the necessary skills to be competitive in the job market; 40 per cent of Canadians have difficulty with basic writing and arithmetic.
Even the employed are suffering. This past Tuesday the Conference Board of Canada told us how Canadians who are lucky enough to be working are living in mortal fear of losing their jobs. There are 2.2 million Canadians on welfare and one million children live in poverty. Tvo million Canadians including 700,000 children relied on food banks in 1991, a very telling statistic. And there are now more food banks in Canada than there are McDonald's restaurants.
As the federal government transfers less and less to provincial and municipal governments, they are increasingly being forced to shoulder the debt and are having to cut into the bones of their budgets to provide the necessary welfare to these 2.2 million Canadians.
I might add that as everyone in Canada knows, a municipality's only means of raising money is through property tax and grants from the provincial and the federal government and any revenues that might be earned through services at the local level. They cannot put on a 7 per cent GST they cannot put on a provincial sales tax; they are at the mercy of the province and the federal government. Municipalities are the ones who
have to pay the welfare costs. Those at the local level accept that everyone has the right to food and housing.
Providing social services is the essence of the Canada Assistance Plan. It is absolutely essential. Once a Canadian has reached the level of qualification for welfare, once all other means of support have been exhausted, the government has no right, in fact, it is obliged to provide assistance to that person.
What this government is doing with this legislation is forcing the provinces and the municipalities to do more and more with less and less. More, not fewer Canadians are being forced onto welfare by this government's economic policies. If the government callously rams through Bill C-32, less money will be available to reinforce the very bottom of the social safety net.
There are also other side effects of the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan. Hundreds of towns and cities across Canada have infrastructure projects on their books waiting for adequate funding. Our necessary streets, sewers, landfills, et cetera, are crumbling around us. What will be left of our urban infrastructure if we do not soon act?
The Liberal Party advocates that we be involved in the cost-sharing program-the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments-to improve and to update the infrastructure in Canada.
The Liberal Party also advocates the use of RRSPs to finance first-time homes. This proposal would also help stimulate the housing market. The maximum allowable withdrawal would be limited to $7,500. The direct cost of such a program to the taxpayers of this nation is absolutely zero.
Another proposal of our plan calls for a shared-cost infrastructure program and I mentioned this before. Funding for these projects would be shared, one-third, one-third, one-third. The federal share would be $1 billion. Between one-half and two-thirds of the jobs created in these projects would be in construction and manufacturing and 90 per cent of the materials required are manufactured right here in this country of Canada.
Studies have shown that the net cost to the federal government after considering increased tax revenues and decreased UI and welfare payments would be $300 million. What an investment this government would have for $300 million. The $1 billion up front cost would

be funded through reduced debt-service payments which have resulted from lower than expected interest rates.
I would like to talk briefly again about my own area of the nation's capital. There is a report put out by the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton entitled, "The Other Side of Fat City: Child Poverty in Ottawa-Carleton".
I get a little sick and tired of hearing some members of this House talk about Ottawa as being fat city. We know that the most vulnerable members of our society, preschoolers, have the highest rate of child poverty. We know that one out of six children under five years is poor in Ottawa-Carleton, one out of six children.
We know that 29 per cent of all single-parent families in Ottawa-Carleton are poor. Single mothers have a poverty rate of 33 per cent. We know that there are 5,725 single mothers in Ottawa-Carleton. We know that 47 per cent of all poor single mothers are in the labour force. I know in my city of Nepean, which is considered to have above average income, that there are 2,120 poor children.
For the government to pass this bill it is going to have a tremendous drastic effect on the poor in this nation. Where is the conscience of this government? I plead with them not to pass this bill.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to challenge the government bill, Bill C-32, that would seriously restrict Canada Assistance Plan payments in three provinces: Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
As viewers who may be listening to speeches today will know, the Canada Assistance Plan is a very important program in Canada. It really symbolizes the nature of Canada where we really care about each other and we traditionally have assumed responsibility federally and provincially for the costs of social programs.
Canada Assistance Plan has then been a method by which the federal government reimburses provinces 50 per cent of the costs of all social services. This means of course that it is not just the cost of welfare and social assistance payments, but it is for other social programs that are equally important, such as child care services, especially for children with special needs.
Government Orders
The Canada Assistance Plan helps to share the cost of centres for battered women and the federal government would reimburse 50 per cent of the costs. It also helps special programs for troubled young people. I know in downtown Vancouver now we have a great concern and youth workers are needed to work with young people, including immigrant youth.
Care for the elderly, programs for seniors, all these kinds of things can be cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan.
If the provincial governments and in turn the municipal governments only have a 50-cent dollar to cover the cost of those programs, what choice do they have? They are going to be forced to cut many, many of these programs. It is starting already with the threat of this bill and the cutbacks in transfer payments.
The federal government not only is penalizing three provinces very unfairly and in my opinion breaching an agreement that is a national trust, but it is also cutting back on the federal responsibility in practical ways to pay for social programs.
Canada, as many speakers have said, has always prided itself on being a nation that cares and shares.
Higher income people should pay more, perhaps, toward the costs of social programs right across the country. That is not a large cost. It is not as large a proportion of our budget as people may think.
What is the government doing? It is proposing in this bill to penalize the three provinces that are facing great economic hardship and are in danger of becoming impoverished just as much as some of the poorer provinces in the country. It is cutting back on their Canada Assistance Plan payments from the federal government.
Why is this? It is hard to justify that in these kind of times the government would be penalizing people and through the provincial cutbacks will be hurting the people who are hurt most and least able to defend themselves in this country and they are the poor.
The government has the rationale of course, that by cutting transfer payments to these three so-called rich

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
provinces, which are not rich at all these days, this will help to pay for the deficit. What would help to pay for the deficit would be to get people back to work and get them paying taxes.
Another thing that it could be doing and which we have proposed repeatedly is to have tax reform which would mean that corporations and wealthier Canadians would pay a higher proportion of taxes. Why should the lowest-income people in the country be the ones who are penalized for the federal deficit?
I would like to quote just one statistic here. Stats-Ca-nada has shown that spending on social programs is responsible for only 6 per cent of the national debt. Thx breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations is responsible for 44 per cent of the debt. There you have it.
What the federal government should be doing is having tax reforms that would bring in the money to help with the deficit which we all recognize is a serious problem. It should not take social services away from poor people, children and families who are struggling.
This is not surprising. This is part of the Conservative philosophy; it is part of the philosophy of the trade deal with the United States. It is part of the so-called free market approach to things which is laissez-faire, that you must reduce social programs. We must bring our programs down to the very low level playing field which is common in the United States.
Canadians do not want that. I think that over and over again, we have seen in these constitutional forums and so on that Canadians think social programs are very important. They are the things that make us Canadian. We are proud of them and we think the federal government should be improving them, not cutting back by this kind of capping of CAP.
What impact will Bill C-32 have more specifically? I just want to say in my province of British Columbia, it is a very heavy burden. It is totally unfair. Our new NDP government in British Columbia has discovered that there is a secret deficit which was not made public, a $1.7 billion deficit. When the books are probably all finished, it will probably be closer to $2 billion.
I am told that 67 per cent of this deficit in British Columbia is caused by the loss of federal transfer payments. This federal government is creating that deficit, the very government that says it is against
deficits. Its cuts to Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan are responsible to a very large degree for this debt.
I should say that our new finance minister, Mr. Glen Clark, who happens to be the MLA for Vancouver- Kingsway has predicted that the total Canada Assistance Plan cut to British Columbia over five years will add another $1.2 billion to the deficit.
No matter how you look at it, that is putting a terrible burden on provinces that are struggling with economic hardship and whose people are suffering unemployment.
Ontario, of course, no longer is the rich industrial province that it was. We all feel very strongly for what Ontario is going through these days with the recession and now de-industrialization, plant closures and massive job lay-offs.
The federal government is hitting on Ontario the hardest and it is doing it in, I must say, a punitive way that has a very strong political component to it. When it is down there and in economic crisis with terrible rates of unemployment, the federal government, instead of increasing funds for social service programs, is again cutting them drastically. It is inconceivable that we could be doing this, especially when we can get funds from the sources that I mentioned.
This is a huge burden for provinces, Alberta as well. The only thing they can do then is to cut social services and cut funds for job creation that should be there, and have their debts increased.
The federal government has abrogated its responsibility under the Canada Assistance Plan. For many years this has been a federal cost-shared program and it is something that I am sure Canadians would want to maintain.
The impact on families, of course, is the real tragedy because as this shift down the line with cuts from provinces to municipalities and others, then non-profit agencies cannot provide the services because they simply will not have the funds to do it.
So we have more people on welfare without support services, wage-earners who are getting increasingly depressed and people who are employable and have worked all of their lives on welfare for the first time. The sense of failure and hopelessness that goes along with this soon makes people unemployable in the future. They have no money for their kids. There is stress on
February 6, 1992

marriages and they break up. Young people are not getting the chance they should have for the future.
No matter how we look at this bill, it is grossly unfair. I think we should have something in our Constitution that will prevent this kind of unilateral failure or cuts by government to provinces.
We feel very strongly that this bill should not be supported. It means that social assistance rates will remain below the poverty level. I must say the National Council on Welfare says the social assistance rates right now average 56 per cent of the poverty line. The only alternative that provinces have is to cut support services.
In closing, I would just like to say that we believe instead of cutting CAP to these three provinces, the government should be reforming taxes to help with the deficit. It should be putting people back to work by having a more positive economic strategy in co-operation with provinces.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-32, particularly as a member of Parliament-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is getting awfully close to one o'clock. Maybe we should call it one o'clock so we will not break up the hon. member's speech.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the 16th Olympics are about to begin in Albertville, France. One hundred and forty-five of Canada's finest athletes are eager to give their best.
Canada proudly supports the noble tradition of these games. Over the years, this support has led to the development of a strong Canadian sport system, a system that allows us to send impressive teams like the one now in Albertville.
Competing for one's country in the spirit of goodwill and fair play is a great accomplishment for any athlete. Within this international arena, our athletes demonstrate not only their own determination and dedication, they also reflect the values cherished by the nation they represent, Canada.
The Olympic Games serve to ignite our national pride, bringing Canadians from every cultural and linguistic background together as we cheer on our athletes. Without a doubt, all Canadians who actively support our athletes, whether they be coaches, administrators, sponsors, parents, friends or the fans and spectators who cheer them, are an important part of Canada's team.
I know that all hon. members will join me in applauding Canada's team, in wishing our Olympic contenders all the best over the next couple of weeks.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, the dairy farmers of Prince Edward Island are very afraid of what will happen at the GATT in the coming weeks and months. There is great pressure from many countries, especially the United States, to bring to an end our supply management system and marketing boards.
The outcome of the agricultural talks at GATT could mean the end of our price guarantees and support for producers in the dairy, egg, chicken and poultry sectors. Not surprisingly, thousands of farmers in this country are lobbying hard to ensure that the federal government does everything it can on the international scene to protect supply management.
Like never before, the Prime Minister must use any influence he has with the Americans and others to protect the family farms and ensure the stability of rural Canada.


THE MONARCHY
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the 40th anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II to the throne in 1952. Our Queen unites Canadians of every ethnic background or origin.
Her Majesty has reigned over Canada longer than any other monarch since Confederation. How lucky we are to have, as Queen of Canada, a figure who has truly become the first lady of the world.
When leaving California for British Columbia in 1983, the Queen told an American reporter: "I am going home to Canada tomorrow." The Queen will again be home in her capital of Canada to preside at the 125th anniversary of Canadian Confederation on July 1.
As loyal Canadian subjects of Her Majesty, it is appropriate for members of this House to join with Canadians in all walks of life to take note of this auspicious anniversary of Her Majesty's accession.


EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 200th anniversary of the opening up to settlement of the eastern townships in Quebec.
On February 7, 1792 the Lieutenant-Governor of the newly formed colony of Lower Canada rose in the Parliament in Quebec City and announced that the Crown lands in that area would be surveyed and divided into townships. In the next year, surveyors began work and produced the map which we know today with, because of the context of the time, English name places like Ascot, Orford and Eton.
Professor John Rittenhouse, historian at Bishop's University, remarked recently that in contrast to the French and American revolutions, the proclamation of the townships is an example of how our country was built. "In Canada, we do it administratively", he said. "It was a question of trying to put together a country."
It is also worth noting that despite its English beginnings, English and French speaking persons have lived together harmoniously in the townships, or I'Estrie as some prefer to say, for 200 years. That is a good example for all Canada at this time in our history.
Like many Montrealers, I have the privilege of getting to the townships from time to time, so it gives me particular pleasure to highlight the 200th anniversary of the establishment of the townships.
I know that all members join me in extending best wishes to the townshippers.


EDUCATION
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the headlines in The Toronto Star today read: "Ontario schools doing poorly in testing". Canadians will now look to find fault somewhere if not everywhere. When our students fail we all fail.
Beth McGuire of the Ontario Federation of Home and Schools says: "This is not the time to be bashing the education system, we should instead be celebrating the success of some of our outstanding students."
I am proud to rise in the House to recognize two of our outstanding graduates, both of whom were bom, raised and educated in Sault Ste. Marie.
Roberta Bondar was the first Canadian woman to travel into space aboard the NASA space shuttle and completed her experiments with consummate skill and professionalism.
Dr. Robert Korneluk, as head of a research team, has isolated the genetic defect believed to be the cause of muscular dystrophy, a most significant medical breakthrough.
Let us praise, let us promote, let us respect the accomplishments of Roberta Bondar and Robert Korneluk, two scientific pioneers who have contributed not only to a better Canada but to a better world.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, from February 3 to February 7, International Development Week gives us an opportunity to leam more about the developing world. Various activities are being organized across the country by schools, non-governmental organizations and community groups, to make us better
February 6, 1992

acquainted with African, Asian and Latin American countries.
This year's theme stresses the fundamental link between development and the environment. Mr. Speaker, our future depends on whether we are prepared to act jointly to seek national and international solutions to global problems, especially those that concern the environment.
We all have a role to play in our respective communities, and I would urge all Canadians to do their share in preserving our environment and supporting our government in its international development activities.


JOB DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the municipalities of Glace Bay, Waterford, Dominion, Cape Breton county, Louisbourg and Richmond county, all communities within the federal district of Cape Breton-East Richmond that call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to provide more funding under the job development program.
At the present time the level of unemployment in my constituency as well as in eastern Nova Scotia is exceptionally high. It is very important that the Government of Canada allocate sums of money to provide these individual Canadians in that particular area with some semblance of hope for their economic future.
With high unemployment, unprecedented welfare rolls, unprecedented use of food banks, the morale and spirit of the people who live in that particular area of the country is at an all-time low.
I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to act expeditiously to assist those municipalities and the residents of those communities.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CANADA INC.
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last month Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc. announced the closing of its Wicksteed Avenue facility in Toronto. This followed hard on the heels of the announced closing of its New Westminster, British Columbia facility and its long-time manufacturing plant at 63 Colgate Avenue in Toronto.
As a result of these decisions, Colgate-Palmolive no longer manufactures any of the following products in Canada: ABC and Arctic Power laundry detergents; Ajax cleaners; Palmolive dish soap and Electric dishwasher soap; Irish Spring and Palmolive bar soap; Javex bleach; Fleecy fabric softener; and Scrub and Shine liquid cleaners. In fact, the only product Colgate-Palmolive will continue to make in Canada is Colgate dental cream.
There is a message in this for all of us who are truly concerned about plant closings and manufacturing job losses. Buy Canadian. Clean your teeth with Colgate dental cream but do not wash with Palmolive soap.


GUN CONTROL
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, we heard that the product Dye Witness will now be a prohibited weapon. Dye Witness is an aerosol can filled with green paint. It is not dangerous to your health and is used mainly by women as a defence against eventual attackers. Thanks to Dye Witness, the attacker is dyed green for a week.
Mr. Speaker, I was flabbergasted that a weapon as inoffensive as Dye Witness could be taken off the market overnight, when we have not yet succeeded in banning military and paramilitary weapons. In fact, we are still waiting for the regulations on gun control.
When will the minister finally table the regulations Canadians want, so they can protect themselves and their children against the free circulation of firearms?

February 6, 1992


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently in the crucial stages at the GATT talks in Europe.
Canada ranks second to lowest in the cost of a typical food basket among western nations and the quality of our products is second to none.
Under the current GATT negotiations, Canada is calling for the reduction of export subsidies and the clarification of article XI. Should article XI not be clarified and even worse, replaced with tariffication, the supply management system as we know it would be weakened to the point where eventually it would not protect these sectors at all.
On Tuesday morning, representatives from the five supply managed sectors pressed their point here in Ottawa. In a market analysis they conducted, they predicted decreases in revenue each year and half of the farms disappearing in some sectors if tariffs replace the quantitative import restrictions we now have. This is what the future holds for us if the Dunkel proposals go ahead.
On behalf of the food production sector, I urge the government and the country's representatives at the GATT talks to stand their ground with regard to article XI. Canada has too much to lose.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Father Alfred Couturier and Mr. Gilles Bourgeois, of Amos, and Mr. Leo Lacroix, of Barraute, in Abitibi, recently wrote to me to tell me that they found it unfair that married couples paid a "marriage tax" in 1989 that amounted to $570 per couple, on average, and as much as $980 in some cases. The Income Tax Act has not changed since then. They think that the government is thus penalizing married couples, when it should encourage marriage and family stability.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to act as soon as possible to remedy this situation which is unfavorable to Canadian family life.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in B.C. more jobs were lost because of the free trade agreement. The Department of Employment and Immigration has given work visas to foreign workers to dismantle the Wolverine copper tubing plant in New Westminster. The equipment is being shipped to Korea.
Section 15 of the trade deal permits foreign workers to do anything from pipefitting and welding, to crane operating and truck swamping. Now Canadians are even being deprived of the job of dismantling the plant where they already lost 200 jobs. Where does this end?
Three years ago, the Bureau of Competition reversed its own decision and allowed a Canadian copper tubing plant to be sold to U.S. interests. These owners then shut the doors and 200 jobs were lost.
Last night on B.C. TV news it was revealed that a U.S. based contractor had been hired six months previously to dismantle this plant, even though the company was encouraging an employee buyout.
After all that has happened to the many Canadian workers who have lost their jobs, must they now stand back helplessly as the government allows foreign workers to enter Canada, pack up Canadian jobs and ship them away?


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with members of the House the results of a survey I conducted recently in my riding of Halton-Peel.
I asked all constituents to respond to 14 simple questions, to give me comments on the government's policies and also on our political system. To my amazement, more than 4,000 households took part in the survey, allowing me to write a lengthy report.
February 6, 1992

The results of one question will be of interest to members. I asked if MPs should always vote in this House according to their constituents' wishes or should an MP listen to all views and then vote as he or she thinks best.
People indicated they think the MP should widely consult and inform the public. By a margin of more than two to one, they told me that an MP should vote in this House as he or she thinks best. The message seems clear. People want MPs who think and lead and who are not just trained seals.


SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, small and medium-sized businesses are the engine of our economy. Quebec has 25 per cent of the small businesses in Canada, but unfortunately, it recorded 38.6 per cent of Canada's business bankruptcies in 1991.
Last February 26, the then Minister of Finance, in presenting his budget, said: "This budget sets out a plan for economic recovery-a strong, confident recovery". What a disaster his forecast was.
The present Minister of Finance should implement the Liberal economic recovery program to help the remaining businesses avoid bankruptcy and to create lasting employment and give Canadians hope.


MEDICAL RESEARCH
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate a Canadian scientist and his colleagues for their work.
It was announced yesterday that a major breakthrough into a better understanding of one of the world's most commonly inherited neuromuscular diseases has been made by a Medical Research Council of Canada scientific team. The landmark finding was made in collaboration with scientists from three other countries.
The Canadian team, headed by Dr. Robert Korneluk of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario here in Ottawa has located the site of the defective gene responsible for myotonic dystrophy. The research was done in collaboration with scientists in the Netherlands, Great Britain and the United States.
MRC, the major federal agency funding medical research in Canada, provided more than $400,000 in support of Dr. Korneluk's research. The research was also supported by the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada and its U.S. counterpart. On a world-wide basis, the disease affects about one in 800,000 people.
In closing, I am proud the Government of Canada has supported this important research and I wish to reiterate my commitment to medical research by this government.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, with the end of the cold war the United Nations is now reorganizing its priorities. An unprecedented meeting last week of the Security Council heads of government has given rise to fears by Third World countries that their concerns are being given low priority in the United Nations.
The issue of most concern to the south is economic development. What it sees is the rich industrialized north focusing primarily on the economic needs of eastern Europe and on political issues.
Canada should show its commitment to International Development Week by using its high standing in the United Nations to bring together Nordic countries, France, Australia and the non-aligned movement and others, to ensure that the pressing economic concerns of developing countries are given high priority at the United Nations.
Canada should lead the way in ensuring that the United Nation focuses on strategies that the developing countries themselves articulate which will end hunger, disease and illiteracy. By doing that the UN will ensure a healthier, more equitable and politically stable world for all.

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance keeps talking about the economic crisis as a restructuring problem. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister how he intends to restructure the situation facing people lined up at food banks in this country. What is he going to do to restructure the situation so 700,000 children do not have to line up at 1,300 food banks? What is he going to do to restructure the fact that one in ten of the people living in homeless shelters across this country are children?
Are they part of the restructuring problem, and what is his solution?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the record on help to children by this government-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the record on help that this government has given to children over the years speaks for itself.
I might say to the hon. member that there is a commitment by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, there is a commitment by the Prime Minister of this country, and there is a commitment by the Minister of Finance to take a look at the situation as to the affairs of young people, children. I am sure that she will hear some news in the not too distant future in that regard.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The Minister of Finance is so intent on defending failed policies that he has closed his mind to constructive alternatives. Yesterday he went on the attack against the idea of a national shared-cost public works program. I hope the Acting Prime Minister will take a more constructive attitude.
The FCM today has written to the Prime Minister asking that a national public works program be placed on
the agenda of the First Ministers' Conference next Monday.
Will the Acting Prime Minister today, along with the Prime Minister, announce that the federal government will launch such a program? Or, at the veiy least, will he use the opportunity of the First Ministers' Conference next week to explore this much needed idea with the premiers across this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has made it very clear to the premiers that he is prepared to sit down and discuss any item that might be of benefit to Canada.
At the same time he is aware of the fiscal restraints that we have in this country, that all provinces have, that all provincial premiers including the New Democratic Party premiers are talking about now, that they have to cut costs and they have to watch their expenditures because, as Premier Harcourt of British Columbia said, we cannot spend our way out of a recession.
I might say to the hon. member the other thing we have to remember is that the Liberal plan is asking for a billion dollars from the federal government, a billion dollars from provincial governments, and a billion dollars from municipal governments, all coming from one person, the taxpayer, the guy who pays the buck. There is only one person who pays all three billion dollars. I am not sure that municipalities are prepared to go to their taxpayers today and ask for another billion dollars.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to know who the minister thinks is currently paying unemployment insurance and welfare benefits, because it is those same people who would prefer to pay money to put people back to work.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Sheila Maureen Copps: My supplementary question is for the Minister for International Trade. Yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that he had done everything to settle the matter of article XI of GATT. Following the latest negotiations on the Dunkel report in
February 6, 1992

December, we know that the Prime Minister has failed totally on the GATT issue. Can he tell us today how he will change his negotiating policy to give back some hope to farmers across Canada who now believe that they will lose their livelihood?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is referring to when she makes that outrageous statement.
What the Prime Minister has done on a consistent basis, whether it is in meeting with the farm leaders and expressing his solid commitment behind their position or in statements he has made in meetings with President Delors of the European Community, President Bush, President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Lubbers at the time when he was the head of the European commission, is stated the position of the Government of Canada, that we are in support of the strengthening and the clarification of article XI because that is the best way that we can support the supply managed system that is so important to our producing farmers.
That is the position of the government and that is the position the Prime Minister has consistently stated.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of state.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities again today, as it has for the past four years, called on this government to invest in this competitive Canadian infrastructure. I might add that not one province, not one municipality, has refused to participate in the shared-cost infrastructure program.
The projects are ready and they can be implemented in 30 days. It is not going to have an effect on the deficit; it is deficit neutral. It will save on the unemployment insurance. It will save on welfare costs. It will rejuvenate the economy and create thousands of jobs.
Oral Questions
When will this government stop making excuses and start investing in Canadians?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals come up with this revolution, this great new policy.
I believe back in 1981 or 1982, or maybe a little earlier, the federal government under the Liberals participated in municipal infrastructure programs. They were the ones who cancelled them because they said they did not serve a useful purpose.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that this minister thinks creating jobs is revolutionary?
This program has the backing of economists, provinces, municipalities and the private sector, including the chairman of the Bank of Montreal who said that helping Canadians without work made good business sense. John Redfem, chairman of Lafarge Canada Inc., said: "An efficient infrastructure is necessary in order to maintain a strong economy".
I ask the minister again: Why won't this government act now and introduce a program that will strengthen the Canadian economy?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of debate. I would say to the hon. member that in bringing in a program like this we are not creating jobs. We are making work. They are not meaningful jobs. They are not long-lasting jobs. They are not jobs that will contribute to the economy in the long run.
That is our goal. That is what we want to do and I think that is what people want. They want full-time meaningful work, not a handout for a few months' work.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Indicators continue to show that Canadians have a lack of confidence in the Canadian economy. This week 70 per cent of Canadians polled show that they did not even have the confidence to make a major purchase. No confidence means no jobs. No jobs mean over three million Canadians unemployed and a $30 billion expenditure by taxpayers to support unemployment.

February 6, 1992
Oral Questions
How does the government plan to pay for this rising cost of unemployment? Does the government plan to raise taxes or raise the deficit to cover the cost of unemployment?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we have within the fiscal framework been able to help in a number of areas over the last short period of time.
I remind the hon. member that we helped the agricultural community this year with some $800 million. We helped the transportation industry, the truckers, the railways and the airlines, which maintained jobs and helped the economy of Canada.
We helped preserve jobs at de Havilland and we did that within the fiscal framework. We helped with the book publishing industry which was announced by my colleague just recently and was well received by the book publishers. As a matter of fact last night they publicly thanked the government for the help at a gathering that the hon. member for Hamilton East was at, as well as a number of others from the House.
We helped with equalization payments with the provinces that receive equalization payments. There has been a tremendous-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should go on to the next question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The government is not helping by slashing the CAP payments to maintain the kinds of social health services the provinces need to help their people. There are some concrete things this government can do and it is refusing to recognize them.
Tbday the Federation of Canadian Municipalities presented a proposal for a national municipal infrastructure program, a program that would create 63,000 jobs every year it is in effect, that would generate new revenues and that would give a massive boost to our economy.
Will the government show that it really wants to get Canadians back working and support this program in its new budget?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that first of all her statement on slashing CAP is just not
true. There is no restriction on CAP increases for the seven provinces and there is a 5 per cent increased cap on CAP for the three other provinces. We are not slashing; we are actually increasing CAP.
If the hon. member were fair and honest with the House, I am sure she would have put her question in a little different manner.
As far as the association of municipalities is concerned, it has made the same proposal to the Minister of Finance for the last number of years. Ever since the Liberals cancelled the program it has made this proposal. Every year we look at this proposal. We will look at the proposal again. We will always give it consideration in the context of the over-all plans of the government and within the fiscal framework of the government of which we always have to be mindful.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that they cannot build an economy on a crumbling infrastructure. I do not know what there is to look at. If we are going to be prosperous, if we are going to compete, we need an infrastructure in our communities to make it possible to do that.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment and welfare are expensive. It costs taxpayers a lot of money and leaves all those people without hope. I received the following letter from an unemployed man: "I cannot sleep at night. I do not know where I will find money so I can eat. It is hard to keep hope for the future when one cannot survive from day to day".
When will the government give these people a little hope? When will it stop saying that unemployment costs nothing?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the government has never said that unemployment does not cost. We know it does. But there are different ways of getting out of the problem. The socialists would have us spend our way out. Well, some of them; not all of them. The new premier of British Columbia says that you cannot spend your way out of a recession. He says you have to have the basic right to be ready to grasp the opportunity which is coming now because we are coming out of a recession and the signs that are showing are good.
February 6, 1992

We have been able to help the economy and the provinces through means that were announced by the Minister of Finance last week and, I might say, well accepted by them. There is a budget coming up later on, in the not too distant-


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


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Although it took a week, Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the NDP's support of the Liberal public works program.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Canadian agriculture has a huge stake in the GATT negotiations and the so-called Dunkel report has prompted grave concerns in the supply management sector.
The government should share with us what it knows about the possible effects of the Dunkel proposals on supply management. We take it that the government has already completed an impact study. Would the government table that document in the House this afternoon? After all, Canadians deserve to know the contents of that study. The life of an industry is on the line.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the Government of Canada is also concerned about the impact of the Dunkel report and has made those views known directly to Mr. Dunkel, to some of the other contracting members of the GATT, as well as to the members of the farm community.
We have shared with the farm community, at its request, a study that has been done on what the levels of the tariff equivalents might be were the Dunkel proposal in effect. That was done at the request of the farm community. It has not requested an impact study so that work has not been done.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister.
I have good reason to believe that copies of an impact study have already been given to government members.
Oral Questions
Since these issues affect farmers and Canadians in general, will the minister table in this House all matters related to the GATT talks and their impact on the agricultural industry?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture made this very clear, and we will mention it this afternoon, because- for the hon. member's information-the federal-provincial conference on agriculture is scheduled to start in about half an hour.
Incidentally, the marketing board community and Canadian farm leaders did not ask for a specific impact study on these factors. They even asked us to leave the tariff system alone.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, if Canadian farm leaders say they wish to discuss these aspects, we will of course consider doing so. So far, however, we have had no requests for a study of the impact of tariffs on marketing boards, Mr. Speaker.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance. His boss the Minister of Finance said, according to Canadian Press, that he would be "a monkey's uncle if anyone can find money in the federal budget to finance a cut in the GST". Mr. Speaker, you had better break out the bananas for the minister.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I say this because Matthew Barrett, chairman of the Bank of Montreal, says that because of lower interest charges the government does have the money either to spend or cut taxes to get the economy moving.
I ask the acting minister: Will the government bring forward a full program to get the economy moving and to create jobs without further delay and certainly no later than the next budget?


John Horton McDermid: I know my hon. friend fairly well, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that he did not look into the figures that Matthew Barrett brought out before he

February 6, 1992
Oral Questions
stood in the House and supported them, because the figures that Mr. Barrett used were erroneous.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: As a matter of fact they were totally erroneous, and you will see that very clearly when the accounts are in. But I must say to the hon. member that I will make a deal with Mr. Barrett. If he renegotiates every one of the mortgages his bank has with the people who hold the mortgages on homes and reduces the interest rates for them so that money could go back into the economy, then maybe we will take another look at it here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will leave the acting minister to deal with someone who I would have thought to be his friend and supporter, the chairman of the Bank of Montreal.
If the acting minister and his government are sticking to the view that low interest rates alone are the basis for economic recovery, can he explain why for the second week in a row his government is supporting increases in the bank rate by the Bank of Canada and along with it an unnecessary propping up of the Canadian dollar? Why is he supporting this foolish course of action?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, if he has been reading the financial papers, a brokerage company in the United States gave some advice based on false information that it should sell the Canadian dollar.
The bank moved last week to prevent a run on our Canadian dollar, which I think was a prudent thing to do. As a matter of fact it did that when the hon. member sat on the Treasury benches back when-Heaven forbid he should ever get there again-he was in government.
I might also point out that the bank rate today did increase but by only four one-hundreths of a penny. It is a levelling off period and a cooling off period and I think the bank made the right decision.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of a confidential proposal on telecommunications services submitted by
the United States at the current GATT negotiations. The proposal would throw open Canada's doors to unfettered foreign competition and investment into our telecommunications market. It would strike a binding agreement for full market access and national treatment for domestic and international long distance services.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister what action Canada has taken to turn back this looming and portentous threat of American takeover of our Canadian telecommunications industry.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment one way or the other on some speculative proposal. We are right now in the fairly intense stages of negotiations on reduction of tariffs and also on the various offers for service.
We have our own position on this. Other countries have their own positions. We are putting forward those positions based on the advice we have received from our industry. It is on that basis we believe the position we have is a strong one and will be supportive of the interests of our domestic industry.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, annex 1404 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which I also have in my hand, currently protects Canada's telecommunications industry from foreign competition. This new proposal is clearly a way for the United States to skirt the FTA provisions and gain access to Canada's telecom market.
Will the Prime Minister advise whether a similar proposal has been put forward by the United States in the new round of trilateral negotiations or will he advise whether he is once again selling Canada out?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member always resorts to some excessive language at the end of his question. Unfortunately it undermines the whole intention and impact of the question.
I would say to my hon. friend that the negotiations in NAFTA have not progressed that far. As I said in my previous answer, we are consulting very closely with the telecommunications industry, as well as with other industries, in support of any positions we put forward in the NAFTA negotiations. The positions that will be
February 6, 1992

taken will be very much supportive of the strength we have developed in that industry.


VALUE OF THE DOLLAR
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Our high dollar is one of the reasons why jobs are being lost, including 15 per cent of the jobs in the manufacturing sector during the past three years. The Minister of Finance has always maintained that we could not manipulate the value of the dollar. Today, however, the minister admitted that the government was manipulating the value of the dollar upwards. Are you giving us a high dollar to destroy more jobs in this country?


John Horton McDermid: No, Mr. Speaker. The dollar has fallen some 4 cents in the last few months.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, our interest rates are still more than double those of our principal competitor and our dollar is knocked down to a level where not any business person in this country is happy with it.
There can be only two explanations for stepping in today. This government is either driving the dollar up and is deliberately manipulating it so we will have a high dollar, or else this government thinks that our economy is so hot that it has to put the brakes on it. This means more lost jobs, more plant closures.
Will the minister tell us who, other than our foreign competitors, does this government think it is helping with its high interest rate-high dollar policy?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this government has neither.
Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On Thesday, he said, and I quote:
It is in the best interests of consumers and the travelling public in
this country to have two airline companies that are in the best
possible shape, and that is what we want to achieve in the months to
come.

My question is this: Does this mean that the minister does not accept, under any conditions, the proposals of Air Canada that would ultimately lead to a merger of the two Canadian airlines?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will understand that the Minister of Transport cannot accept any proposal that has not been made to him yet.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would answer this question: Is he or the government prepared to ensure that in the next few months Air Canada does not engage in any anti-competitive practices such as predatory pricing which might lead to further destabilization of the airline industry in Canada in order to precipitate the acceptability of such a proposal?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may wish to answer the question. It is getting awfully close to hypothetical.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, again I think the hon. member will agree that we have a very efficient Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that is overseeing this matter.


TAXATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. For several months we have been working with the Conservative member for Calgary North, who proposed a new federal tax strategy for families. His proposals are a response to concerns expressed by families, family and religious organizations and federal members. Could the

February 6, 1992
Oral Questions
minister give us the assurance that his department will give careful consideration-before the budget-to this new strategy that would help improve the financial situation of married couples with children and that of single parent families in this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was extremely concerned about family issues and a family caucus was organized within our government, led by the member for Calgary North who has done an excellent job. He has made certain suggestions to the Minister of Finance which I can assure all members of the House will be given very careful consideration for the upcoming budget.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Polls released today indicate that 85 per cent of Canadians want a made-in-Canada solution to the financial problems facing Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.
Will the Minister of Transport commit himself and his government to finding a made-in-Canada solution? Will he further commit himself to not raising the threshold of foreign ownership in any Canadian airline or in any Canadian transportation entity? Will he make that commitment?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will remember I have said for many months, whenever either of the two airlines make a proposal to salvage the industry and salvage the competitive nature of the aviation industry in Canada, that we would look at it.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that the minister has not received any formal proposals from anyone, he must be aware that there have been discussions between officials of the airlines and the Government of Canada. He must realize that Canadian is desperately seeking some solution. He also knows that the CEO of American Airlines was in Toronto this week.
Will he make a clear indication to the people of Canada that he will not deviate at any time for any
reason from the 25 per cent maximum foreign ownership prescribed in the National Transportation Act?


Jean Corbeil: Maybe I have not been clear enough, Mr. Speaker. We will look at any proposal that will ensure that we maintain a viable, efficient and secure airline industry in Canada.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Given that Canadians shop more and more across the border in the United States, does the minister intend to launch a buy Canadian campaign or to announce some other measure to counter the disastrous effects of cross-border shopping?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting question.
Yes, I have seen the newspaper article about it. I must point out that a study published this year showed that Canadians' major expense items-housing, transportation, education, health-cost less in Canada than in the United States if the broader picture were considered and not just the price of a quart of milk or a pound of butter.
So I think that a campaign to make Canadian consumers aware of the importance of buying at home and particularly, Mr. Speaker, of participating in the prosperity and competitiveness initiative of the industry and employment ministers will make Canadians realize that if we are more competitive, the Canadian market will be more active and consumers will gain thereby, Mr. Speaker.


OIL INDUSTRY
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Is the minister aware that Gulf Canada, which just pulled out of its $1 billion commitment to Hibernia, has now made a similarly large commitment to an oil project in Siberia? Will the minister confirm what Revenue



Canada told Gulf, namely that it could deduct 100 per cent of its costs in Siberia over 10 years from its taxable income in Canada?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Gulf Canada, along with Brit Gas, has a deal in Siberia. The expenditure profile, as I have been given to understand, is about $250 million Canadian of which Gulf owns half. It could result in the kinds of figures that the hon. member has mentioned. Gulf got its first oil out last week, I believe Thursday to Friday night.
That being the case, I remind the hon. member that what he said about the write-offs for Canadian companies investing in foreign oil or gas plays is correct. That dates back to 1971. In 1971 a provision was put into the Income Tax Act whereby there is a write-off against Canadian tax. This is not unique to the oil and gas industry, but it is a provision of the Income Tax Act for Canadian companies investing and earning profit outside Canada.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, that answer should be taken with a large dose of Siberian salt. It was the Liberal government that brought in the PIPs and encouraged companies to invest in Canada. It was this government that cancelled them and beefed up the foreign provisions.
Is the minister also aware that Petro-Canada, which just announced substantial cuts in this country and was trying to sell some of its shares in the Hibernia project, has now committed itself to a major oil development in Burma, and that the Department of National Revenue has informed it that it too can deduct 100 per cent of all of its costs in Burma whether the project succeeds or not?
Will the government explain to the people of Canada why in this time of recession it is encouraging the flow of Canadian money to places like Burma and Siberia? Canadians would like to send this government to Siberia.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, some of us came from Siberia so we could help this country. Some of our family members came out of Siberia as prisoners only two years ago. I do
Oral Questions
not think I need even jocular comments about Siberia or some of the contributions that were made.
I say to the hon. member that he can go back to the PIPS agreement. If he looks at PIPS, he will find that for every $1 that was invested by Canadians and others in Canada, the Canadian taxpayer paid $1.04 to $1.05 and actually lost money.
If he wants to see the success of the program, I remind him of Dome and the costs on Dome. I remind him also about tax provisions which have come to be known in jocular verbiage as the little Egypt bump. There were all kinds of examples where the Canadian taxpayer because of that kind of program lost great amounts of money. It did not help us either in reserves or in building a Canadian industry.
The fact of the matter is he can say what he will, but I go back to this simple point: this provision dates back to 1971 when I think it was his party that was in power.


TOBIQUE INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.
There is a serious problem at the Tobique Indian Reserve, New Brunswick, where sewage treatment facilities are apparently inadequate and raw sewage has been flowing into the Saint John River system.
I understand that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has been aware of this problem for many months but no corrective action has yet occurred.
What steps are being taken to stop this unacceptable environmental damage and when can effective results be expected?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a very serious problem, one which concerns me deeply.
Apparently raw sewage is being allowed to overflow from the Tobique Indian Reserve into the Saint John River, threatening the health of hundreds of thousands of residents both on reserve and in downstream communities.

February 6, 1992
Oral Questions
It is important that the House know that a capital financial agreement, a five-year financial plan signed in 1990, provided a $1.2 million allocation for the construction of a sewage treatment plant out of a total capital budget of almost $6 million. That money has not been allocated for the purpose for which it was intended. I have instructed my officials to meet with the chief and council immediately to ensure that the conditions of the funding arrangement are lived up to.


EAST TIMOR
Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last night CBC's Journal aired a documentary exhibiting the historic and ongoing brutality of the Indonesian government against the East Timor people. The Indonesian government's own report of the November 12 killings is unsatisfactory and subsequent reports of retaliation against the witnesses must be investigated.
I have asked this question before. I repeat it: Will the government insist that the UN make an independent investigation of the East Timorese killings and the subsequent abuses against the East Timorese?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have told the House before that the day after this event I raised it with the foreign minister of Indonesia with whom I was meeting in Seoul, Korea and expressed Canada's condemnation even at that early stage before we had all the facts.
In the meantime, I know that Canadians have found the information that has come forth, not just because of the video last night but as the news has come out about the incident, as reprehensible as does this government.
We cut our aid to Indonesia as a result of that. Some other countries did do it but have since reinstated it. We have not made any change in our policy toward Indonesia at this stage.
I am encouraged that the Secretary-General of the UN will be sending a special envoy to Indonesia and we will look for some results from that meeting.
[Translation}


Christine Susan Stewart: My supplementary question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
In 1975, Indonesia illegally invaded and took control of the independent country of East Timor. Since then, the Canadian government's reaction has been terribly quiet.
Will the government today join the European Community in asking the new Secretary-General of the United Nations to call a negotiating session between the parties directly concerned, such as Portugal, Indonesia and representatives of the government of East Timor?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the government supports the United Nations in the steps which still have to be made with respect to the special envoy who was sent to Indonesia by the United Nations. The Secretary-General agrees to send someone. After that, perhaps we could go on to the other steps.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to whomever is answering on behalf of the Minister of Finance.
All the government will know that when the GST was introduced the Prime Minister and the government promised that it would not be charged on the necessities of life. Now the Minister of Finance has imposed the goods and services tax on water on 26 communities across Saskatchewan, and he has done so retroactively.
I would like to ask the minister this: Will the government keep its promise and axe the tax on water?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am not sure what the hon. member is talking about. If he had given me notice before Question Period, I would have looked into it for him and got him an answer.
February 6, 1992


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the people of Saskatchewan and Yukon know about it and they are complaining about the imposition of this tax.
We on this side of course are opposed to the GST and would scrap it. But the government has at least always admitted that it would examine the concerns about the effectiveness and the administration of the tax.
I wonder if, in response to the minister's question, he might go on to commit himself to at least looking at the implications of this tax and perhaps consider scrapping it.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is a little confused. The short answer to his specific question is no.
The answer on the water is also no because we are not taxing water. What the hon. member is referring to is the delivery of water, and he should know that individual-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I know hon. members would want to allow the minister to give his response to the question. The hon. minister.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if they would only listen, I am trying to explain as best I can. I would be very happy to offer them a briefing by officials to show them in detail specifically how this is being dealt with from an administrative standpoint, because those companies that deliver water can opt to operate under the same conditions as municipalities which are exempt or get a rebate on the GST.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Just one question, please.


REFERENDUM ON THE FUTURE OF QUEBEC
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Today's Le Soldi reported an incredible statement by Claude Beauchamp, president of the Regroupement Eco-
Business of the House
nomie et Constitution, who objected to a referendum on the future of Quebec, and I quote: "The risk is far too great that voters would reject an agreement. A referendum is a complex instrument. A referendum entails a risk, and the risk is that it would be defeated".
This federal spokesman from Quebec seems to be afraid Quebecers will speak out. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister to dissociate himself from these undemocratic remarks and to state once and for all that the future of Quebec will not be decided on by politicians behind closed doors, but by the people of Quebec.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could arrange to get in touch directly with Mr. Beauchamp. I am here to answer questions about the Canadian government's policies. Or else, if he does not want to speak to Mr. Beauchamp directly, perhaps he could write a book and ask Mr. Beauchamp to read it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.
Would he indicate to the House the business we will be having for tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday, and the remaining parts of next week? Would he also indicate whether or not there would be some degree of co-operation on his part, as exhibited by his parliamentary secretary earlier this day, in perhaps having a special debate with regard to the whole supply management system in Canada which is presently under negotiation under the provisions of GATT?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the business question, today I would hope we would complete third reading of Bill C-32 respecting the Canada Assistance Plan and, if completed, we would call for third reading Bill C-35, the Miscellaneous Statutes Act.

February 6, 1992
Business of the House
Friday we would expect to complete third reading on Bill C-35 and upon its completion the government would call Bill S-2, the Tax Convention Act, for second reading.
On Monday it would be my intention to call for second reading Bill C-26, Public Service 2000, and on Tbesday to continue second reading hopefully to completion of Bill C-26.
Next Wednesday I would intend to call an allotted day or an opposition day.
In terms of the general question, as I have said to the hon. member on many occasions, I feel that we could probably use our time in a more fitting way on many occasions around here to discuss subjects of interest and of some import if we could find some way to accommodate it within the constraints of time in terms of getting the legislation through, in terms of recognizing that we have opposition days on which the opposition can choose the subject matter and in fact from time to time schedule debates in the evening for special subjects as we have done, for example, with regard to the constitutional question tonight, next Monday, Tbesday and Thursday.
I would hope that we could get together and discuss to see whether it really is necessary to have three full days, for example, on Bill C-32 at third reading, which is a long way through the process. Perhaps we could cut that down to two days and have the third day allocated to subject matter of interest, or we could do that on similar bills.
I am always available for that kind of accommodation, but it is very difficult for me to agree to a process that says the government will continue in essence, figuratively, to get down on its knees and say: "Please allow us to pass this legislation", then in addition open up extra time for special debates of the opposition's choosing. There is just not enough time on the calendar. I would love to co-operate. I think we can co-operate. If we agree, there has to be a little give and take on both sides.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the House that there has been a good deal of co-operation among all parties with regard to the debate which will be taking place this evening on constitutional renewal to give members an opportunity to put their concerns before the House and thereafter table documents with
the committee. I want to thank the government House leader, who has been very co-operative in that process.
I also want to say to the hon. member that my question was not intended to interfere or delay the activities of the government which has the sole right in setting the agenda in terms of legislation for this House. We are not suggesting that. In view of the comments, and he might want to take some time to discuss with his Parliamentary Secretary, under the provisions of either Standing Order 52 or some other arrangements, debates could take place later in the evening on subjects that a good majority of members of Parliament find to be important, ones which affect their constituents and are important for the country.
This is not to mean this in a partisan way. I just point out to the government House leader that, as he knows, we are in a difficult economic situation and there are issues that all Canadians would like to see us debating on the floor of this House of Commons. On the other hand, we would avail ourselves as opposition parties to select some of those subjects which can be debated under provisions of allotted days, opposition days. I suggest quite sincerely to the government House leader that there is a menu of economic issues out there which will require the special attention and co-operation of the government in order to debate it in what I believe is a very sincere way to try to find some solutions in order to put Canadians back to work.
That is the spirit in which I ask the question. Perhaps later this day or perhaps next week we might be able to pursue those discussions with the government House leader and his parliamentary secretary to arrive at some sort of accommodation for the government in its dealings here.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short comment regarding the points raised by my hon. friend, the opposition House leader, and ask the minister a question.
First of all, I want to say to the minister that it is appropriate that we take some days to debate important legislation. I think that Bill C-32 is one of those pieces. As a result we could move expeditiously on other pieces of legislation like C-35 and S-2.1 think we can come to an accommodation without any difficulty.
February 6, 1992

I simply want to indicate again my enthusiasm and my willingness to move expeditiously through the usual channels to see if we can facilitate arriving at ways and means of allowing additional debates on important and topical issues.
I have two questions. One concerns the budget. February is the normal time when we look forward to a budget. I wonder if the minister can give us some indication of what would be an appropriate time, or his best guess at this time, for a budget to be presented in the House. Since we are indicating the business coming up, I believe the government House leader indicated that next Wednesday would be an allotted day. Perhaps to provide for ease of preparations and planning, since it is an opposition day and will be a New Democrat sponsored motion, we will be indicating that we will be putting forward a motion on the protection of marketing boards and the opposition to tariffication to debate and we are likely to vote next Wednesday.


Harvie Andre: In terms of the budget, as the hon. member knows, in 1984 when this government was elected we did establish the practice of bringing down the budget at the same time as the spending estimates.
To us it makes sense that they come down together and not be separated by many months, as used to be the case. The taxes and the spending ought to be related. It is our hope to keep that pattern. The specific date I cannot give the hon. member at this point.
I welcome the news that the hon. member has indicated that his party would like to discuss this important subject of GATT and marketing boards next Wednesday. By putting it to a vote, I have to remind the House that as an allotted day, the motion is a motion of confidence. That forces the government to vote in opposition to the motion, whatever it might say, because allotted days were designed as a substitute for challenging the estimates.
Every motion and every vote is a confidence vote, so in advance I have to say that we will probably support the tenor of the motion because we are very much supportive of marketing boards. Very clearly, our position at GATT is completely consistent with the position that the
Business of the House
producers have suggested we take. There is no space between us and the producers on this matter.
If a motion is put forward to that effect on an allotted day, we may have to vote against because it is a confidence motion. That is one of the other nuances of our rules that perhaps we should be looking at, but that is the effect of calling for a vote.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has identified a problem that we are confronted with from time to time.
As he knows and I think much to our pleasure, the House is master of its own destiny. With unanimous consent we can agree to virtually anything we want in terms of proceeding with business.
It would be my intent at the appropriate time next week, after consultations with members, to put the question that we seek unanimous consent so that we will not consider the vote next Wednesday to be a vote of confidence.
I think that would be a way, if I can help the hon. minister, to get around this dilemma.


Harvie Andre: Without carrying on this debate on the floor of the House of Commons, that does not help the government as the hon. member knows.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: My question is also to the government House leader.
As the minister is well aware, I wrote to him and raised in the House the issue of the royal commission on election expenses and election financing. Presumably it will be reporting to the government very soon and presumably to the public at an early date.
I wonder if the government has made any arrangements for the House of Commons to deal with and study the proposed legislation that will be part of that royal commission's report.


Harvie Andre: I have not yet. I have had some preliminary discussions with House leaders opposite and will be making a firm proposal in that regard shortly, perhaps even tomorrow.
The report of the royal commission will be distributed one day next week. The only reason for not knowing that day is in the interests of all Canadians having access to it at the same time. It needs to be transported around the country.

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
As soon as I have established when that can be done, I will announce to the House the release of the report and how it is going to be treated.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to put a question to the government House leader on House business.
With respect to the commitment that the government made some six years ago to amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act a commitment which has been reiterated in a couple of Speeches from the Throne, I would like to ask the government House leader if he can indicate to the House when the government intends to bring forward these long overdue amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
These are amendments which affect the physically and mentally disabled in the area of reasonable accommodation. They are amendments which affect the lesbian and gay community in the area of sexual orientation. When will the government finally move forward on these long overdue amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act?


Harvie Andre: This question period usually deals with the business for next week and it will not be next week.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to comment upon statements and remarks made earlier in this House by the member for Calgary Southwest.
Last evening, the Canadian Genetic Disease Network announced that Dr. Robert Korneluk of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, one of the network's 23 principal investigators, has isolated the genetic defect responsible for myotonic dystrophy.
This is one of a series of genetic discoveries in Canada. The last three have been made by members of this specific network, created in 1989, the network of Centres of Excellence.
In this case, the network provided $450,000 to that research.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all members would have no disagreement with what the hon. minister is saying and what the member for Calgary Southwest said earlier today and also what the member for Sault Ste. Marie said about the discovery and the scientist who made the discovery. My difficulty is procedural.
The hon. minister is getting very close to a minister's statement. If the House wishes to allow the minister to proceed, I would let him.
Mr Riis: Although it obviously is not a point of order, it is an important issue to which I think all sides would wish to make a comment. May I suggest as a way out that for tomorrow under Routine Proceedings, at the time of ministerial statements, the minister take some time and make a proper statement and that would allow others to make a response as well.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the proposal that has just been made. Certainly our party would want to join in any such statement. We were not given any prior notice that this would be coming up at this particular time.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my strong voice for that approach. This is a non-partisan issue and I think all sides of the House must participate in the tribute and appreciation.


William C. Winegard: I would be happy to do that except tomorrow at this time I will be speaking to members of the research community about this particular incident.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the hon. minister, and he has certainly seen the response, there is a disposition in the House to extend congratulations from all members, obviously. If the minister cannot be here, he may want to make some other arrangement with another minister, but it really is a very appropriate circumstance for a minister's statement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the third time and passed.
February 6, 1992
Svend Johannes Robinson: At one o'clock when the House adjourned, I was pointing out that for me, particularly as a member of Parliament from British Columbia, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this very important debate on the government's proposed cutbacks on basic and fundamental financial support to the people of British Columbia.
Late last year, the Vancouver city caucus of elected representatives met in the city of Vancouver. The Vancouver city caucus is a group of elected representatives, chaired by the mayor of Vancouver, Gordon Campbell, and is made up of members of city council, the school board, provincial elected representatives and all five of the federal members of Parliament from the city of Vancouver.
At that city caucus meeting, we heard from speaker after speaker that one of the most critical issues facing the city of Vancouver and the people of British Columbia was the cutback by this Conservative government on the commitments it had made under the Canada Assistance Plan.
We know that the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that this particular attempt to betray a commitment that had been made to the people of British Columbia was illegal. Unfortunately, that decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
One of the major reasons that we in the New Democratic Party so strongly support a social charter, a charter that sets out the fundamental values that shape this country in economic, social and cultural terms, is that hopefully such a charter and the existence of such a charter would prevent this kind of betrayal from taking place.
We are seeing the people of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario particularly the victims of Bill C-32, being punished for the bankrupt economic policies of the Conservative government.
We have seen a series of these policies, whether it be the trade deal or other. I remember very well during the election of 1988 when the Conservative Prime Minister travelled across the land saying: "There are going to be hundreds of thousands of new jobs created by the trade deal". Members of this House will remember that.
Instead of creating new jobs in this country the trade deal resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs right across this land. As well, we have seen the erosion in social services and the attacks under way on marketing boards in this country. As a result of the trade deal there is now the suggestion that Canada
Government Orders
should go even further, that we should enter into a trade deal with the United States and Mexico.
That would be the end of any kind of manufacturing sector in this country. The cheap labour in the Maquiladora zone in Mexico obviously would be a magnet which would result in the effective shutting down of Canadian industry.
What we see in Bill C-32 is part of a trend by this Conservative government to off-load its responsibilities as a national government on to provincial governments. We have seen the impact of that in the province of Ontario in which the New Democratic government of Ontario has very courageously said that it will not be the poorest and the most vulnerable to pay the price of this government's economic policies.
We are seeing it in British Columbia where since 1982 some $1.1 billion has been off-loaded as a result of the policies, both of the Conservative government and of the previous Liberal federal government. This amounts to some 67 per cent of the estimated 1991-92 budget deficit of $1.7 billion. It is the victims of this government's economic policies who are being asked to pay the price.
We know that as unemployment insurance benefits run out, people turn in despair to welfare. That is the only thing they have left. I have met with many of the employees of Versatile Pacific Shipyards in my constituency, men who have worked there for 25, 30 or 35 years and are proud of the work they do. Yet, as a result of this government's economic policies, Versatile Pacific has thrown these people out of work. Their unemployment insurance has expired and now they are on the welfare rolls. This government's policies mean that there are going to be less and less funds available to help those who are most desperate and who are most in need. Who are they? They are children. The people most affected by these policies, by this cap on the CAP, are children. We know that children are the greatest recipients of social assistance.

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
We know that this government's policies will mean that the Prime Minister's promises at the United Nations children's summit are very hollow when the policies that attack children result in even more poverty and result in more line-ups at food banks.
We know that shelters for battered women are funded under the Canada Assistance Plan, and funds for these shelters are being cut back. We know that the already desperate circumstances of people living with AIDS, people with HIV, are being made worse as a result of the cutbacks in the Canada Assistance Plan. Some members of this House will remember the government promising with great fanfare a national child care program. Where is it? It is nowhere to be found. Another casualty of this government's appalling economic policies.
What are the alternatives? The government is clearly saying that it does not have enough money. The fact of the matter is that if this government would bring in a fair tax system, it would have the revenues necessary to ensure that the scourge of children living in poverty is put to an end. The poverty of women, particularly single parents, could be put to an end.
The member for Mississauga asks what kind of taxes we are talking about. I will tell the member for Mississauga. In 1986 there were 89,000 corporations which paid not one penny in income tax despite the fact that they recorded collective profits of $22 billion.
I will tell the hon. member that the Canadian banks have had one of the most successful records in history in this country. Are they paying their fair share in taxes? No way.
Instead of attacking children and instead of attacking the poorest and the most vulnerable in Canada, why does this government not get tough with the banks, with the wealthy, with the corporate elite who for too long have not paid their fair share? In fact from 1986 to 1989 corporate taxes went down 20 per cent under Conservative government policies and their profits in that same period of time went up by 34 per cent. Where is the fairness in that?
This is the same government that brings in policies cutting back on the Canada Assistance Plan which is a plan that was brought into existence to ensure that the poor, the most vulnerable, those living on social assistance were entitled to live with some decency, some
dignity and some sense of economic security. This government's policies are attacking that.
We know as well that this government's policies have resulted in an erosion of the quality of health care and post-secondary education in British Columbia. The cutbacks under the EPF, the Established Programs Financing Act, under Bill C-69 and other programs have meant that the share of the federal government in post-secondary education and health care has declined dramatically. In fact the cash component under this Conservative government is going to disappear entirely within the next decade.
I see it in my own constituency. I see the effect of these cuts at the B.C. Institute of Technology, at Simon Fraser University, on students attending Douglas College and others. There are programs which are victims of this government's attacks under the EPF and the Canada Assistance Plan.
Surely it is time that Parliament said to this government that enough is enough. The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is increasing. The number of people on social assistance in British Columbia and elsewhere is going up instead of down and this government is cutting back on its fundamental obligations under the Canada Assistance Plan to ensure that those programs are properly funded.
In conclusion, I want to say again that we as New Democrats reject this bill and the approach of this government which is victimizing those who are poorest and most vulnerable. We know it is happening at the international level as well. I see it happening in the city of Vancouver and in the province of British Columbia. It is time for a new government which puts people first instead of banks and the corporate elite.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I know the Speaker wants to pursue something which arose this morning and he will be in the House momentarily. I will recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South but I will tell him that he may be interrupted momentarily.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to speak long or completely, but I want to point out that the obligation of government is to use the resources that we collect from the people of Canada to pay the bills of Canada.
This bill rations that money.
February 6, 1992


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 AGRICULTURE-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member would do a courtesy to the Chair to let me interrupt him. It does not happen often but I have to deal with another matter.
There was an application made earlier today for an emergency debate by the hon. member for Algoma. As members know, the consequence of discussions earlier this afternoon related to the usual Thursday afternoon question and an allotted day has been set for next week. The hon. member for Kamloops has indicated that the subject of the application for the emergency debate will be the subject of the allotted day debate. This was brought on immediately today by the hon. member for Algoma and had been brought on earlier in the week by others, including the hon. member for Mackenzie. As a consequence, I would of course be bound by the stricture on the Speaker that in cases where there is an application for an emergency debate and there is another available opportunity for hearing it, it would not be appropriate to go ahead with the order.
Clearly the debate on Wednesday on the subject matter of the application puts that stricture on the Speaker and I do not need to deal further with the application for the emergency debate.
Throughout this entire matter I thank all hon. members and I thank the hon. government House leader this afternoon for his disposition of the matter.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-21, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the third time and passed.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, when I was speaking earlier, I suggested that the job of government is to take the scarce resources that
Government Orders
government can raise in taxation and try to manage those scarce resources as best as possible.
This bill increases the transfer of money to the Canada Assistance Plan by 5 per cent over and above what it would normally be. Bear in mind that inflation is now likely to be 1 per cent or 2 per cent this year. Possibly it could be as high as 3 per cent, but in most cases it is likely to be more like 2 per cent or less. This is a very substantial and real increase in the transfer of money from a government coffer that is exceedingly poor.
Anyone who reads the material coming available will know that tax revenues in the country are off about $8 billion, yet this government is still able to make a very substantial increase in transfers to provincial governments to solve problems.
The Canada Assistance Plan is a vital and important program for Canada to try to look after those people who for want of a job, for want of opportunity, for want of education, for want of many things have difficulty in looking after all of their responsibilities themselves. That there are a lot of people in our country who need help is taken for granted.
What we have to do as government is ration our scarce reserves and this bill attempts to do that in a realistic fashion. I am indeed surprised that the opposition would filibuster this bill as it has now for three days to try to hammer home some point to throw all caution to the wind and just pay and pay and pay without paying attention to the fact that this bill makes a substantial increase over and above inflation. This is a real increase in the amount of scarce money that can be applied.
The previous speaker spoke of Versatile Pacific and how that company went broke. A lot of companies have gone broke. They have had to restructure and they cannot make it together. Corporate profits in this year are as low as they have been historically since the very worst time in the Great Depression. It is less than 5 per cent on average. The effect is that proposals to beat up business by the New Democratic Party are only proposals designed to force on more unemployment.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is what they are doing in Ontario.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Indeed that is what they are doing in Ontario. Their whole game in Ontario was spend the system broke. We did not have $341 billion of outstanding market debt. If we were not using 35 per cent or 36 per cent of the tax revenues we receive just to pay interest, perhaps we would have more money to make

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
those transfers that are obviously needed. What we need to have is some sensibility from this House of Commons.
I think it is the responsibility of members to stand and speak not of the problems but of the solutions. The suggestion of a solution to beat up on corporate taxes by grabbing and taking and making sure that companies cannot exist and go broke is really not much of a solution. It only adds to the problem.
Adding to the debt only adds to the problem because the debt must be carried. It is about time we had some solutions other than the cry of demand and the complaint of cutback. There is no cutback here. There is a substantial increase of transfer over and above inflation at a time when government revenues are suffering and suffering greater than they have for a long period of time.
It is time we had some responsible comment from the New Democratic Party members and not crazy rhetoric. They ought to know better and if they do not know better then the people of Canada ought to listen closely to them and see what a wreck they are making of Ontario and maybe they will make the same wreck of their province of British Columbia. Who knows? I can say to you, Madam Speaker, that you cannot spend yourself rich.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, this is the third time I am speaking on this bill. This is something I do not usually do. I feel if you have spoken once on the subject, you have had your say. The damages that this bill will do to our country are so great, however, I feel that I must speak even a third time. Somehow this government is not listening.
I would not mind if the government did not listen to the Official Opposition of this House. I would not mind if this government would not listen to the New Democratic Party. But I do mind, and I am angry as hell, when this government has stopped listening to Canadians. It has stopped listening to Canadians coast to coast to coast.
The government members experienced this during the winter break just as we did. I am sure they took the opportunity as I did to go and visit the businesses in then-area and talk to the people in their area. They would get the true picture of what this country has come down to
after seven years of Tory government. I used to hear. "Tbry times are tough times". I certainly believe it now.
I canvassed the businesses along some of the main streets in Toronto: King Street, Queen Street, Dufferin and Dundas. It is a little scary to see five or six stores closed. The windows are boarded up. Some are for lease and some for sale because of the damage of the recession. It is scary.
I looked up a small business that employed 50 people. It was a firm which imported fabric from Pakistan and Poland to make napkins and tablecloths. During the 1988 election that company warned me: "Mr. Flis, if the government brings in the free trade agreement, I will not survive". Out of interest I went to this firm to see how it was doing and to compliment the firm. I went there. The doors were closed. The firm did not survive the free trade agreement.
The businesses which are hanging in tell me they have lost 30 to 50 per cent of their revenues over last year.
I ask what the cause is. What is happening? Why are you losing business, why are you going under? Some who are still in business say they are just hanging in, but if this recession lasts much longer, they are going under as well.
I think the minister led Canadian businesses astray when almost a year ago he said that the recession was over. People built up their hopes. "Oh, well, if the recession is almost over I think I can hang in there. I will invest a little more, et cetera". A year later the recession is not over. The government fooled the people.
Getting back to the causes, one cause was the mismanagement of this government; the second cause was the free trade agreement; the third cause was the GST) and then just an over-all frustration. Many businesses would tell me to tell the government to stop taxing them to death. They felt it was the over-taxation that was killing their businesses.
I said to them that we have a great country here, we have built in certain social safety nets, we have an excellent medicare system, an excellent education system. Someone has to pay for that. The government has to get revenue to pay for these things. What is your solution? Again, their solution was to stop taxing them to death. They want the government to put money into people's pockets, quickly, now, not a year from now. They also said build up confidence. The people who have the money are afraid to spend it. They are afraid to spend it because they do not know whether they will have a job next week or next month. The people who

have the money are not spending it because of the lack of confidence created by this government in this country. The ones who do not have the money cannot spend something they do not have.
It was very rewarding for me to talk to people from all walks of life, going into the garages and seeing how hard the mechanic was working over his motor, going into the back of the restaurants to see how hard the people were working just to make ends meet. Some people would apologize because their hands were soiled and they did not want to shake hands with their MP. I said they never had to apologize for dirty hands. It is those kinds of hands that built this country to what it is today.
I offer the government what I heard on the streets during the winter break, and I am sure it is what the Conservative members heard also. As I said earlier, they have stopped listening.
From there my assistant and I then dropped in to one of our larger Canada employment offices right on Bloor Street. Another frightening picture was to see the Canada employment office packed with people just before Christmas. They were lining up for various things, unemployment insurance, lining up because someone lost a social insurance number and was making application, lining up because of Canada Employment and Immigration disputes or conflicts.
Again, it was revealing to talk to these people while they were standing in line. They had a certain amount of satisfaction and security because they were lining up to apply for their unemployment insurance. Many of them spoke to me with almost fear on their faces because they were afraid of what would happen to them when their UI revenues would run out: "Mr. Flis, what am I going to do when I exhaust my UI? I want to work. I have tried 200 firms. No one will take me." That is when the fear starts coming in. What will happen when that safety network of UI and then social assistance runs out? This is where panic sets in, this is where psychological depression sets in.
My constituency office, like many members' offices, has become an employment agency. People who have been working 10 years, people who have had businesses
Government Orders
and are now unemployed are coming to their member of Parliament and asking: "Mr. Flis, can you help me get something? I will take any work, but I will not go on welfare".
Many Canadians are so proud that they will not go on welfare. They want to help themselves. They want to work. Again, this government is not allowing this.
Following this kind of talking and listening to the people in Parkdale-High Park, I brought all of their concerns to the three-day caucus meeting the national Liberal caucus had in Ottawa prior to the opening of the House of Commons on February 3.
Each member shared what he or she heard from people in their ridings. Based on what we heard, the Liberal Party came up with a five-point economic recovery plan. I will not waste the time of the House to repeat it because it has been repeated over, over and over here.
We are pleased that the government already implemented one of our recommendations, the 5 per cent down payment, et cetera. We are just waiting and hoping that it will implement the other four, especially the infrastructure one. If it does not, the doom and gloom will lead to violence and civil disobedience.
I just want to share with this House that the people in Parkdale-High Park have called in the Guardian Angels, some from the United States, to come and help them supervise the streets. They feel that the streets are not safe any more.
I disagree with them. I object. I go on public record. I object to any Guardian Angels coming in and telling us how to supervise our streets. In metropolitan Toronto we have the best police force in Canada. People feel secure with its supervision, its policing. We do not need any Guardian Angels from any U.S. city.
We have nothing to learn from United States cities. Our cities are still relatively safe and pleasant places to live. I hope the government will listen to our five-point economic recovery plan.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to just put a few words on the record as they relate to this bill.

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
The general thrust of the Government of Canada is to cut existing programs, programs that affect our education, our health and our social security. I would like to put on the record that the Government of Canada has a double standard here.
Over the past year, the Government of Canada has given up more income than I have seen since I became a member of Parliament several years ago.
Let me put on the record two incredible changes that took place in the Income Tax Act. In the past year, the law was changed in relation to deferred taxes that were supposed to be paid to the Government of Canada.


An hon. member:: What are deferred taxes?


George Baker: The hon. member wants to know what a deferred tax is.
I am going to explain to the hon. member exactly what happened and he will remember exactly what I am talking about.
Back in 1972 the Liberal government changed the law in relation to moneys that were collected through what was then called the estate tax, which imposed a sliding tax on wealthy, rich inheritances. That was replaced by a capital gains tax.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You stopped the loophole.


George Baker: If the hon. member listens he might learn something. The capital gains tax was brought in to replace the estate tax. It was 50 per cent of the rate charged on normal income. There was a provision in the law at that time to protect the Government of Canada against the moneys that would have normally been paid on capital gains but not moneys that were held in private trusts. The rule was called the 21-year rule. Now the hon. member knows what I am talking about. Now he knows what I am going to say.
The 21-year rule was that although a trust never dies, although a trust goes on indefinitely, regarding the capital gains that were held in those trusts, the taxes that would have normally been paid, that were paid by every small businessman in this country, that were paid by every construction man in this country, by everybody who built houses, who contributed something to the economy, they all had to pay up on their capital gains tax. They
all paid up because the law is the way it is in Canada and nobody is disputing it. There was a provision that there would be a 21-year period and then those capital gains that had piled up, those taxes that would have normally been paid, were in a private trust and they could not be collected, but at the end of 21 years they would come due to the Government of Canada.
We can imagine how much money is in private trusts in Canada.


An hon. member:: Very little.


George Baker: The hon. member says very little in private trusts. He should read the Department of Finance's breakdown for 1986. The end of the 21 years is the end of this year and all of those taxes that were normally paid on capital gains would have accumulated and would be payable on the 21st year. Do you know what the Government of Canada did in this Chamber? The hon. member does not like hearing it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It stopped the alternation of the trust.


George Baker: It altered the rule. It threw out the 21-year rule. It threw it out. What did it replace it with? It said: "Those taxes can be further delayed and they become payable with the death of the youngest member of that family". By any estimate, the hon. member would ask how many years that would put off the taxes-30 years, 40 years, 60 years; massive sums of money due the Government of Canada from people who have so much money that they just do not have to move it, they can tuck it away in private trusts.
The Government of Canada changed the law and said: "You do not have to pay that now". Out goes the 21-year rule because it is up at the end of this year 1972 and 21 makes 1993.
My time is short but I will make reference to one other thing that really bothers me. It concerns the change to section 67.5 of the Income Tkx Act that deals with what qualifies for a deduction in entertainment. Do you know what the Government of Canada did? Did anybody ever look at why we have such a substantial increase in the amounts of money claimed under entertainment deductions on income tax returns?
Normally it goes this way. If you entertain a person for business purposes and you are trying to sell a product or
February 6, 1992

you are trying to sell your business, certain costs are legitimate. For example, people can write off the cost of their expensive meals. They can write off the cost of their big booze parties if they wish. They could have written off the cost of their yachts up to 1987. They can write off many things that in the normal running of a business is recognized by the business community as being a legitimate expense.
Consider what the Government of Canada did last month in December. There were tax lawyers and accountants asking National Revenue: "Does this qualify? Does that qualify? How far can I go here? Can I buy a helicopter?" What did the government do in answer to all the accountants and tax lawyers in Canada who had a legitimate concern? The tax lawyers and the accountants needed to know. They needed to have some direction. The general rule was if it was not listed as an exemption in the Income Tax Act then you could claim it. They kept saying: "How far can we go?" The Government of Canada determined it in December of this year. It brought in a change to the act and said that you can go as far as the Criminal Code of Canada.


An hon. member:: Shame.


George Baker: It said it was closing a loophole. So you ask a question.


An hon. member:: In practice.


George Baker: In practice does an escort service count as a legitimate deduction? What is the reason for this substantial increase in the entertainment deductions?
The Government of Canada says that you can go as far as the Criminal Code of Canada in taking money from the public purse. It has our poor taxpayers pay the bill and says to them: "You pay the GST so that we can pass along this money to certain people who spend money on booze and escort services".
The Government of Canada should be thoroughly ashamed of itself and explain to the Canadian people why it did it.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to follow the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls. His eloquence never
Government Orders
fails to amaze me. It must be something in the maritime blood indeed.
I would like to add a few of my comments with regard to Bill C-32.1 do honestly believe that this is a bad piece of legislation. This is an immoral piece of legislation. This is legislation that should never be.
Bill C-32 allows for the extension of the five per cent limit on the funds available through the Canada Assistance Plan for the provinces of Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, which is my home province. Everyone will remember of course that some time ago Bill C-69 capped at 5 per cent the increases for federal funding assistance until 1992. The bill we have before us, Bill C-32, extends that cap up to the year 1995.
The Canada Assistance Plan is really the only mechanism or means through which the federal government funds social assistance and social services to the provinces. By extending the cap or the limit on the increases to the three provinces I have named, B.C., Alberta and Ontario, this government has been making the economic downturn significantly worse in those provinces. This is particularly so for the unemployed and those Canadians who are off unemployment insurance and require the assistance that is available through the Canada Assistance Plan.
This is the wrong way to go. We are hurting our lowest income people, those who can least afford it and are least able to defend themselves. It is simply unjust in a society such as ours that we take this kind of direction that is evidenced in this government's fiscal policies particularly with respect to this bill before us.
I want to say that every single witness who came before the finance committee on this legislation urged the government to withdraw this bill because of its harmful impact.
In British Columbia, despite the fact that we have just had a recent election of a new government, social assistance recipients cannot afford to eat a decent meal. I know it is doing all it can to reverse this trend. Welfare payments to a family of four in British Columbia fell short some $18.30 a month for food alone. That means no money for toiletries, for transportation, for clothing

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
or for recreation,. There is not even the basic allowance to put food on the table. This bill has made things that much worse for those people.
Families and children rely on the Canada Assistance Plan which this bill wants to handicap. To those people the Canada Assistance Plan is a virtual lifeline. It is largely through no fault of their own, but as some people are simply being victimized by the economic consequences in this country, their means of livelihood has become welfare.
What this government has done is it has introduced measures in the name of fiscal restraint that says the rich provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario can afford to pay the extra money that should be going to the Canada Assistance Plan. They can afford to make up the shortfall. The federal government will withdraw the extra funding. Freeze it. Put a cap on it and the provinces can make up the shortfall.
This bill is symbolic of the philosophical direction that this government has taken. It is wanting to devolve these kinds of services such as the Established Programs Financing for post-secondary education and health care and the Canada Assistance Plan. Those are the kinds of important funding mechanisms that allow the provinces to provide the quality social programs that they have been providing. The government is withdrawing from its funding support of those mechanisms. That is simply wrong. Canadians do not agree with that kind of direction that the government is taking.
I want to say that as a result of this cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, Ontario alone this year fell $900 million short. It was $900 million short.


An hon. member:: Is that not next year?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: My colleague says that it is next year. I believe that the figures are estimated over the fiscal year. We may be talking fiscal and calendar years.
Nine hundred million dollars is an incredible amount of money when you think about it. One of the reasons that the government in Ontario has had such a tough time in dealing with its rising deficit is because this federal government has pulled the plug on poor people and unemployed people in the province of Ontario. It has pulled the plug and the Ontario government has had to try to make up that shortfall.
I want to turn to a report that comes from the Government of British Columbia on the cost of the federal off-loading to British Columbia as a result of the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.
These off-loading measures have really gone back over quite a few years as a result of the combined policies of the previous Liberal administration and now this administration. The combined effect will be some $1.1 billion in extra provincial payments that the province of British Columbia has to make good on by
1991-92.
This is an equivalent of some 67 per cent of the budget deficit that British Columbia is experiencing in the current fiscal year. This is 67 per cent of the deficit of $1.7 billion. It is just as a result of the fact that this government is not maintaining and honouring its legislative commitment to the people of British Columbia.
I want to add also that if these current off-loading measures that are going on through this kind of legislation continue in the first year of the next century by the year 2000, the fiscal impact on the province of British Columbia will be some $32.7 billion.
The B.C. report also notes that the Canada Assistance Plan is there to assist not governments but people. By withdrawing its fiscal support, this government is neglecting the people of British Columbia not the Government of British Columbia. It is trying to do the best it can to make up for the shortfall that has been caused by this government's insensitivity.
In 1991-92, $166 million will be lost to British Columbia due to the 5 per cent growth ceiling of the past legislation. As a result of this legislation which extends that freeze, it is going to make a shortfall in the Canada Assistance Plan alone by some $1 billion in 1994-95.
I know my time is limited, but I want to say on behalf of the citizens in my province of British Columbia and the citizens of my constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap that the government through this legislation is abandoning the less fortunate individuals not only in British Columbia but also throughout Canada.
The legislation is wrong. It is immoral and it should be withdrawn.

February 6, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bonavista-Ttin-ity-Conception-Fisheries; the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-Fisheries; the hon. member for Nepean-Indonesia; the hon. member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso-Rail Passenger Service; and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell- Canada Post.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, I also wish to participate in Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, third reading.
I would like to outline some of the concerns that I see within my own riding. This is the second time I have risen and spoken on this situation that the government is creating. I want to also make a few comments with regard to what the member for Mississauga South had to say because he does chair the finance committee and I know the background he has. It appears that he seems very biased in his comments toward the corporations and has very little concern for the well-being of the unfortunates and the people who need the help the most.
During the 1988 election campaign, the free trade agreement was the big thing that the government was talking about. There is no doubt in my mind, and all of the people I have talked to throughout not only my riding but across the country, that the actions this government is taking with regard to Bill C-32 and the capping of our social programs is an attack on the universality of our social programs.
The Prime Minister during the last election stated that our social programs were a sacred trust that would be protected by his government and the free trade agreement would not affect them. The actions this government is taking have everything to do with the free trade agreement. The cutbacks we have seen in the unemployment insurance and the changes to the unemployment insurance, the changes with regard to the various equalization payments, post-secondary education and those kinds of things are seen as subsidies. This government is
Government Orders
starting to set the wheels in motion to affect those very programs. To be capping the Canada Assistance Plan during these economic times-at Christmas I went out and visited the food banks throughout my riding and saw the line-ups-you should be ashamed of yourselves. Every one of your members should be standing up here and saying: "My goodness, we have serious economic times and this is not a time to attack the people who need the help the most".
I want to refer to some things that are going to be happening. I want to alert the people before the government brings in the budget. I saw an article on February 5: "The Canadian Manufacturers' Association makes a push for $2 billion in tax breaks". It is lobbying the federal government. It goes on: "Up to $2 billion a year in tax breaks to business should be contained in the upcoming federal budget, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said yesterday".
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association's pre-budget submission also called on the Minister of Finance to chop social spending because of Ottawa's hefty debt.
My goodness, we have seen the amount of unemployed. We have seen the food banks and the problems they are having trying to serve these people. Here we have the Manufacturers' Association coming to the federal government and requesting $2 billion extra, but cut social programs. It will be interesting to the Canadian people to see what this government does with that request because we do know it is closely associated with this government and this government lends a very close ear to its proposals.
At the same time, in the same paper I read: "Too poor, lowest income disabled missed the tax breaks". While these kinds of tax breaks are being made available to large corporations which the member for Mississauga South seems to defend and help as a way of dealing with it, more than one-quarter of severely disabled Canadians earn so little that they get nothing from the federal disability tax credit. The finance department admits in a report contained under the Access to Information: "We estimate that 26.5 per cent of the severely disabled population are unable to claim any amount of tax credits because they have no federal tax payable".
Is it any wonder that the Canadian people are starting to question the actions of this government?

February 6, 1992
Government Orders
We see the unemployed lining up and trying to obtain their unemployment insurance benefits and finding out under the new legislation that they have been cut back on their eligibility. We see the social assistance programs being cut back, the funding to the post-secondary education programs being cut back with no way to try to support those kinds of things. This government sits here and says nothing, and does nothing to try to alleviate those kinds of things.
The major platform of Ed Broadbent, our leader in the 1980s, during the 1980 election, the 1984 election, and the 1988 election, in which I was also involved, was federal, provincial, municipal programs to spur our economy. The Liberals had a one-day meeting here in Ottawa three or four days ago and came up with the idea that it is their idea.
I want to say that it is an excellent idea because what we have here is a proposal that we can work with the municipalities as federal, provincial and municipal governments to invest in our municipalities during times of depression, to upgrade our sewer systems and our various systems to bring them on stream. It is an investment. It is not a debt. That is an investment that we are going to have to carry out to meet the environmental problems that we have across Canada. It would meet the needs of many of these people under the Canada Assistance Plan. They are there in those communities throughout Canada and they could be employed in a meaningful way which everyone of them I am sure wants to be.
This government came in and said it is not going to address those problems, it is going to cap it so less is available. It will ensure that the programs brought in are more concerned with what happens to the interest rate and what happens to the Canadian dollar. It is more concerned with that than with the people it represents.
That is not good enough and the Canadian people are not going to accept that. Enough misery has been added to the Canadian people with the goods and services tax, with the various programs that have been cut back. They have had enough and it is time that this government changed its direction and not wait until just before the election and then come out with a bunch of goodies to try to change the devastation it has caused across this country.
I heard the member from GANDER-GRAND FALLS state in his question this afternoon that this government should go to Siberia. I think that many people here would agree. In my view maybe we should not put that kind of stress on that country which has enough problems already.
Let us make sure that we get the government out of here because it has done enough damage.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak to Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, before I get into the substance of my remarks I want to comment briefly on the earlier interjection during the debate by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
He had the temerity to suggest that Bill C-32 was a piece of legislation which would increase the government's contribution by 5 per cent. He knows better.
The government is putting a limit on an agreed upon increase at a time when as a result of the government's policies, of which he is a member and a supporter, those welfare lines and social assistance lines are climbing out of proportion to the norm.
The member for Mississauga South and his Conservative colleagues are saying to the increasing numbers of people who are being forced to line up in soup lines, in food bank lines and in social assistance lines, after the first five people: "Sony, the rest of you 95 are out of here, even though we are responsible in large part for putting you in this line-up."
How that member can suggest that is offering something by this legislation I will never know. The hon. gentleman can be pretty clever at times, but he is a little off base this time around.
Bill C-32 allows for the extension of the 5 per cent limit on the Canada Assistance Plan for the provinces of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario. Bill C-69 capped at 5 per cent the federal funding increases until 1992 and Bill C-32 extends the cap up to 1995. The Canada Assistance Plan is the only mechanism by which the federal government funds social assistance and social services.
Like one of my colleagues previously, I want to comment just briefly on how this and similar measures by
February 6, 1992

this Conservative government have cost many of the citizens of my home province of British Columbia very dearly.
Recently, on February 4, the Government of British Columbia released a brief produced by the B.C. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations concerning the financial toll of federal cuts to transfer payments, the Established Programs Financing for health and post-secondary education and the Canada Assistance Plan and other programs. The paper details the actions of past Liberal and Conservative federal governments and the impact they have had on the B.C. budget.
The combined effect on B.C. of off-loading measures implemented since 1982 will be $1.1 billion in 1991-92, which is equivalent to 67 per cent of the estimated
1991-92 budget deficit of $1.7 billion. If the current off-loading continues to the first year of the new century, the negative fiscal impact on B.C. will be $32.7 billion.
Regarding the Established Programs Financing, the action taken earlier, the impact of Liberal and Tory changes over the years to the EPF funding formula, will result in B.C. losing $6.8 billion by the end of 1994-95.
Regarding the Canada Assistance Plan, the B.C. report notes that Canada Assistance Plan benefits are used to assist people, not governments. In 1991-92, $166 million will be lost to B.C. due to the 5 per cent gross ceiling and more than $1 billion will be lost by 1994-95.
With those kinds of figures, it is no wonder many people in western Canada, particularly in the province of British Columbia, are wondering just what is in it for them. It does not lead to the kind of understanding that there ought to be when we are attempting to form a new Constitution and a new relationship between the various parts of Canada.
The government has introduced these measures in the name of fiscal restraint and says that it is only the rich provinces that are affected and can afford the cap. The fact is that 50 per cent of Canada's poor live in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. The people in these provinces are as poor as those anywhere else in Canada. If you are poor, you are poor.
The very provinces that are affected by the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan are attractive provinces for
Government Orders
those looking for work to move to, but when work is not available many of them must go on social assistance, placing an even larger burden on the welfare rolls in those provinces proportionately to those going on the welfare rolls in others.
A June 1991 Statistics Canada study shows that the large increase in the federal debt over the past 15 years was not caused by increases in program spending, as the Conservatives have alleged. That study examining the growth of the federal debt from $56 billion in 1974-75 to over $400 billion at the end of 1989-90 concludes: "It was not explosive growth and program spending that caused the increase in deficits after 1975, but a drop in federal revenues relative to the growth of the GDP and rising debt charges".
To go on: "Broadly speaking, government program spending as a share of gross domestic product did not rise significantly from 1975-in fact, it moderated compared to the preceding 10 years. Excluding unemployment insurance, which is intended to be self-financing over the business cycle, social program spending has not increased relative to GDP over the last 16 years".
In spite of the claims made by Conservatives and members on that side of the House, who tend to give weight to the mythology that it is program spending, especially social program spending, that has been largely to blame for the federal debt and use the backlash created by those kinds of statements to support their current cuts in social programs, particularly programs like the Canada Assistance Plan, facts from Statistics Canada show demonstrably that it is simply not true.
This is just one example of the social and fiscal irresponsibility on the part of successive federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative. Bill C-32 is just another example of how this government has decided to place the burden of paying off the debt on the shoulders of those who can least afford it.


An hon. member:: Just like the NDP is doing in Ontario.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, some member keeps referring to Ontario. There is a big "O", a big zero, at the beginning of Ontario and I would suggest that is where that member is. If you had taken the zeros who managed to create a terrible debt burden at a time when the economy was still growing out of Ontario,

Government Orders
nobody would have the kind of problems in Canada that we currently have.
Another problem this government is now attempting to deal with, in a rather mischievous way, stems from the ever growing debt burden that has been created since the end of the Second World War, and it was not a result of program spending. As I said before, it had much more to do with the perversions in the tax structure the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party were responsible for over many years.
For example, in 1950 direct tax revenue from both the personal and corporate sectors was approximately equal, and together they covered some three-quarters of current federal expenditures. By 1988 personal taxes had risen from 35 per cent to 47 per cent of government expenditures and corporate taxes had declined from the 1951 high of 40 per cent to only 9 per cent of government expenditures, as shown on the accompanying chart. I will supply that to Hansard. In other words, the corporate sector has managed to curtail its relative tax liability by almost 75 per cent since 1950. In 1988 terms, if the corporate sector tax contribution had matched that of personal taxpayers instead of a budget deficit of $30 billion, Ottawa would have realized a surplus of some $18.5 billion. In other words, the government could have targeted the cause but it did not. Now the poorest Canadians are paying the price.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that Bill C-32 is just another attack by the Tbries on social programs which the government claims it is making in the name of fiscal restraint. It is clear that this move is about politics, not money. These political moves amount to more breaks for the Tbries' wealthy friends and a consequent life of poverty and hunger for millions of Canadians who are being squeezed and broken by the weight of high taxes with a tattered social safety net beneath them.
In my own riding of Kootenay West-Revelstoke people are suffering. This government is making it worse. It is time it had a second thought, retreated, withdrew this bill and turned its policies around to give some hope to the people of Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the Chief Opposition Whip has asked for the division to be deferred.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), division of the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday at six o'clock p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 22,1991, consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre), that Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I will only be speaking for a short time on this bill because, as our House leader said in previous debate,
February 6, 1992

this bill is basically a technical bill in which we are cleaning up loose ends on several other bills that have been through committee and through the House. These basically are just minor modifications.
I wanted to speak to this bill from the point of view of someone who is not a lawyer. Sometimes when I listen to debates in this House I think most Canadians get a feeling that they do not understand what it has to do with the problems and priorities of the marketplace.
As we said earlier this week on our first day back, the number one issue, the number one concern in this country today is trying to get people back to work. Then we see a bill like this on our legislative agenda in which we are addressing over 60 to 70 different statutes. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that addresses the priorities of the population at large.
Earlier today the government House leader said that he would be prepared to listen to recommendations from the opposition side for using this national Chamber for debate on matters of special importance. I think that was a major breakthrough. It is the first time I have heard that kind of accommodation from the government House leader. Quite frankly, it is part of the reason why I will not be spending a lot of time on this bill. He has addressed my concern that we should spend very little time on technical bills like this because they do absolutely nothing to address the priorities of the economic agenda which is so important and which the people of Canada want us to address today.
Also, as I was going through some of the amendments that were being addressed in this bill, some of the statutes that were being repealed, I see things in here like the Canadian Unity Information Office which is finally being abolished. I see things like the final memory of Lotto-Canada, the final memory of many of these railway institutions from region to region, coast to coast. I am reminded once again of what makes my vision or my feeling of this country different from the government side.
Government Orders
As I was going through the index of all the amendments that are being made, I saw further examples and memories of how we have basically dismantled so many things in this country in the last few years. I think it is one of the reasons that we have a problem of unity in this country today. It is because we have fragmented the country so much.
I had intended to speak a little longer on this bill but I was so pleased to hear the government House leader's offer today that we would extend the hours of this House for special issues related to the economy. Out of respect to him, I am going to cut my remarks short so that we can move on with this bill quickly and get on to more important business.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I have had a chance to look at this bill and I certainly appreciate the comments of my colleague from across the floor and the comments of my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.
I did expect him to have his comments shortened, but I did not appreciate that they would be as short as they were. He and I had discussed this very briefly.
I would ask him if there are sections in this particular housekeeping bill, which really it is, that cause him any grief or any concern. There are a couple of things perhaps that might want to be debated in the House and I just wondered if there are any areas here that struck him as being outstanding or anything that is other than a housekeeping issue.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I want to say to my colleague that the technical aspects of this bill are so basic that I sometimes wonder why we even waste the taxpayers' money in bringing these minor amendments that have absolutely no effect on the basic thrust of the policy of government.
After reviewing this bill, I cannot justify spending any more time on this bill than I have because to me, it is not what Canadians want us to be debating right now. They do not want us to be debating about whether a clause should be in column one or column two, or whether the word "minister" should be in line one or line ten.
I have always believed in a strong national govern- There is a natural tendency when a bill comes from the ment. It is from national programs that we develop a government side, and especially when it is an omnibus national will and'a sense that binds us as a country.	bill like this one where there are close to 200 different

Government Orders
amendments, that we think that maybe the government is trying to pull one over on us.
You look through it and ask: "My goodness, what exactly does this mean?" I have checked with the researchers and there is absolutely nothing in this bill that will change the policy thrust or the direction of any of the bills that it is related to.
My problem with this bill is that on our first week back, why would the government put this on the agenda? Is there absolutely so much lack of creativity in legislation over there or other legislation pending that we cannot put something in this House to debate that will help put Canadians back to work?
People do not want us standing here in this House today debating whether a clause should be in subsection (b) or (c) or (d). They just do not want that. They want us to talk about the real suffering, the problems that are facing people in terms of meeting their mortgage payments, preserving their jobs and trying to figure out ways to get this economy going again.
The quicker that we can get on with this bill and get on to something that is more relevant to the economy the better off we are all going to be and the more respect we will bring to this House.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, once again I applaud my colleague for his sincerity and his directness on this particular aspect.
I see people nodding their heads, but there is something here that I want to talk about. I want to draw it to the member's attention in case he had not seen it. I think I have a few moments to discuss this.
It is clause 24 of the Canada Pension Plan. This clause, for those of you who have a copy of the bill, is an amendment that will permit the Commissioner of Review Tribunals rather than the minister to extend the time for appeals under this section.
That may sound like a very innocuous type of amendment. But as all of us here are members of this House and receive requests from our constituents, I cannot begin to tell you how many applications I have had for reviews of pensions, particularly from people who have been disabled.
Quite frankly, I have been surprised and truly disappointed over the attitude of those who are involved in reviewing pensions. Here is the chronology. Somebody who is clearly permanently disabled, cannot find work, and is under a doctor's care makes application for a Canada pension, a disability pension and in almost every
case unless the documentation is 110 per cent, the answer is no. It is easier to say no than to say yes. We all face this.
Then there is a long procedure, at a time when the constituent has no source of income, is undergoing a doctor's care and is in a very dismal economic situation from a morale viewpoint, and the bureaucracy is saying to the constituent and family: "Well, we do not think
There is more documentation, there are more visits to doctors, more substantiations on why the disability is permanent and why the work cannot take place and the appeal process goes on. I have been involved in constituent cases that have taken over two years. The answer comes back finally, yes.
One of the control mechanisms we have in this is that for the tribunal to extend the time of an appeal, which is long enough now, it has to go through the drill of going to the minister and saying that it wants the appeal time extended.
Ministers being responsible, I am sure will ask why. Their staffs will ask that, their chiefs of staff, their assistants. I am not happy with the system as it now is.
Now this authority has been subordinated to somebody who is not a minister, who is not answerable to constituents. I see this as prolonging the process and making it more difficult for members of Parliament to be responsible to their constituents because the minister is now taken out of the chain of at least keeping the appeal period to a minimum.
I see this amendment here, clause 24, as being a retrograde step and being a step that will not serve those constituents who have a devil of a time convincing the pension boards and the disability boards that they are in fact disabled, that they cannot find work.
I checked in my office just before I came here. Right now, we have over 34 cases. Some are in the process of being approved. That is 34 cases for one riding. Let us say that is an average riding. Multiply that by 295 ridings and that means close to 10,000 cases that are being considered.
February 6, 1992

Ministers as politicians realize the need to keep the appeal time to a reasonable time as they have people themselves who are in the same condition.
If you subordinate this to somebody who is not answerable to a constituent or to a number of constituents, I fear that this will make this process, with which I am very unhappy now and other members are as well, an even longer process and a process that will cause more grief to constituents.
I am very concerned about this aspect of this particular clause. I know that other members are as well. I want the House to take note of that and I am sure my hon. colleague for Broadview-Greenwood would agree with that.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, it really is an exciting moment in my political career to be up speaking on this particular piece of legislation.
I want to talk about these very important amendments to legislation dealing with anomalies, inconsistencies and errors in statutes. We have to correct these things. We cannot allow errors to continue. If we are not here to correct them, then who will? We really are embarking on an important adventure with this piece of legislation.
As we go through this we see amendments to legislation like the Bank Act and the Trust Companies Act. The chairman of that committee knows, and we have just gone through all these amendments and changes and supposedly fixed up the legislation. Here we are now amending it again.
When is the government going to get it right? It is so discouraging that we on this side have to go through these changes when we have just taken a look at the legislation and said: "Now, here we are really finally doing something that is positive for Canadians, putting the four pillars of our financial institutions on a firm basis."
Here we find out that there is still amendment after amendment that has to be dealt with. I can tell by the look on your face, Madam Speaker, that you are as upset about this as I am. So is the chairman. I am surprised that you have not taken some of the officials to task, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. member:: Why don't you fix it up?
Government Orders
Mr. Rideout Yes, it should have been done. There are amendments dealing with agencies that are near and dear to the hearts of Atlantic Canadians, the ACOA legislation, the Atlantic opportunities initiatives, those types of things requiring amendments.
These are serious amendments and they do have ramifications. As you go through them you find that they refer to the wrong sections, or they misspelled words, or referred things to the wrong director. But for the loyal opposition being on guard for these things, they would be slipping through. I hesitate to think what could have happened.
That is why we are up on this very important piece of legislation. I know that you want us to to through each and every one of these.


Mr. Robitaille:: What is the conclusion; we want a conclusion.


George Saunders Rideout: You want conclusions. There are things in here that I know are on the speaker's mind dealing with migratory birds. If they are not allowed to migrate, what is going to happen? You have to realize that it is very serious for them.
All jesting aside, this is a detailed list of changes. We in the justice committee have gone through these and have perused them rigorously to make sure that finally we will get some of the acts corrected. For that reason, I wanted to speak on that and to compliment the chairman of the justice and solicitor general committee for his efforts in correcting some of the mistakes. The whole committee worked very hard. It is somewhat like the banking committee. We worked diligently night and day to go through these amendments to make sure that finally we had a legislative system that would work. As you peruse these, as I have, you will find there are a lot of good amendments here. There are a lot of things that really do correct the legislation. My colleagues have already referred to some of the things that were on their minds, and without going back over those, they did touch on some very important matters.
The committee is unsung when it does this type of work. People jest and make fun of the efforts-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It must be pretty boring.

February 6, 1992
Government Orders


George Saunders Rideout: It was and it was tiring. Look at how thick the bill is. To have to go through all of those things and try to correct the mistakes that government and its officials make is discouraging but we have done it and have done an excellent job. It is almost an inch thick which gives you an idea of the magnitude of the problems that the government has.
I do want to speak on this legislation for at least another eight minutes and tell the Canadian people how important this particular bill is.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You do not have to.


George Saunders Rideout: My learned colleague wanted an opportunity to speak for five minutes as well and I feel it would be unfair for me to monopolize all of the time when I know he has done a fair degree of research and put a lot of effort as well into the fine tuning that has to be done. So I would defer to the member for Kingston and the Islands. You can tell by the look on his face that he is just dying to get up here and talk about this legislation. I will stand aside and allow him to proceed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I do have some questions I want to put to my hon. and very learned friend whom I know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Hon. members opposite laugh but it is quite a proper appellation for someone as distinguished as the hon. member for Moncton.
I want to say, Madam Speaker, that I have had a glance, of course, through this bill-yes, I have-and I found it fairly turgid reading. It is one that is quite difficult to follow because each section amends a subsection of another act and unless you have the other act in front of you, it is difficult to follow.
For example, I read one part that says: "The headings in the preceding section 7 of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor" and then it goes through a series of changes to the Copyright Act. The headings do not make a lot of sense unless you have the act in front of you. The change is only that it renumbers one of the parts.
It is errors like that which creep into statutes. I know what my hon. and learned friend from Moncton was referring to in his speech. I understand he was a member of the committee that spent, as he says, night and day studying this bill. I am wondering, first of all, did the committee in the course of its deliberations ask the Minister of Justice how many days and nights she spent in drafting this legislation?


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice was preoccupied and I am not allowed to refer to the fact that she was not there, but she was not so I will not refer to that.
The officials did assure us they had gone through the bill in great detail and the comforting fact is that there is nothing of any magnitude in these amendments. They were purely curative in nature and nothing that would impact on any legislation or change or alter the course of the ship of state. For that reason, our committee did have some comfort from that fact.
I think you are absolutely right when you refer to those aspects where headings become important and compass readings as well, Admiral, and all of those things are very important as far as statutes are concerned. Our committee did go through that and we spent about two or three days and the accomplishment was this bill. We are veiy proud as a committee-and it was unanimous, Madam Speaker-working together, trying hard, agreeing on amendments and doing what is best for Canadians rather than any partisan politics. We have gone past that now and this legislation is a clear indication of that. I congratulate all members of the committee for the hard work they have put into that.
Maybe you have another question?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I have another question on one of the other issues that was very thoroughly discussed in this bill. In fact there was a point of order Your Honour may recall, which was raised at the time the bill was introduced and was of some significance.
The hon. and learned member for Moncton in his comments may want to refer to the work his committee did in relation to that point, that there were some acts referred to in part III of this bill which dealt with bills introduced but not yet assented to.
February 6, 1992

In other words, this bill proposed amendments to other bills before the House, which procedure was described as irregular at least, if not out of order, by my learned and hon. colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. The reference was to these bills that the government had introduced in the House. Apparently it had blundered in the bills and of course in some of them we know that that happens. Bill C-32 which we were debating earlier today was one of those blunders. The government did not seek to amend it, but it did amend some other bills that had been introduced in the House and that were the subject of debate.
I find it odd that you would seek to amend one bill by another bill instead of moving an amendment to the original bill, but for one reason or another it did not do that.
I wonder if my hon. and learned colleague in the course of deliberations in the committee took a look at this procedure and may have passed any judgment in the course of the committee deliberations on whether the government had behaved responsibly or indeed properly in seeking to amend bills by introducing another bill as this one is, instead of doing amendments to the bills directly, as it should have done before they got royal assent either here or in the other place.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for that thoughtful question. It is most helpful to me because it brings forward those types of problems a committee deals with.
We did not want to throw too many stones against the government because one sees the magnitude of the blunders that are here. But there are problems in amending legislation through a collective bill rather than going back and going over it. It was very difficult. I think part of time-taking that the committee went through was actually cross-checking because once you are put on notice that the government cannot do it properly, it is incumbent upon the opposition members on these committees to go through in great detail, analysing what happened and what was intended by the legislation and questionning witnesses. We had a number of officials go through and actually study those things and try to make sure that this time it was right.
I should not say this because to err is human and probably we might have even let a few things slip through this time but we were most diligent in looking at that. I hope when amendments come forward as time goes on that the bill will actually be brought forward so that members of
Government Orders
the House, and the public in general, will have an idea of what it is all about. I can assure you having gone through this in detail, getting ready for this debate, it is difficult and it is not fair.
The government has told us that it wants to have simplicity in its statutes, in language, and here was an opportunity. Instead it has been made very confusing. I hope as it embarks on the next task of correcting more of its errors that when it comes forward with those that it will bring the bills forward. Then we will have a chance to really see how it fits.
Rather than having to pull those books off the shelf and go through all of them, find everything and check it through, it will all be there in front of us. It would make things a lot easier for legislators, and I think it would make it easier for Canadians because I know they as well want to go through and make sure that the government-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to have to announce to the hon. gentleman that it is five o'clock.
There is an announcement that I should make to the House.

The hon. member for Dartmouth informed me in writing that he was unable to present his motion during the time reserved for private members' business tomorrow, Friday, February 7,1992. Since it was not possible to arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a), I ask the Clerk to drop this item to the bottom of the order of precedence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), private members' hour will thus be suspended and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

February 6, 1992
Private Members' Business
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS	(4) When the motion is being considered, no Member shall speak
for more than 10 minutes.


PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East) moved:: That the Standing Orders of the House Of Commons be amended as follows:
Standing Order 36(2)(b) is amended by inserting the words "Except as otherwise provided in Standing Order 36.1," at the beginning of it; and
The following is added after Standing Order 36:
"36.1 A petition which purports to be signed by
(a)	3 percent of the persons entitled to vote in a general election to the House of Commons in the case of a petition which does not pray for any expenditure, grant or charge on the public revenue, or
(b)	5 percent of the persons entitled to vote in a general election to the House of Commons in the case of a petition which prays for an expenditure, grant or charge on the public revenue,
shall, upon being presented by a member in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36, and notwithstanding Standing Order 36(2), automatically stand referred to the Chief Electoral Officer, who shall determine whether or not the petition complies with clause (a) or (b) by counting the signatures and verifying such proportion of them as is in his opinion reasonable, and shall report his findings to the House with all practicable speed and in any case not later than three weeks following the reference to him if the House is then sitting or on the first sitting day next occurring if the House is not then sitting.
36.2	Within 10 sitting days of the receipt by the House of a report from the Chief Electoral Officer certifying that a petition referred to him pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 complies with Standing Order 36.1(a) or (b), the House shall debate a motion on the question of the petition's prayer, such motion being in the form set out in section (6).
(2)	Not less than 3 hours on the same sitting day shall be set aside for consideration of the petition's prayer and no motion to adjourn the debate shall be considered by the House until such time as the 3 hours have elapsed, save by unanimous consent.
(3)	The time set aside for consideration of the motion pursuant to section (2), and any additional time for its further consideration, shall be set by the Government House Leader, and shall be during time otherwise reserved for consideration of Government Business, and notice of the time so set aside shall be given not less than two days prior.
(5)	No other matter or item of Government Business shall be considered by the House until such time as the motion has been considered and decided upon by the House.
(6)	At the conclusion of consideration of the motion, the Speaker shall put the following question:
"Shall the petitioners' prayer stand referred to the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections?"
(7)	If the motion is passed, the petitioners' prayer shall automatically stand referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
36.3	(1) When a petition is referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections pursuant to Standing Order 36.2(7), the Committee shall, within 15 sitting days of the referral, report back to the House.
(2) The Committee's report shall be in the form of either a
(a)	Bill for an Act which, if adopted by the Parliament, or
(b)	Motion which, if adopted by the House, would give effect to
the petitioners' prayer.
36.4	(1) If a Bill or Motion prepared pursuant to Standing Order 36.3 does not contain a provision for an expenditure, grant or charge on the public revenue, then the Member who presented the petition shall be deemed to be the sponsor of the Bill or mover of the Motion in the House, and shall be responsible for securing a seconder.
(2)	If a Bill or Motion prepared pursuant to Standing Order 36.3 contains a provision for an expenditure, grant or charge on the public revenue, then a Minister who is a Member of Parliament designated for this purpose by the Ministry shall seek the recommendation of the Governor General for the Bill or Motion, and thereafter that Minister shall be deemed to be the sponsor of the Bill or mover of the Motion in the House, and shall be responsible for securing a seconder.
(3)	A Bill or Motion brought forward pursuant to this Standing Order shall be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills or Government Business, as the case may be.
36.5	If the House is prorogued or dissolved before all matters brought before it pursuant to Standing Orders 36.2 and 36.4 are resolved, then those matters shall be placed on the Order Paper for the next session of the House in the form in which they had been left and at the stage at which they had been left at the time of prorogation or dissolution.
36.6	No vote taken in the House pursuant to Standing Orders 36.2 and 36.4 shall be deemed to involve a question of the confidence of the House in the Ministry or a Minister."
He said: Madam Speaker, I commend to your attention and the attention of the House the following words and ask that you think carefully on them as I recite them:
February 6, 1992

The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy humbly sheweth-
How grand those words sound, how noble, how redolent of the comfortingly musty air of parliamentary history, tradition and practice. And yet, how hollow, how thin, how utterly void of force and meaning.
Can any member in this Chamber number the times she or he has heard these words or their latter day variants uttered during the Routine Proceedings of this House? Yet can any member name a single instance in which a petition solemnly presented here has resulted in a change of policy, a shift in spending, the taking of some requested action or the abandonment of some other? Can any member name a single instance in which beyond its perfunctory hearing, a petition's prayer was even considered in this House?
I suspect not, which is sad, and I believe dangerous.
We live in a time when many Canadians, despairing of the fruits of their parliamentary institutions and even of the general conduct of public affairs, are coming to despair of public democratic government itself, believing contemporary policies to be the creation not of the parties and politicians who transitorily inhabit and control our democratic institutions, but rather of our democratic institutions themselves. Many Canadians see institutional reform as their best chance for relief from the government policies that cause them so much pain and frustration.
So it is that we see deeply angered westerners, hit hard by depressed international commodity prices, repeating the dull incantation that a Triple-E Senate might forever save the west from another NEP or the unfair awarding of an aircraft service contract.
So it is we see deeply angered Ontarians who have watched their once mighty manufacturing sector devastated in the wake of free trade after decades of truncated branch plant development turn their fury on
Private Members' Business
constitutional guarantees of minority language rights.
So it is that we see maritimers suffering the agonies of depleted fish stocks and the shock of a GST on top of already high provincial taxes ponder the relative merits of maritime union or, like westerners, a Triple-E Senate.
And so it is we see Quebecois battling high interest rates, the high dollar and looming behind all else the dark spectre of ultimate cultural assimilation and extinction. We see them reaching for the intoxicating elixir of independence.
Everywhere, Canadians seem to be seeking institutional solutions to political problems. We should not be surprised at this. Canadians are faced with a government they seem unable to influence. They find themselves truly suffering with the consequences of policies they despise, but apparently having no means of reversing or even moderating those policies.
Canadians write letters in numbers sufficient to denude forests and are ignored. They sign protest petitions by the hundreds of thousands and are told the policies they protest are for their own good. They demonstrate on the streets of the nation in the tens of thousands and are dismissed as isolated and ignorant cranks.
In short, Canadians find themselves devoid of political influence at the very centre of those institutions which exist ostensibly to effect their will. I believe this is the fault of those currently occupying those centres. I believe the government is so blinded by its own misguided ideological mission that it refuses to see the suffering it is causing the Canadian people; refuses to see the flag of rage raised against it. I also believe that the task of those who wish to return the voice of the Canadian people to the councils of policy in power is a political task and not an institutional one.
The best and most effective response to the follies and predations of the current government would be not to change Parliament, but to change the government. I am certain this will happen at the first opportunity. I fervently hope the change will be enough to begin a reversal of the policies that have been devastating this country and not just to change the faces of those politicians uttering vacuous justifications of those policies.
Even when we do finally elect a government that will serve Canadians, it would be prudent as well to implement means to ensure that government continues serv-

Private Members' Business
mg Canadians. We must find ways of ushering the clear political voice of the Canadian people directly into our deliberations. If we are to battle the corrosive cynicism and misguided, institutionally oriented politics that now eat at the heart of true political debate in this country, we must devise means of making that debate more immediately felt in this House. We must open the doors of this Chamber to the concerted intervention of the Canadian people.
Motion No. 89 before us today is a modest attempt to begin this process. It is offered in an effort to restore some degree of credibility to our parliamentary institutions by making more real and effective the political concerns of Canadians within this institution.
This would happen by making petitions effective again. I say again because petitions have not always been the pathetic little squeaks of formulaic protest to which they are now reduced. Before the Magna Carta there were petitions directed to the Crown and, as often as not, seeking redress for some grievance, although no record exists for how often such redress was granted. The institution of petitions remains sufficiently valuable and vibrant to warrant its specific reaffirmation in the Bill of Rights of 1689. The right to petition Parliament slowly evolved out of this statutory and conventionally constitutional right to petition the Crown.
Similarly, as is noted in citation 666 at page 209 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne's:
The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of
grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the
Constitution and has been exercised without interruption since
1867.
Exercised without interruption perhaps, but I suspect it has as well been exercised with ever lessening effect.
This was probably inevitable, but even if inevitable, the erosion of the power of petitions should now be reversed. Democratic practice requires no less.
It lies within the power of this House, through Motion No. 89, to change this, to restore to petitions the status of effective agent of the vox populi at the very heart of the parliamentary process.
The mechanism is simple. All that is required is an amendment to our Standing Orders to compel the House to debate and pass upon any matter brought to its attention by a sufficiently large number of petitioners.
Where a petition asked for something that did not require the expenditure of public money, such as a government commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 80 per cent of their 1988 level by the year 2005, the signatures of 3 per cent of the electorate, about
530,000	electors, would be enough to compel parliamentary consideration.
Where a petition asked for something that did require the expenditure of public money, such as the implementation of a new national child care program, the signatures of 5 per cent of the electorate, about 880,000 electors, would be enough to compel such consideration.
In either case, the petitions would be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer for verification of the numbers of signatures. Once certified by the Chief Electoral Officer, a petition's prayer would have to be debated in this House for a minimum of three hours on government business time. At the conclusion of that debate, the House would have to vote on whether it supported the prayer.
Contrast this proposal with the current state of affairs. Today, petitions are presented by hon. members pursuant to Standing Order 36. They then quickly subside beneath the murky parliamentary waters.
According to the fifth edition of Beauchesne's in citation 695 at page 213, unanimous consent must be granted just to have the Clerk read out a petition's prayer. The only way a petition can be referred to a committee thereafter is with another show of unanimous consent.
However, if Motion No. 89 were adopted and the House voted to support a petition's prayer, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections would be charged automatically with preparing a motion or a bill for an act which, if adopted by the House and the Senate in the case of a bill, would give effect to the prayer. That motion or bill would then proceed through the House as a regular piece of government business, except that if the House dissolved or prorogued the motion or bill would automatically be reinstated at the next sitting of the House at the stage and form in which it had been left at dissolution or prorogation.
February 6, 1992

Of key importance is Motion No. 89's proposed section
36.6	which provides that no vote taken in this House on a petition's prayer or subsequent motion or bill:
-shall be deemed to involve a question of the confidence of the House in the ministry or a minister.
In other words, all votes in the House on matters arising out of petitions should be free votes.
I would like to note here that I cannot claim exclusive credit or blame, depending on your point of view, for drafting and promoting this motion and the ideas behind it. Jim Gurnett, then the member of the Alberta Legislative Assembly for the constituency of Spirit River-Fair-view, and I first cobbled together a motion very much like this one in 1985. Our goal then was the same as I have presented today: To grant people the ability directly to affect the legislative agenda of their parliaments and thereby restore at least some of the people's faith in their democratic institutions.
This proposal was the cornerstone of the Alberta New Democrats' very first public announcement in the Alberta general election of 1986. That was the election which saw their caucus grow from two to 16 members.
Unfortunately, Jim Gurnett was defeated in that election. Upon the convening of the new legislature, this motion was taken up by Gordon Wright, then the newly-elected member for Edmonton Strathcona. Both these men are among the finest I have ever had the pleasure to meet and work with and I am deeply honoured today to be advancing in this House a democratic proposal of the sort previously championed by them in the Alberta legislature.
Surely, some may say, there are other better ways to raise the voice of the Canadian people directly in their Parliament. It is true that other proposals have been made. Hon. members will know that there have been at least two proposals on the Order Paper in addition to Motion No. 89, both aimed at increasing Canadians' control over, and impact on, the political process. The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has proposed Bill C-201, a bill for an act which would provide for the holding of referenda on various matters. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast had previously proposed Motion No. 664, a motion seeking a constitutional amendment to provide for holding of referenda when called for by a petition of 10 per cent of electors.
Both these proposals have some merit and are certainly worthy of the House's consideration. Neither can be
Private Members' Business
affected by this House acting alone. In both cases this House's hands can be tied by the Senate.
Motion No. 89 on the other hand can be adopted by the House acting on its own without reference to any other body or authority, and because it is a motion and not a bill, only one vote is required. All that is needed is a willingness on the part of no more than 148 hon. members, a simple majority, to give the people of Canada a little more say over what goes on in their Parliament.
Some may object that Motion No. 89 would have the effect of preventing those elected to govern from doing so, that it would remove decision making from the thoughtful chambers of Parliament and hurl it into the chaos and passion of street level politics. They may see in Motion No. 89 a system discomfortingly close to the form of legislation by initiative found in several American states.
Setting aside for the moment my personal conviction that this may not be such a bad thing, I must with some mixed feelings assure hon. members that this objection is groundless. All the motion provides is that the people of Canada, in sufficient numbers, may compel their Parliament to consider a matter. It remains for Parliament to decide the matter; both at the initial debate on the petition's prayer and, should the prayer be supported, at the debate on the consequent motion or bill.
Further, in precluding the operation of the confidence convention, the motion attempts to ensure that each matter brought forward by petition is considered on its merits alone.
Some may object that passage of this motion would result in legislative gridlock, that the House would be inundated with petitions seeking all manner of fanciful programs and policies and that consequently the legitimate business of the House of Commons would be shoved aside.
To this objection there are two responses. First, the number of signatures required would ensure only the most widely supported initiatives would be brought before this House in this fashion. As one who has spent more than a few hours on cold winter streets attempting to coax signatures from reluctant citizens, I can say that collecting one signature each from a minimum half

Private Members' Business
million voters is no mean feat. It requires extensive organization and widespread grassroots support for the proposition being advanced. The workout alone would be sufficient to weed out all the frivolous and most of the vexatious efforts, ensuring that only matters of substantial public interest were brought forward.
Second, there is what Beachesne's calls an old rule of Parliament. It is a rule first passed in 1604 and conventionally enforced in this House to this day. It precludes consideration of any question previously considered and passed upon in the same session. Citing the fourth edition of Bourinot, Beauchesne's at page 172 of the sixth edition, quotes this old rule as:
That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or
negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment
of the House.
This would ensure that only matters not previously debated and resolved by the House would be brought forward. Therefore, given these two conditions the House can be certain that only matters of great public significance not previously determined by the House would be brought forward should Motion No. 89 be adopted.
I would note parenthetically my personal hope that the rule against consideration by the House of any question more than once in a session would not be enforced so rigidly as to prevent legitimate consideration of legitimate matters legitimately placed before this House by petition. There is a danger that over-strict interpretation of this rule could itself constrict the reasonable democratic rights this Motion seeks to establish.
As well, it is greatly to be hoped that governments would not resort to the transparent strategy of quickly introducing and disposing of motions or bills which in content and purpose closely mimicked those of an anticipated petition solely for the purpose of precluding that petition's consideration.
I suggest, however, that these concerns are modest compared to the benefits to be derived from the adoption of Motion No. 89.
As I noted at the outset, it ought to be crystal clear to all hon. members that most Canadians no longer believe what they think and want matters in their Parliament. It
is equally clear that they believe there is nothing they can do about it between elections.
This condition is dangerous because it creates the sullen cynicism that can corrode public confidence in, and thus support for, the democratic institutions that constitute the bedrock upon which our civil society is built.
I believe that. In the face of such concerns, we must do what we can. We must take any reasonable measure we can to support and extend our fellow citizens' ability to influence their Parliament.
Motion No. 89 is such a reasonable measure. Its adoption by this House would be an eminently worthwhile investment in the democratic future of our country at a time when real evidence of good faith by elected politicians would be welcomed by the Canadian people.
To adopt motion No. 89 would be good for democracy. It would be good for Parliament. It would be good for Canada.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not common for Whips in our system to participate in parliamentary debates. It is not against the rules but it is not something that we do often. Certainly it is something that I would not do if in fact this particular private members' motion was to be coming to a vote.
There is a responsibility related to votes that goes with the Whip's job. We have been trying in the spirit of parliamentary reform to make sure that Private Members' Business is conducted by private members for private members. There is a distinction between votable motions and non-votable motions.
If it were votable then our side on every one of those occasions since I became Whip after the 1988 election has never had a Whip on any private members' motion that came to a vote. I would hate to provide a signal that was different.
I have spent a few hours of my life, over close to 13 years in this Chamber, and at various times have had responsibilities related to the rules of the Chamber and have had occasion to read those rules for all of their significance on a number of occasions. I felt compelled when I saw this particular motion to rise and express

some objection to what I was reading about in terms of the motion itself and what I was hearing in terms of the speech of my colleague from across the way.
This is a funny place. One can ask oneself why do Canadians lose confidence in it? They watch a hockey game and there are rules to a hockey game. They expect them to be the same from one game to the next. In this place it seems to people they are not the same. We have a set of rules and people do not obey them.
I simply say to the member: When you enter into the business of changing rules, do so with some trepidation. I realize he has only been in this Chamber about three years or maybe a little more than three years. It takes a long time to understand the rules of this place and the nuances and it takes a lot of effort.
To say one has a great idea to change the rules and to be reading a text about rule changes in the Chamber is a bit of an anomaly. One of the basic rules is that we really should not read what it is we say in this Chamber. This is a Chamber for debate. It is not a Chamber for reading texts which may have been created by the member or by someone else.
If one enters into the rule debate, one should be really careful to try to obey the rules as they exist as one petitions for a change in the rules. Years ago, in 1979, when I was a new member and we lost the confidence vote and we were back in an election in 1980, we brought forward a budget that created what the Canadian Council on Social Development called the fairest budget to poor people in the decade of the seventies. The NDP moved a motion to turf it out. They voted for the motion and they did turf it out. Yet we had heard so much rhetoric for so many days and so many months about how they cared about poor people and the fairness for poor people. At the very first opportunity to grab for power they turned their backs on the poor people. Under the guise of democracy, it is bringing forward one of the most expensive undertakings that I have seen brought forward in this Chamber.
We are talking about the need to create something in the order of one million signatures. If you have deep pockets with lots of money, you can hire firms like all those American firms that deal with petitions. You can go out and hire them to advance any cause you want. There is no way the poor people of this country could
Private Members' Business
gather one million signatures. They do not have the money. You are trying to turn the legislative dominance of this Chamber over to people with thick wallets. That runs counter to what I think my life has stood for, and what I think the lives of many members on this side have stood for. Their lives have stood for a sense of justice and fairness for everybody. To advance a set of rules which require a lot of money for people to exercise them seems like a bit of a contradiction between what is said and what members do.
On this side of the House we have to exercise a sense of responsibility. If we want rule changes affecting the role of private members, one of the tragedies is the number of motions and bills put forward by private members which are not well thought out. The wording which is inherent in them is not really responsible.
This is a classic example of somebody who is in love with an idea which may have come out of a fiction book or something. It would change the rules of this Chamber. Therefore, if you are a responsible parliamentarian, you must accept the responsibility for making propositions that use the time of this Chamber, propositions that are sensible and which will enable us to proceed in a reasonable fashion.
The member started off his speech by trying to ding government members for what they did about an aircraft maintenance contract. That was popular. The NDP premier of the province of Manitoba got all the headlines by saying that this government was really a terrible government because of that maintenance contract.
I am sitting here, poor little old me who tries to do a little bit of research before I reach a conclusion, and I ask: "Should we be repairing those airplanes today in St. Louis, Missouri and putting all the jobs in St. Louis, Missouri or were we right as a government to bring those jobs to Canada?" I look at de Havilland and I look at Canadair and Bristol and I say: "You know, the common characteristics of those two consortiums is that they are really healthy. In a time of recession they are doing very well. They do not take any more taxpayers' dollars". Canadair used to receive a subsidy of $1 billion and plus. It does not get a subsidy any more. However, there are 25 or 30 per cent more people working there with higher salaries and a better standard of living. Go to Winnipeg and look at Bristol. Again, it is the same picture, I think

Private Members' Business
there are almost 50 per cent more employees working at Bristol.
Yet, it was a bad decision. Somehow or other this government which brought the jobs back to Canada and helped two companies to expand and provide more jobs for more people committed a terrible sin.
If we were dependent on this petition mechanism, do you think it would have been any problem to get 5 per cent of voters, those who read the headlines, to sign a petition saying that the decision was wrong, to create enough political heat there on the street on the basis of little information, on misinformation and cause Parliament to do something with only 18 people out of 300 allowed to speak in three hours?
That is what this motion says: three hours, 18 people. This motion says that in four provinces, if you happen to be lucky enough to live in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia, you could create a petition in your province and cause this Parliament to do something. However if you lived in one of the other six, in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or P.E.I., you could not do that. You would have to go out and gather signatures in some other place.
I look at the time and those who are watching will realize that 10 minutes has gone by already. What if the petition was to eliminate income tax? Do you think there is any big trick in getting people to sign to eliminate income tax? However a responsible group must have a replacement. You cannot borrow your way into prosperity. You cannot borrow money forever. You cannot just do popular things that are will-o'-the-wisp. You have to make responsible decisions and take the heat.
You have to say: "No, we will not repair those jets in St. Louis; we will bring them back to Canada and create more jobs across this country in Winnipeg, Montreal, and Edmonton. If people think we are making a mistake we will listen to them carefully, we will listen to their logic. However, we will make the decision, we will be responsible and then history will tell us it was not such a bad decision after all. It was a pretty good one."
Think how unpopular the GST was. It was so unpopular that the group who promised to bring it in was elected with a majority government and those who promised not
to do it were defeated. This group says that free trade was such a terrible mistake. This group says it believes in democracy but the member who says we will have a democratic petition is still fighting the free trade issue.
He ran against it in the election but the party that was in favour of it was elected. That is what democracy is all about.
You submit something to the people from time to time, give them the responsibility of picking their representatives. Then you charge those representatives with the responsibility of making tough decisions, responsible decisions, not being ruled by will-o'-the-wisp popularity at that moment but making the tough decisions which over time make this world a better place for our children, our grandchildren, ourselves, and our parents.
That is what this is about. To change our rules to accommodate the people with lots of money in this country, to give them special control of this place is something I could never, ever support.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton East on his very able presentation and introduction of his motion. As usual his speech was articulate, very carefully worded and most enjoyable. He has a great facility with the tongue.
He obviously wrote well and I congratulate him on that. He chose his words very carefully and I congratulate him on that.
I recognize that the hon. member for Calgary West has pointed out that one of the very important rules of this House is that you are not to read in debate. The purpose is to make speeches extemporaneous. However, there are so many members who choose to read that-


An hon. member:: The Prime Minister, too.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Prime Minister as well. There are members who do choose to read a great deal, and I think it is a matter of some regret. However that is the way it is. Unfortunately we seem to have allowed that rule to fall into desuetude. I suspect that if the rule were in force, our debates would be far more lively.
I think that many of the speeches would be much shorter and we would find that business would be conducted in a speedier fashion. I am sure that would please the government members and it would also give members of the opposition an opportunity to say what is
February 6, 1992

on their minds instead of spouting things they have considered and written down over a prolonged period.
For one reason or another the rule is not enforced. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would want to address that issue in the house management committee of which he is the distinguished chairman, and then maybe something would come of it.
However, that is not the purpose of today's debate. What we are discussing is the proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton East. I must say that while it is an interesting idea, I do not feel that I can agree with it.
What he has done with this proposal is suggest that the members of this House somehow give up their exclusive right to introduce bills to Parliament and have those bills foisted on the House by petition. That is what it really comes down to.
Unfortunately, while that principle in itself may not be objectionable, though I have doubts, I am prepared to concede the point that the mechanism for doing it, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary West, is fraught with difficulty. Specifically, it would exclude smaller provinces from being able to participate in the legislative scheme, as it is drawn. Also, it fails to consider the fact that members of this House are free to introduce bills and have them debated as the hon. member for Edmonton East has done with this motion today.
I think it is very helpful that we can do that.
I wish there were a little more time spent on private members' business. I think there is a need for change in the rules to allow for more time so that when private members' hour is cancelled, as it was yesterday and as it will be tomorrow, that time can be made up at another time, especially when the government benefits by reaping a bonanza of an extra hour of debate on its own legislation when that happens.
That aside, private members' business does provide an opportunity for individual members to introduce these bills and motions and have them discussed in the House. There is no reason in the world why a bill or motion cannot reflect petitions that are presented to us by our electors.
Many members have introduced bills and motions. For some statistics, on Wednesday's Order Paper there were
Private Members' Business
639 notices of motions introduced in this House during this session, similarly, in the same Order Paper there are over 300 bills of which notice has been given. There were 127 bills introduced in the course of this session which were all private members' bills, all introduced by private members for the purpose of debate and discussion in the House.
That is a sizeable number of bills, especially when you consider that very few of them come from government members. Generally, parliamentary secretaries are not introducing bills. It is done by opposition MPs or by members who are neither in cabinet nor parliamentary secretaries on the other side.
Consider the number of those excluded. I suggest that there is ample opportunity here for the public to have input very directly in the system subject to the statutory requirement that money bills must be introduced by cabinet ministers only because they require the royal recommendation.
My friend from Edmonton East has tried to get around that in a skilful wording of this rule, but I think he recognizes that the rules of the House of Commons cannot change the constitutional requirements. His rule is ineffective in so far as it would require His Excellency to advise that any bill be recommended to the House of Commons. In other words, His Excellency's recommendation is not a forgone conclusion nor could it be.
There is a British precedent, I recognize, for changes which would allow for the royal recommendation to come forward on a bill that has been approved at a certain stage in the House. As I say, there are ways we can look at changing the operation of private members' hour that would allow for more scope for private members and would allow for more time for discussion of private members' business.
The fact is that our rules, in my view, are adequate as presently constituted to allow members of the public to bring forward items they want discussed in so far as those items are legislative changes. That I think is what the hon. member is getting at.
Many of the petitions that come to this House deal with government policy on items that are not the subject of legislation and that may not be legislated for. They may object to the government's policy of appointing

Private Members' Business
somebody to a particular board or commission, and that is not something that is covered by a bill in this House. It can be changed by a bill in this House, but it would be a most unusual step to make such a change.
Similarly, the petitions may deal with bills that are already coming before the House and express opinion one way or the other, such as the GST petitions of which there were so many. I well recall day after day standing and presenting GST petitions, as did members of the New Democratic Party, all in opposition to that bill. The bill was here. It was discussed in the House, albeit for a limited time.
The fact is that petitions are not always ones that call for the introduction of new bills that have to be dealt with.
I find that when I am approached by constituents who want a new bill introduced in the House and discussed, if the bill is one that finds any favour with me at all, I am quite prepared to entertain the idea, have the bill drafted and set it down as one of my bills. I have about a dozen on the Order Paper at the moment.
The hon. member is free to do the same. With 295 members reflecting widely disparate constituencies and having widely different interests, it seems to me it is entirely possible for members of the public to find one member of this House who would be willing to introduce a bill on any given subject as a private members' bill and have it discussed in this place.
I do not think that is overly difficult.
Quite frankly, I think the hon. member in putting forward this motion is perhaps addressing an issue that has not been raised by the public and is not a public issue; that is that the public is somehow deprived of a right to have its grievances addressed in this House.
The weakness I perceive in our procedure, if any, and I think there is one, is that the hon. member is really trying to address the debatability or otherwise of a petition. I think what the hon. member is trying to suggest is that we need to discuss the content of a petition so that the grievance complained of in the petition is aired in this House. There are other ways of doing it. I suspect the hon. member was here earlier today and heard the discussion concerning the use of Standing Order 52, the emergency debate provision and
the suggestion that was made by his colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops, and myself.
I know the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Peace River, agreed in large measure with what we said. It was that need to use that rule more often to allow emergency debates to take place, as we are going to do this evening, in a way, on the constitutional matter; to allow the House to deal in a timely way with issues of public importance.
There is natural reluctance on the part of the government to do that because sometimes the issue is one that is cause for embarrassment for the government. If that is the case, the government does not want a public airing or discussion of the issue because it will look bad. Therefore, we have this reluctance on one side and the enthusiasm on the other, perhaps for partisan reasons, nevertheless, because of the importance of airing the discussion or airing the grievance that has arisen in the public mind.
This House could become more relevant if more debates of that kind took place. I think the petition road is too slow. By the time the signatures are gathered on the petitions and brought in here for debate or discussion, the issue may have become moot and of no interest to the general public.
For those reasons, and while I think the hon. member is to be commended for his efforts in drafting this lengthy motion, I think it is ill advised. If it were a votable motion, I would be inclined to vote against it, and I say so with some regret because I recognize the hon. member's great work in preparing this.
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to take a few minutes to participate in this debate this afternoon.
I have to say I listened to the hon. member for Edmonton East with great care and as is his usual wont, he gave a very articulate, humorous and convincing argument.
When first I looked at this motion, I was a little struck by it because of my interest in procedure, and thought it was something worthy of pursuit. In spite of the hon. member's compelling arguments and his great rhetoric, having spent a little time on the motion I find it to be, I hesitate to use the word ridiculous, but certainly not one
February 6, 1992

of the more serious presentations that have come before this House of Commons.
I want to spend just a few minutes tonight talking about why I think this kind of motion would be a terrible disaster for us to exercise.
If we look at the beginning of his motion, he lays out two conditions under which petitions would become active items for debate here in this House of Commons. The first is that 3 per cent of Canadians who are eligible to vote, who signed a petition and had that petition presented in this House, would trigger a debate. In the cases of expenditure, 5 per cent of Canadians would be required.
The frightening thing about that is I recently saw a poll from the United States saying that a significant group of people, many more than 3 per cent, believed that Elvis Presley was still alive. Therefore, you can imagine the situation we face in the country. I do not think it would be difficult at all to find 3 per cent of people who believe in anything in this country.
Therefore, here we would be on a regular occasion faced with a debate in the House of Commons on anything from whether Elvis Presley is really dead or alive to who knows what.
My hon. friend argues that this would be a very difficult procedure to organize because it is difficult to get people to sign petitions.
That is not the case. I have to say that I have had some very interesting experiences with petitions and it is for that reason that I do not treat them seriously at all.
When I have received petitions, I have phoned people and I have said to them: "You signed this petition on this particular issue and I want to spend a few moments talking with you about it and its implications". Often they do not remember signing the petition, or once you spend more than about three or four minutes with them, you discover that they really did not know what the implications of that particular issue were.
What we want to create here is an opportunity for that issue to come into the House of Commons and to take up three hours of debate and possibly end up being a law. TTiat would be in an extreme circumstance and I do not
Private Members' Business
want to use an extreme argument to make the case, but it is a possibility because that is what the law provides.
The other thing that I find extremely intriguing about this particular option is the hon. member says: "You may only have one of these every once in a while, a very rare circumstance". I suggest, as my hon. friend from Calgary said a little while ago, that one does not know where these things are going to go when the doors are open. For example, I find it particularly intriguing that what would happen is once you had a petition signed by 3 per cent of the population, or 5 per cent if there is an expenditure, it would be tabled in the House of Commons. It would immediately go to the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer, within three weeks, has to report to Parliament.
In three weeks, by the hon. member's own calculations, it is up to the Chief Electoral Officer to verify roughly 530,000, 3 per cent or, in the case of 5 per cent,
880,000	signatures. This is going to create an incredible bureaucracy. This would be a wonderful job creator in the Public Service because what you would need is a huge set of machinery to verify every signature to make sure it is a valid one. Then you would have to turn around and make sure that person was an eligible signer, in other words, they were eligible to vote. Then you would have to cross-reference them to make sure that they did not sign it more than once. My goodness, who knows, you may be faced with two of these petitions in the Chief Electoral Officer's office at the same time.
What do you have to do? You would have to create the employment opportunities to make sure that this happens. It is a wonderful idea for job creation, but I am certain it is not a practical idea in terms of the Canadian public's desire to make sure that government expenditures are curtailed and not increased dramatically, particularly if the public felt it was unnecessary. I think that is a very serious flaw in this particular motion that the hon. member presents to this House.
The other thing I find very fascinating is that in our tradition there is quite a distinction between government and opposition. We have this huge aisle that, for the most part, separates us. We have many traditions and many rules that all respect that distinction. Where does the hon. member wish for this debate to take place? Is it in some special kind of House time? No, it is in

Private Member's Business
government time. It is the government that has been officially and duly elected by the people of Canada to form the government which has to set aside its agenda to provide for a vote or a debate from some 3 per cent of the population. The net result of that is three hours.
Three hours of debate does not sound like much, but it is an entire morning and in some cases it is virtually a whole day. There are several days, Wednesday for example, during which there are a total of six hours of debate. With some other things intervening into it, you would have five, down maybe to four or four and a half hours with Routine Proceedings and so on.
What is the bottom line? With each signed petition which must be debated in this House of Commons, all of a sudden you start seeing that you are looking at a significant amount of government time being taken by something that has nothing to do with the government, the government that was properly elected, and certainly is not part of its agenda.
The other thing that I wanted to reflect on for a couple of minutes was this very novel approach to the idea of the royal prerogative. Under our traditions it is the government that maintains that prerogative. It is the government that goes to the Governor General and seeks the consent, if I can describe it that way, to spend money.
It does it in a very tight balancing act. It says it is going to spend the money here because it is raising it in taxes here and it has constantly a balance of procedures. It has the budget, the estimates, all of which are carefully thought through. We all know how many days and weeks and hours go into the presentation of a budget in this House of Commons. Every group of expenditures is thought through with the greatest of care, because the use of our financial resources that we collect from the taxpayers of Canada is taken so seriously.
Now, all of a sudden, by simply having 5 per cent of Canadians sign a petition, you suddenly have a royal recommendation that comes right out of the blue and is not part of any question of taxation. It is an obligation. I want to read this particular section, it is in proposed 36.4(2):
-the Minister who is a Member of Parliament designated for this purpose by the Ministry shall seek the recommendation of the Governor General for the Bill or Motion, and thereafter that Minister shall be deemed to be the sponsor of the Bill or mover of the Motion in the House, and shall be responsible for securing a seconder.
The minister does not take into account the question of raising the revenues. There is no responsibility in terms of budgetary balance. It is simply a minister now being instructed to waltz down and get a royal recommendation.
Today we face a deficit problem in this country in which every dollar we are looking to spend on individual programs is a dollar that has to be sought carefully, balanced carefully. All of those considerations have to be taken into account and the net result of this is that we could somehow circumvent all of that.
The other thing I find extremely intriguing is a whole new concept again. We know on our orders, the way they are now, if a bill is not completed by the time of the ending of a session, it dies. This one wants to say it can carry over. It is not a practical solution. It is not a practical idea.
I understand the member's interest in participatory democracy, if I can call it that, but the reality is that this is cumbersome, bureaucratic, expensive and I think totally subverts the whole process that we have in this country of looking after our own expenditures.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. Since no more members wish to speak, the time for consideration of private members' business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House will now suspend until six o'clock p.m.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.54 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
February 6, 1992

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I rise to address this evening the disastrous fishing season in Newfoundland last year that focused attention on the five years of plunder of Grand Banks fish stocks by foreign fleets operating outside the 200-mile economic zone. While Newfoundland trawlers remained alongside, European boats stole over $100 million worth of our groundfish.
The government has been telling the fishing community that nothing could be done about this plundering. That is what it is; it is plundering the nose and tail of the bank because international law has fixed the limit at 200 miles. Nothing can be done about it, it says, until there is an international agreement that extends the adjacent coastal state's fishing zone to the edge of the Continental Shelf.
This opinion in my mind reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of how international fisheries and marine law has developed. I have had 20 years experience in marine and international law and I can say that it differs fundamentally from internal state law in that the unilateral action I am suggesting tonight is recognized as a legitimate means by which law can develop.
I want to give three instances. The first one was the 1948 Truman proclamation whereby the United States laid claim to the sub-sea mineral resources off its continental shelf. In 1970 there was a series of unilateral declarations whereby Iceland extended its fisheries jurisdiction out to 200 miles at a time when the territorial sea was 12 miles.
In the case of Iceland, the International Court of Justice in 1974 recognized the acceptance of preferential rights especially for this coastal state in a situation of "dependency upon coastal fisheries for its livelihood". The situation of Iceland appeared as one of exceptional dependence on its fishery resources.
Adjournment Debate
Then again there is the Canadian precedent in 1977 when Canada decided to take unilateral action-we took it in 1977-to create a 200-mile economic zone of jurisdiction. It is ironic that the need for this action was intensified by the threats of overfishing by Spain and Portugal.
This is not to say, even using those three examples, that all unilateral action is valid in international law. If a state initiates action that is ludicrous and selfish, then it is going to be referred to as piracy and the state will not be able to stand on their ground.
To be legitimate, a unilateral state action must be grounded in an administrative scheme that is in accordance with international law. I submit the three precedents I gave indicate where dependence on the resource is a very relevant issue. It has to be fair.
Another important thing is that the unilateral declaration is not enough unless it is backed up by state enforcement. In other words, the coastal state must assert its sovereignty and be able to do so over the waters in question. I suggest we need to beef up the means to be able to detect, identify, recognize, search, seize, arrest, try and prosecute transgressors.
If the political will is present, Canada can legally under international law unilaterally extend our fishing limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf. Of course any such move has to be accompanied by a global campaign to explain the reason for such action which given the devastating effect of the rampant overfishing outside our 200-mile limit, should not be too difficult.
I will be persistent in promoting this idea until the government gets off its asymmetrical and ineffective approach to overfishing and puts words, thoughts and ideas into serious action.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, I must confess to the hon. member opposite that I was expecting him to be discussing the question that he had put in this House on October 22. At least that was what I was prepared for. None of what he mentioned today was mentioned in his question or in the preamble of the question of that day. The central part of his question that day was on job creation and that is what I prepared.

February 6, 1992
Adjournment Debate
I want to make sure the hon. member understands and ensures his constituents that this overfishing has been of major concern to the Government of Canada. Ambassador Gherson has been working with the European community and various parts of the North Atlantic Fisheries Council. At NAFO we have been working very hard on that.
As well, last month the minister made a major address in London dealing with the very problems that the hon. member is drawing to our attention. He said that unless they start to follow the rules and the suggested limits put down, that unless all members participate, Canada would be forced to try to endeavour to take unilateral action such as the member opposite has outlined.
However, I think the negotiating table must be tried first to make sure we have a reply before we attempt to do what the hon. member opposite is suggesting. I thank him again for bringing this matter to our attention.



David Stupich: Madam Speaker, the fisheries industry on the west coast also has problems.
If it were not for changes in the UI legislation which meant that the workers had to put in a full 680 hours to qualify for UI as used to be the case, then there would not be that problem.
It is quite conceivable that the workers in the fishing industry in B.C. could put in a total of 680 hours at a 40-hour week. That is 17 weeks. Often they have to work around the clock if the fish are coming in fast. If the rules were changed so that they got credit for UI on the basis of the number of hours worked, I would not be here today presenting this problem.
In 1990 there was a program that helped them, the Emergency Response Program. It provided employment. More than that, it provided for projects that were beneficial to the industry and to the communities. It helped British Columbia. It helped the people by giving them enough stamps so they qualified for UI.
That program was supported by the fisheries committee this year as something that should be renewed. It was supported by the labour committee where a resolution was passed urging the government to act. In response to questions ministers indicated support for it, but so far the program has not been delivered.
What I am asking is that the government reconsider its position and bring this program in again. Not only does it provide employment for the people who need a little more time to get their UI, but as I say it brought into effect beneficial projects in communities. It helped the industry by developing stream clearing projects. It was something that helped preserve a billion dollar industry that is important to British Columbia and to Canada.
I urge the government to respond positively, to take another look at its decision not to support it this year, and to bring it into effect for this season.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, again I want to acknowledge the hon. member opposite and his dedication to bringing this matter to the attention of the House at this time.
He will recall when members of the fishing industry were down here and asking for us to have a similar program, they likened it to what was happening on the east coast. The Emergency Response Program was what they were alluding to. They felt they should have something similar for British Columbia.
However, we had to point out to them at that time that their circumstances were entirely different from what was happening on the east coast. The east coast had been hampered by ice conditions under which they could not get their gear into the water and then very low catches later on in the summer. Some areas had less than 50 per cent of the previous year's catch.
Within British Columbia the fisheries experienced a period of structural changes. That is what is happening in British Columbia. We are challenged to deal with the technological changes that are taking place in the fisheries. The stocks are certainly on the average of what they have been over the last four or five years; there has certainly not been a shortage of fish.
It is just with the gear changes that have taken place and the number of people who are fishing, they can do it in a much shorter time frame. We have people, as the hon. member has pointed out, who are working very long hours in the fishing plants, almost round the clock and yet only being credited with a single day's work. Whether or not this is the right way to go is something that has to
February 6, 1992

be seriously considered and has been looked at as well. I thank the hon. member for again winging this matter to our attention.


EAST TIMOR
Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I am delighted again to stand in the House today regarding a question I put late in 1991 on East Timor. It is not the first time that I have made serious attempts in this House to get an answer to questions regarding the tragic situation as it is in East Timor today.
At that time the Secretary of State for External Affairs had recently announced the suspension of $30 million in aid to Indonesia because of the November 12 massacre at Dili. In addition, all other aid projects were subject to review. The suspended aid is said to comprise new projects which will be put on hold until the minister decides otherwise.
I could be cynical and suggest that the minister will wait until the media goes away before deciding to resume business as usual with Indonesia. We are still waiting for specific details surrounding the suspended aid and what process it must go through before it is either reinstated or cut permanently.
However we do know that the three projects which have been suspended include: (1) a program to train water resource engineers, (2) a program to promote private sector linkages between Canada and Indonesia and (3) a program aimed at helping the Indonesian government modernize its bureaucracy. Although these are hardly the kinds of programs which will rock the Indonesian government to its core, it is encouraging to see that it is not the grassroots kind of aid which goes directly to helping people who are innocent of their government's activities.
The real issue to which I want a response is this: When will this government finally support United Nations Security Council resolutions 384 and 389 which call for the withdrawal of Indonesian troops from East Timor? It is a simple question, yet the government has consistently refused to answer it every time my colleagues or I raise it in this House. There should be no question as to how Canada should be dealing with this situation.
Adjournment Debate
The best word to describe the situation which the people of East Timor have endured since the 1975 invasion and subsequent occupation by Indonesia is holocaust. Up to one-third of the population of East Timor, 200,000 people, have been killed in battle, in concentration camps, or through famine and disease. Yet the Canadian government has ignored the carnage and has ignored the actions of the vast majority of nations in the international community which have outright condemned the actions of Indonesia.
The United Nations has passed resolution after resolution calling for Indonesia to withdraw and for the right of the East Timorese to self-determination, and what has Canada done? It has voted against UN resolutions calling for self-determination. It has lobbied to have the issue removed from the UN agenda. This is unfathomable to me. It is unbelievable. It is an international embarrassment to the Canadian people who are decent and caring and want Canada to help put an end to such slaughter.
Instead of doing what is right, this government has continued to build bigger and bigger trade links with Indonesia to the point that it is now petrified of jeopardizing the precious balance of trade. If the government would listen to the Canadian people, it would know that they do not want the blood of the East Timorese on their conscience.
We have a moral responsibility to end this bloodshed. I would hate to think that the Caanadian government is ignoring the plight of the East Timorese because there is no economic advantage to do otherwise.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said earlier today that she was pleased that the UN was considering sending an investigative unit to examine the situation in East Timor.
Will she go the extra distance and instruct or advise the Canadian delegation to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva to push for Indonesian withdrawal from East Timor?
I ask this on behalf of the East Timorese, on behalf of all caring, thinking Canadians, on behalf of people in other countries who might be helped if this government would stop being hypocritical and inconsistent and live up to its rhetoric on human rights.

Adjournment Debate
Will the minister finally give assurances to the House that Canada will immediately support UN Security Council resolutions 384 and 389 which call for the removal of Indonesian troops?
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You have been very patient.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, in reply to the member from Nepean on the various questions, I would like to assure the hon. member that the Canadian government has taken action with regard to Indonesia.
I can say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs conveyed Canada's dismay of the shootings during meetings with the Indonesian Foreign Minister in Seoul on November 13, 1991 a few hours after the news of the killing of the East Timorese had come to light.
Canadian concerns were also expressed to the Indonesian authorities by the Canadian ambassador in Djakarta and to the Indonesian ambassador in Canada. These Canadian concerns were also raised during the session of the third committee of the current United Nations General Assembly.
On December 9, 1991, the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced:
1.	Canada has suspended the approval of new development projects for Indonesia in the order of $30 million.
2.	Canada has decided to give an immediate grant of $150,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross for humanitarian assistance in East Timor.
3.	Canada will take into account the results of the Indonesian commission of inquiry set up to investigate the shootings and the action of the Indonesian government in the context of the current broader aid review.
Canada is encouraged by the interim report of the Indonesian commission of inquiry and the response of the Indonesian government in taking prompt action on a number of the recommendations in the report.
Canada does, however, have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Indonesia and will continue to watch the developments in this area veiy closely in
consultation with like-minded countries in the context of the United Nations.
Canada welcomes the visit of Foreign Minister Alatas in February which will provide an opportunity for further discussions on the human rights situation and the Canadian Development Assistance Program in Indonesia.


RAIL FREIGHT SERVICE
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to return to a question that I raised in this House on November 18 of last year concerning a decision by CN Rail to sell its railway line from Truro to Sydney, Nova Scotia.
At that time, I urged the government, specifically the Minister of Transport, to intervene to block this sale which was causing great uncertainty to all of the major customers and major industrial users all along the line from Turo to Sydney, Nova Scotia.
Unfortunately so far the government has taken no action. Today the Senate committee on transportation and communications has begun three days of public hearings on this issue, which is of vital concern to the economy and to the people of eastern Nova Scotia.
The Senate committee will hear from some of the main customers located along this railway line, customers which together employ some 7,000 people and which constitute the core of the industrial base of the 250 miles of railway line.
The committee will hear from Mr. Tom Hall, the president and general manager of Stora Forest Industries in Point Tipper, which is the largest user of the line on which more than 2,000 people depend in the pulp mill and in the woodlands operation.
The committee will also hear from Sydney Steel Corporation and the Cape Breton Development Corporation, both of which are major users of the line and are pillars of the industrial Cape Breton economy. The committee will also hear from Scott Paper Company of Abercrombie in Pictou county which is another major user of this line.
I do not pretend to anticipate what these witnesses will say in their presentations, but I do know from extensive conversations with senior management at Stora Forest Industries that they are very concerned and that their

continued operation depends vitally on a secure rail line service to their plant and that the decision by CN has created great uncertainty, not only to the continued operation of the plant but to further expansion which is vital to the future of the area.
Let me quote one of the witnesses who appeared before this committee today, the minister of transportation and communications of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Ken Stretch, who came up from Halifax to make his point before the committee. The minister of transportation says, and I will simplify the presentation which is an excellent one: "The province of Nova Scotia insists that rail service to Sydney must be maintained. The only way to guarantee that is if the federal government meets its constitutional responsibility to maintain essential rail service. We have some very specific concerns about the viability of a short line operation on this line, which is what CN is proposing to replace this line with".
The decision by CN has caused great concern to all residents and all industrial users in eastern Nova Scotia. In fact, our concern is one of disbelief that CN would actually propose at this time to sell this vital piece of infrastructure and that this government would refuse to exercise its mandate to intervene and prevent this vital piece of infrastructure from being sold off.
To conclude, while the government may try to avoid its responsibility in this matter, it cannot. The land on which the rail line is located is owned by the Government of Canada and it will have to give its approval at some point through an Order in Council if that sale is to go through. Therefore, why not intervene, prevent the sale now and assure the future of this economy.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the government believes that CN must be a fiscally responsible manager in order to remain competitive and ensure financial viability in the transportation marketplace. In this light the Sydney-Truro line has been examined and it has been found that while the line continues to be profitable it is still a light density route.
CN feels that a short line operator can maintain and in all probability enhance the traffic it is currently carrying. CN is not diminishing the importance of the line with
Adjournment Debate
this proposal. Indeed, CN recognizes that the continued operation of the line is important precisely because it provides traffic for the main line between Halifax and central Canada.
The more traffic volume that can be generated on the core network, the lower the operating cost. This in turn allows the railway to be more competitive for additional traffic. It is very important to CN that the short line operator selected be one that will continue rail service for existing and hopefully, new customers.
The section process that CN will subject all bidders to has this objective in mind. CN is committed to ensuring that there is the necessary financial capability to undertake the acquisition and operation of the line.
In the hon. member's question of last November, he referred to the confidential nature of the process. The specific content of each bid must be treated confidentially in order to protect the integrity of a competitive bid process. This is standard practice.
CN has been open about the steps in the selection of a buyer and also about the criteria that will be used in each step.
The short line concept offers benefits for shippers and receivers. It is encouraging that the potential of a short line operation for the Truro-Sydney line has drawn a promising level of response. It is an expression of faith in this exciting railway concept and in the promise of Cape Breton.


CANADA POST
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, last October 25 I rose in this House to speak of the issue of unfair and unjust salary increases given to presidents and high-ranking officials of Crown corporations and government agencies. At that time I spoke of the $131,250 salary increase given to the president of Canada Post. That was the salary increase on top of the salary that the individual was already receiving.
You could argue that government has the discretion to give whatever salary increase it wishes to this individual. I do not claim that that is so, but even if it were so, it would be unfair if that benefit were accorded to one individual when everyone else's salary has been frozen. That is in fact what happened.

February 6, 1992
Adjournment Debate
If that is not bad enough, I want to bring to your attention, as I did at that time, the case of a 65-year old widow in my riding who was a rural mail contractor. Her name is Huguette Perrier, 65 years old, a widow who delivered the mail on the rural route. She was unceremoniously dumped by Canada Post after she and her husband-she took over the mail run when her husband died-had been delivering the mail in the community of Dalkeith for a period of 25 years. Do you know why she was dumped, Madam Speaker? Because Canada Post gave the contract to someone else for $1,500 less.
To save $1,500 this person was fired. This person has no job. At the same time, within months, this government was giving a $131,000 increase to the president of Canada Post who already makes a quarter of a million dollars a year in salary. The justification given for all of that by Canada Post boggles the mind.
I have letters here that were written to me by various individuals. I wrote to the minister about this, but of course the minister did not reply other than telling me that he had referred the letter to Canada Post, failing to recognize that under the Financial Administration Act he has the authority to direct the Crown corporation, as the minister does under that act, and as my colleagues all know.
Canada Post says in its letters the following: "I am sure that you will appreciate that Canada Post must operate in a fiscally responsible manner when selecting suppliers and contractors". No one is against motherhood but the facts are different. There is nothing fiscally irresponsible about keeping an employee that has been with you for 25 years when the employee is not even asking for a salary increase. That is just sound, humane management.
Anyone in the private sector who is trying to do what Canada Post is doing would be severely criticized on the floor of the House of Commons if we found out about it. But this is a Crown corporation doing, not what a Crown corporation and agency of the government should be doing, but worse than what any one of us would tolerate from the private sector. That is what is so bad about this.
In closing, I do not object to the fact that when someone has a rural mail contract and the person is asking for an increase, it should be subject to tender in order to get that increase. But when someone wants to merely keep their job at the existing price and they are tendered out and lose their job, well then something is hopelessly wrong.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to what was said by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and I was surprised he was critical of the salary paid the director general of Canada Post, especially when we realize that from the deficit-ridden corporation it was in 1984, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, Canada Post has now become a profitable Crown corporation. It takes competent people to do that sort of thing. The current president,- Madam Speaker, may not be perfect, but when we came to power in 1984, he was given a mandate to make the Canada Post Corporation a going concern. He fulfilled that mandate, and he did so remarkably well.
Remember, Madam Speaker, when Canada Post was the laughing stock of this country? Postal services were a joke. Everybody was saying that besides paying for the stamps, they had to go to the competition to make sure the mail would be delivered on time.
Madam Speaker, when we appoint people to boards of directors, when we appoint directors to turn a situation around that was bad for the taxpayers and bad in terms of the services offered by Canada Post, we assume these people will have to make decisions that will not always please the customer, considering why they were appointed in the first place.
In this respect, Madam Speaker, if we consider Mr. Landers' salary, it appears to be on a level with remuneration for the same type of work in the private sector. We are not ahead of the private sector in this respect. We are taking its lead. What Canada Post is being asked to do is exactly what other corporations are being asked to do, which is to make a profit. This has been achieved, and we owe Mr. Landers and his team a vote of thanks, and we hope they keep up the good work, for the benefit of Canadians and Quebecers.


SPECIAL DEBATE
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order adopted on Wednesday, February 5, 1992, the House will continue its proceedings on the adjournment motion, for the sole purpose of allowing members to make presentations on the results of discussions they have had with their constituents on the constitutional issue.
The hon. member for Peterborough has the floor. [English]


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in these discussions in order that we can communicate to the House of Commons and record in Hansard some of the comments that have been made to us as members of Parliament about the proposed changes to the Constitution and the process which has been implemented to try to make them.
What comes out loud and clear in the letters I have received is that Canada is a relative youngster compared to the nations of Europe. We are celebrating 125 years of nationhood this year, while England, France, Italy, and Greece can measure their ages in thousands of years.
Yet, despite our short history and a small population, Canada and Canadians have achieved much together and have built much of which all of us can be justifiably proud. Canadian men and women have built a society considered to be one of the fairest and freest in the world. Believe it or not, though we are young we are also one of the oldest functioning democracies in the world. We are the eighth largest economy in the world today, and that economic strength has enabled us to develop some of the most advanced social programs of any nation. Indeed, Canada's medicare system is still studied by other countries, including the United States.
Outside of our own country we are considered to be one of the greatest countries in the world, not in terms of our military strength but in terms of who and what we are. In a recent United Nations report which surveyed 160 nations, Canada was the second most desirable country in which to live. Millions of people would do anything to move to Canada and we have long waiting lines at many of our embassies around the world. The
The Constitution
dispossessed and people fleeing oppression see Canada as a beacon of hope in an otherwise dimly lit world.
Our society happens to be a model that other nations are keen to emulate. Our tolerance of diversity has enabled Canada to avoid the kind of racial tensions that affect other nations. We are gradually learning how to honour the contribution and special place of our aboriginal people. We are recognized and respected as Canadians, and as a country known as Canada, for the constructive role we play in world affairs. The skills and ideas of Canadians are second to none. The ingenuity of individuals has made Canada a world leader in many fields and I mention but two: transportation and telecommunications.
For example, we were the third nation in the world to put a satellite into space. I might add that Canada continues to maintain a commitment to the search for knowledge through the exploration of space. On January 22, 1992, the second Canadian went into space. Dr. Roberta Bondar from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, became the first Canadian woman to orbit the earth, returning eight days later following a successful mission.
Canada has once again proven its excellence in the field of scientific research. Just yesterday it was announced that a team of Canadian scientists led by Dr. Robert Korneluk of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario played a central role in the recent discovery of the gene responsible for myotonic muscular dystrophy, an incurable muscle disease which strikes young adults.
In recent years Canadian scientists have been at the forefront of several major genetic discoveries, including the discovery of a defective gene that causes cystic fibrosis.
Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, said: "Canada is a great country and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into adversity and insignificance if we suffer it to be broken".
Let us all take up the challenge of Sir John A. Let us all try, as a parliament in particular, to preserve a truly great country.
As a united country we have the seventh largest economy in the world. A divided country would have significantly less economic clout and leverage. Further,

February 6, 1992
The Constitution
as one Canada we have a place at many of the international bargaining tables. For example, Canada is a member of the G-7 economic powers. We are a member of the Council on Security and Co-operation in Europe. We are also a member of NATO and sit at the table of the World Bank.
Both foreign and domestic investors are less likely to invest in Canada if they are uncertain about its political or constitutional future.
International uncertainty also has a direct impact on interest rates, the value of our dollar, and domestic inflation.
The realities of the new global economy are these: competition is fierce and it is getting more so every day; technology and innovation are forcing everyone to adapt more quickly and more often; the new knowledge-based economy demands a higher educated and trained work force; and international capital markets react swiftly to any of these uncertainties.
Over the last few years the government has undertaken many initiatives, often very unpopular ones, to begin the process of modernizing Canada's economy and eliminating the structural barriers to future prosperity.
In the face of continuing change, more needs to be done. However, we can only undertake it by making the fundamental constitutional changes that will ensure Canada's continuing success while at the same time reflecting our national aspirations. The ultimate proposals will not be acceptable unless they provide the means for the federal government to maintain certain national standards in the interests of all Canadians. For example, health care must be accessible to all Canadians and pensions should be portable across the country.
Finally, Parliament and the federal government are the only political institutions in this country that represent all of Canada. Therefore, the federal government must and will play a vigorous role in articulating and defending the vital Canadian interests. We will not be a referee between competing regions or interests in the process.
Within the framework of a strong and united Canada there is a lot of room for constitutional modification. Even with constitutional change we must and will remain a strong and united Canada.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take advantage of this opportunity tonight to spend a bit of time to reflect on some of the comments that my constituents have had to say about the current debate in Canada about national unity and about our country.
I am pleased to take advantage of this time to talk about two specific initiatives that I have been doing in my own riding, in fact, one particular initiative on this issue which we announced today.
First of all, I think some congratulations are in order for the two House leaders who have arranged for this debate. Obviously, there will be a great deal more debate likely in March when the joint parliamentary committee releases its report and there should be other occasions for this kind of debate.
It is important that all of us from all our different perspectives have the opportunity to report on what we are hearing from our constituents and of course to enumerate and talk about what we see as to how this debate is shaping up.
It is important that all members share with others what they been hearing during this intense and sometimes confusing debate about the future of our country. My constituents are probably like many others. They find in many cases that the debate has gone on much too long.
Perhaps it is time to move quickly to make a decision about Canada, about the nature of our Confederation and of course, to get on to deal with some of the many important economic issues that we have in the country now. In particular, I am thinking of employment in my part of British Columbia, in the Prince George region, about trade, and other issues like those.
They are cognizant of the need obviously to come to grips with the whole constitutional debate and see just what direction Parliament and Canada is going in. In my travels through my riding basically in the last six months or so, I have heard comments from people about the need for a united Canada, a debate about the role of Quebec, a vigorous debate that many of my colleagues from Quebec would expect from western Canada, but a very positive debate as well.

I do not think members from Quebec should necessarily think that everything they see in the news necessarily reflects all the views of people from western Canada. I suppose most are trying to find a way to make Canada a better place and I, for one, think it is a better place with Quebec in Confederation.
We have debated and in my various community meetings we have talked about the Senate. We really need the Senate. Can it really reflect the regions as it is supposed to do? I find interesting just as a side-note that many of those who are promoting the Senate, having an elected Senate, the so-called Triple-E Senate, are often the same people who want to cut government programs. Yet here we are trying to create a whole new level of government.
My own party, as you know, has long been a supporter of the position to abolish the Senate, that we do not need it. That policy of course, in light of the debate today has taken on a new approach and a new look. We are not hard and fast. I do not know if anybody can be that way these days, to see what kind of suggestions Canadians have about what the Senate should be and do.
My constituents are also particularly interested and concerned about seeing a resolution as quickly as possible on the whole question of aboriginal self-government. I think that is an important and a critical issue and one that I hope will be dealt with. It must be dealt with in this so-called round, this Canada round.
We have all been doing our part. All members of Parliament in a manner of ways have been adding to this debate from their own particular points of view. I have held my own community meetings. People have come to those meetings to discuss what is going on with the constitutional debate.
I was even pleased, some say brave, to have the hon. member for Chambly come to a public meeting in Prince George to discuss from his perspective the role of Quebec in Confederation. We had a good discussion with that member and I was quite pleased that he was able to come and discuss his vision of Canada.
I am also pleased to get the information out to people. One of the things that I found really frightening after the collapse of the Meech Lake accord was really how little information there was around about our country's own
The Constitution
Constitution. While the government could spend some $14 million advertising the goods and services tax, you had to look pretty far to find out exactly what the Constitution of the country was all about.
That effort has been made this time around. The lesson was obviously learned. More information has to be sent out to Canadians about the constitutional debate.
I have made an effort in my area for anyone who is interested. I welcome anyone who is watching tonight who might be interested to write to me.
My office sends out monthly a detailed package of comments from all points of view on the whole debate. Not just comments from the New Democratic Party leader, the hon. member for Yukon, but also speeches from the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, columns and debates from people representing a sovereignist point of view in Quebec so that, at the very least, people in my area will have the information to make a valued judgment about this particular debate.
In fact the results are showing by the very articulate and thoughtful letters I have been receiving from people who have been reading through this information. Some very excellent comments have been made on the Senate, on referenda and it is adding to the debate.
I encourage other members where they can to do that. There is no harm in spreading information about what all of us are saying. Of course, I welcome anybody who is watching to write to me. I would be pleased to put them on that particular list.
The other initiative I mentioned at the start of my comments is that we have made an announcement today in my riding for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. I have asked students at the college in Prince George, the college at New Caledonia to volunteer to put together a constitutional forum.
They will be breaking into teams to represent and present the pros and cons and the different arguments around the government's proposals. This will not be just a sell job for the government's proposals. We want to hear what people's opinions are on all sides of the debate, of the different components of this particular package and indeed, some of the components that are not mentioned.

February 6, 1992
The Constitution
We have scheduled the forum for February 29, a Saturday. It will go all day and it is open to the public to hear the debate from students and to participate as well. I will be ensuring that a record of all the discussions and comments is made and that it will be passed on to the Prime Minister, the premiers and all members of this House and the Senate.
It is important that we have a user-friendly approach to this debate so that people do have an opportunity to have their input.
Of course, the timing will probably be good. The report from the joint committee will be out the day before. There will be plenty to talk about. Of course, this whole debate about our Constitution does not just end on February 28. Nor does it end on Canada Day, nor I hope does it end in October of this year. Obviously, the debate about our country and the Constitution of Canada will probably go on forever.
If there is any one message we have to get across to all Canadians it is that the debate about our country is not just a debate about words on paper. It has to be a debate about what Canada means and what we have to do is to frame that debate so that all Canadians can feel they can participate.
Again, I want to congratulate all members of the House for having organized this debate. It will be an important one. I will be listening and watching carefully.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss what is probably the most important issue facing Canada today. Even as I say that, I am extremely conscious of the fact that both our economic difficulties and the constitutional issue must be given an equal amount of attention during the course of the next few months.
In many ways, as I will refer to later in my comments, those two issues are very closely intertwined. It goes without saying that those we would like to attract to our country to provide us with investment dollars, those we would like to join with us in trading relationships want to know before they do so what is to be the future of Canada.
The issue which is before us is very difficult, very complicated and very emotional. I think the fact that it is so emotional makes it even more difficult.
By way of a preview, I would like this evening to try to articulate to the House some of the comments which I have received from constituents in conversations, correspondence and telephone calls, as a result of meetings which I have had in high schools within my constituency, as a result of conversations on the street, in my office, and as a result of public meetings in certain towns.
With reference to the latter, one of the most notable and I think most productive events with which I have been associated for a period of time was a visit to Hartney, which is in the heart of my constituency by the Hon. Jean Charest, Minister of the Environment. He came at the invitation of the community on an evening when it was approximately 30 degrees below zero. He spoke to some 250 people that evening and in my opinion he was exceedingly well received. There was a good opportunity for questions, for answers and for an exchange of views. It is the type of visit which should occur more frequently in the future.
It is important for members to come to us from the province of Quebec and it is important for members from western Canada to go to the province of Quebec if we are to achieve the kind of understanding which we are seeking.
Almost without exception the people whom I speak to in my constituency want Canada to remain united. They say that first and foremost and sometimes with varying degrees of emotion. They are proud of Canada and they know that they have had very significant privileges in terms of living in Canada. They want that Canada to continue to exist.
However, having said that, many of my constituents then express some frustration, frustration with the fact that first of all many of them do not understand why there is such a debate today. I suppose they feel that way in part because they like what they see in Canada and they assume that others should feel the same way. I think that is particularly true of those who were not bom here but who have migrated here.
Second, many of them are frustrated with the fact that this debate in which we are now participating seems to have been occurring over and over again throughout recent memory. They are frustrated with our inability to resolve that debate. Quite frankly, many of them are impatient with the process, and as the previous speaker
February 6, 1992

has just said, they are exceedingly anxious that we reach a solution to our problems.
Some concerns are more specific than that. Some have a great deal of difficulty, Madam Speaker, as I think you would understand, with some of the language we have used during the course of the debate. If I were able to go back and choose our words differently than we have done in the past, I would wish that we could find two different words other than the words "distinct society", because those two words in particular have caused in my mind a considerable amount of misunderstanding throughout the land. I think in part that this is so because the word "distinct" in my mind in English means something different than it does in French.
To me, the word "distinct" implies difference. I have no difficulty as a Canadian and certainly as an historian in proving to my satisfaction and I hope often to others that there are very significant differences that have been a part of our history, differences which continue today. I think, for example, of the differences which exist with the Civil Code in the province of Quebec as established by the Quebec Act of 1774; I think of the differences in land forms as with seigneurialism as established in 1774, I think of the rights given to the French language in the courts and in the legislature as subsequently developed after 1791. In my mind, these differences which exist are a product of our history.
But perhaps to our shame many Canadians do not know our history, and certainly the history of all of our regions as well as I would wish that they do. Part of the difficulty we have when we come to the debate is, as many of my constituents say, "I want to keep Canada together, I want it to remain as it has been in the past, but I am exceedingly anxious that it be a Canada in which all are treated equitably and equally".
One of the difficulties with the proposals which we have before us is that they raise in some people's minds a suspicion that the Canada that would emerge would not be one which treats all equally and equitably. I think that is perhaps the most difficult task that is before us now. If I could find one magic solution which would help with the level of understanding which exists in my constituency, it would be the ability to demonstrate to all that the proposals we have before us are designed to recognize and to reaffirm certain differences which have existed in
The Constitution
the past, but that they do not propose to give special advantages to anyone in the future.
I have constituents who are concerned with respect to the debate between what they perceive to be collective rights and individual rights as protected under the charter. I have constituents who are concerned about the proposal for self-government for aboriginals because they do not understand exactly what we propose when we say that.
But it seems to me the lesson that comes through in all of this is that our task in 1992 and perhaps in 1993, or whenever this debate should end, is to listen more carefully to others than we have been doing in the past. We live in a very busy world. Canada exists in many ways in spite of its geography rather than because of it. There is an immense barrier created by distance within our land. One of the sadnesses of that is the fact that it is very difficult for many of us living in our regions to know those who live in other regions very well.
The task before us in 1992, and I hope as a by-product of this debate and the ensuing debates and discussions that will take place during the course of the summer, is that we will seize upon the opportunity whenever it arises to listen carefully so that we can understand exactly what others are saying. Unfortunately this lack of understanding has troubled us immensely. In my part of the world people ask and continue to ask that often repeated question which I know the residents of Quebec no longer want to hear. What does Quebec want?
When I have had occasion to visit the province of Quebec and to speak with residents, they say in return: "Exactly what is the opinion in the west that makes some people there feel as they do toward us?"
Sometimes I feel that we simply have failed to learn to know each other very well. We have failed to learn to understand each other. What is required is that people in different regions should sit down and listen as carefully as they can to what is being said. For example, after the right hon. Joe Clark spoke at a meeting in Brandon, a constituent came to me and said, with some sadness in his voice, that it was a wonderful speech, he thought he understood the proposals much better than he had before, but he said: "I do not think we can give Parizeau and the Parti Quebecois what they want; I do not think we can give the separatists what they want".

February 6, 1992
The Constitution
In return, I said to him that I thought that was a very important statement on his part because it demonstrated that there was still a lack of understanding in the sense that we are not trying to give the separatists what they want. Because, Madam Speaker, I think you would agree that there are some in each of our regions who are not anxious to find a solution. They are not anxious that we should find a consensus upon which we can build.
Our task is to find some sort of middle ground. That is what these proposals are all about. I think it is what my constituents would want us to do and what they believe we can do, find the middle ground so that we can build in the future the same way we built in the past. Then we could have a united Canada of which we are all proud and where people are able to grow and enjoy the benefits while, at the same time being satisfied that the needs of a broad majority of Canadians are being met.
Our task is to listen more carefully during the next few months than we have ever done before. I am convinced if we can do that we can resolve our differences and can ensure that our children and our grandchildren have the opportunities to live in the same united Canada that many of us, regretfully perhaps, have all too often taken for granted.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss at some length the constitutional issues that face this country.
On November 7 the special joint committee on a renewed Canada was scheduled to hold hearings in Thunder Bay. Unfortunately, on July 6 the committee was recalled to Ottawa where they restructured themselves. As a result, the riding I represent, Thunder Bay-Nipigon, was not given the opportunity to make its representations to the special joint committee. We had already established some groups that were interested in making those submissions. As a result, on December 9 we undertook in our riding to hold those hearings. They were held on that particular day through the courtesy and through the help of the Thunder Bay Multicultural Association which kindly donated its hall. We had 31 individuals and groups who presented their thoughts on the future of this Canada of ours. We had people who
were able to translate into French, Ukrainian, Polish, Finnish, Russian, Italian and Portuguese; all provided these services voluntarily.
At the hearings that day the people who were involved in making the presentations developed a synthesis or a summary of what we heard during those 13 hours of hearings and I would like to present those findings to the House. I think I can summarize and break it down into four areas.
We talked at some length, as you would guess, about the distinct society, the linguistic issues that face us in this country, multiculturalism and a general catch-all of other issues that some people were concerned about. Let me start out by giving you the consensus and a summaiy of the briefs that we heard that day. First, Shaping Canada's Future Together, the document from which all the groups worked, the consensus was that the document itself added confusion to the debate. Terms that were used in that document were not defined properly. The document was complicated and if most Canadians are to understand it, it should be simplified and out of that came the consensus that there were too many demands for community rights and the Constitution should give greater emphasis to individual rights.
There was also a consensus that the present government has no mandate for Canadians to change the Constitution unilaterally and therefore a national referendum is mandatory before any change is made to the present Constitution. We then went to the linguistic duality issue, bilingualism in Canada. In 31 presentations there were those who thought that Canada should have only one language and those who supported to the fullest extent the official bilingualism policy of our country.
If there was one consensus, particularly from students, it was that all Canadians should learn more than one language but it should not be a forced situation. It is well known that the vast majority of Canadians want a review, not only of bilingualism but of the applications of bilingualism.
I thought these were very interesting comments with respect to the distinct society. We come from the centre of Canada where the east ends and the west begins. The consensus we heard is that Quebec is already distinct because of its language, culture and civil code. These
February 6, 1992

areas should always be retained. Any additional powers must be given to all provinces.
My friend John Wreszchak of the Polish Society of Thunder Bay made an interesting comment. He said: "Canada has blossomed because Quebec is distinct. Quebec has something we should all be jealous of".
The students of St. Ignatius High School said: "Canada will not survive without Quebec. Quebec needs to preserve its right to be different".
The students of Hillcrest High School said: "We feel that giving Quebec control over their cultural rights is a good idea, but further special powers are unacceptable".
Sam Frederico, president of the Italian Society of Thunder Bay, said: "We are all distinct societies. We all have our birthright, customs, religion, language, which are the makeup of our various cultures and heritage. This is the miracle we call Canada".
Those were some general comments on the distinct society clause.
Quebec's distinctiveness should be recognized. The citizens of Quebec are different because of their language, customs and heritage. They have the right to these customs. If they feel insecure and want these rights enshrined in the Constitution, there should be no doubt that they should be enshrined.
Those are interesting comments from the people in the centre of Canada about the distinct society clause we have heard so much about.
There was an interesting consensus with respect to multiculturalism. More than one-third of Canada's population today is a direct result of people who chose Canada as their home and have become Canadian citizens. Many have retained their culture and their heritage, but first and foremost they are all Canadians and immensely proud to be Canadians. Canada is now their homeland. Everything else is secondary.
One comment was: "Immigrants must make the culture of their homeland secondary and multiculturalism should not be enshrined. We grew up in a multinational country and all it created was jealousy and racism. People came here not to stay what they were. They came to Canada to become Canadians".
The Constitution
The students of Hillcrest High School said: "We feel that multiculturalism must take place within the framework of being Canadian. The country would be more united if we were all Canadian first, followed by our nationality of descent. Different cultures should have the right to retain their customs but they should be Canadian first".
John Wreszckak said: "Canada is a family. The parents should treat all members of the family equally for the family to thrive. If one child is favoured the family becomes dysfunctional and it turns against itself".
Glen Bagdon, a member of the Lithuanian community said: "Coming to Canada was a test of one's faith. We hoped for better days and hoped one day we would become Canadian. We kept our customs but we were Canadian first". They go on and on.
Rita Ubriaco, another participant, said: "We all have various cultures but in Canada, as in many other countries, we have the British tradition-parliamentary democracy and the rule of law-and that is why we came to Canada".
There were other constitutional issues discussed concerning other rights. We heard that property rights should be enshrined in the Constitution.
Many of our citizens, especially our seniors, who made representations that day said that the health care system is in jeopardy and the separation of a province from Canada would further jeopardize the delivery of our health care system. They said that the Senate is not effective in its present form, yet not enough information is available for its restructuring. Free trade should be implemented between all provinces. Elected members of Parliament should express the views of their constituents first and foremost. There should be more free votes in the House of Commons. If individual rights are enshrined the Constitution does not need a social charter.
Those were the topics that were discussed throughout the day. If I could summarize with one comment, which is at the bottom of the submission: Canadians must succeed. We need a strong federal government and we need a strong united Canada. Our Canada includes Quebec.

February 6, 1992
The Constitution


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Madam Speaker, this is a valuable debate. It is an unusual debate because it is one that focuses entirely upon what we are hearing from our constituents on the subject of the Constitution and what we ourselves, as members of Parliament, are prepared to do; we who will be charged over the next few weeks and months with shaping that new Constitution.
Like my colleagues, I have had a series of meetings in my constituency on these subjects and have been conducting surveys of my constituents. I will very briefly summarize what I have been hearing.
My constituents rank Senate reform as their highest priority. In the 10 years of its existence, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become very important to my constituents. In fact, they were not supportive of the ability of governments to override the charter using the notwithstanding clause. At the same time, most of them indicated that they did not want to see the charter extended, except perhaps to include an environmental rights clause.
The majority of respondents to my queries would like to see the process for public involvement in constitutional amendments strengthened, primarily through referenda and public hearings.
Many of my correspondents do not think that multicul-turalism should be reflected in the Constitution as a principle of our society. Those same constituents were not aware that multiculturalism is now reflected in our Constitution as a principle of our society.
The concerns of aboriginal peoples were a high priority for my constituents, while they seemed to be split on the question of which jurisdiction should have control over language policy.
Finally, my constituents indicate to me that a strong federal government that can ensure Canada's international competitiveness and is able to set national standards but has strong regional representation is important to them.
It is my understanding that throughout our country many citizens' committees, many constituent assemblies have been set up to study the 28 proposals, comment on them and analyse them, and that representatives of those committees will be attending the joint committee on Canada's renewal next Monday. That is a laudable move and I look forward to meeting with some of the
people who will be coming to make their presentations. Some that I am aware of, and I know there are many others, are those from Sarnia-Lambton, York-Simcoe and Selkirk.
I think the joint committee is doing a great service to the process. I am delighted to see that it is proceeding without rancour in a spirit of multi-partisanship and attempting to do the best it can for Canada. It has a phenomenal chore in front of it. It is worth noting that these 30 individuals, members of the House of Commons and the Senate from all parties, are spending as much as 90 hours to 100 hours a week on their task. They are conducting hearings five days a week and are conscientiously attending the five constitutional conferences which are being held on the weekends.
It is a privilege to have played some role in this process, having had the challenge of co-chairing the previous joint committee on the constitutional amending process.
What we recommended in our report on June 20, 1991 was an open process. I am delighted that the process has been opened as it has. I am also pleased to note the role that Albertans are playing in the process. Canadians from all parts of the country are, but notably in Calgary we had an Alberta minister who is responsible for the dossier. We also had a former premier of our province co-chairing the conference sponsored by the Canada West Foundation.
The value of these conferences when the history of the time is written will be remarkable because they have brought a focus to the debate that may have been lacking before. The Calgary conference in particular, dealing with the council of the federation, rejected that idea overwhelmingly.
It approved, not surprisingly, an elected, effective and almost equal Senate; but it tossed us a curve as well. It said that there must be a voice for the voiceless in that Senate. It is an interesting challenge to think of a Senate which is territorial in its representation but which will have supplemental representation from aboriginals obviously, as was recommended in the government proposals, and perhaps from others. It will be a tremendous challenge to see how those others get selected.
Perhaps we could examine the Athenian model of actually choosing them by lottery. After all, some of the greatest contributions at the weekend conferences are being made by the lottery people, people who had
February 6, 1992

indicated an interest in the process, ordinary Canadians who were chosen by lottery.
I mentioned that I had a number of public meetings on the subject. Following one of those meetings, a constituent of mine bom in Holland, a Canadian citizen for many years, approached me and said: "Jim, I did not want to raise this during the meeting, but why should we give Quebec a distinct society?" My response was: "We should give them a distinct society for just the same reason that they should give us the Rocky Mountains". He said: "We have already got the Rocky Mountains". I said: "That is my point, George".
The second point he made was: "Why do we spend so much money on bilingualism?" I said: "You are from Holland. The Dutch spent a lot of money in turning back the sea. The Dutch could have walked away from that and gone to high ground and become Germans, but they didn't do so. What they did was they decided to fight back the sea and developed special national character traits as a result of that".
We have developed special character traits as a result of having a two language policy. We have developed the skill of compromise and accommodation and understanding the other person.
That brings me to my final point, which is that we must go beyond tolerance. We can tolerate black flies and mosquitoes. We can tolerate boils. We do not particularly like them, but in order to move genuinely from tolerance to mutual respect we have to get to know the other individual. As my colleague from Brandon-Souris said: "We truly do not know each other". We are a multitude of solitudes in this country.
We need as well to covenant with each other. Professor Donald Bailey of the University of Winnipeg was a witness before the previous joint committee on March 27 last year in Winnipeg. He said that what we are talking about is a contract in our Constitution. We ought to be talking about a covenant. In covenants the emphasis is on optimums, not minimums. The obligation is to seek ways of giving mutual sustenance as long as the other party has need, not only until the legal terms of the written agreement have been satisfied.
The Constitution
Beyond the covenant I think we ought to be grateful. The greatest gift according to Steindl-Rost is thanksgiving. In giving gifts we give what we can spare and in giving thanks we give ourselves. One who says thank you to another really says: "We belong together, giver and thanksgiver belong together". Let us be givers and thanksgivers as we go through this difficult process so that we may deserve to remain one united country.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to stand in the House tonight to participate in this demonstration of the desire of Canadians to be part of this constitutional debate.
I was certainly pleased as all members of the House were when the agreement was reached to allow this opportunity for us to put before the House and before the Canadian people-and when I say that I mean all Canadians-the views of those people we represent. I say that they want to be part of this debate and they really deserve to be a big part of it since it is their Constitution we are dealing with.
In this respect I hosted two town hall meetings back in mid-November. They were very well attended. I again want to congratulate the people in Prince Edward- Hastings for their attendance. I have to admit I was very surprised at the number that did turn out. One particular meeting of those two was on a Friday night in a small town. I said to some of my staff as we went to that town: "If we have 20 or 25 people out tonight I will be very pleased". We had 78 people. One might say that is not a lot of people, but in a small town of less than 1,000 people that is a considerable number.
The only disappointment I did have was that I would liked to have had more young people at both of the meetings, more people of a younger age, so that we could have had more input from them. However those were the people who chose to come to the meeting.
At the meeting I did not offer any of my personal comments or interpretations, but we went over each of the 28 points of the constitutional proposal and asked them to fill out a questionnaire which they had received

The Constitution
on arrival so that if they did not wish to speak they could express their views. We tabulated those at the end.
Before I am finished I am going to run through those conclusions quickly. They may not necessarily be my own personal conclusions, but they are the conclusions of those who attended those meetings and asked me to bring their views forward. I can say as well that I have received dozens, hundreds, more than that, of telephone calls and letters. I am certainly impressed as all members are with some of the letters that are many typewritten pages long. That is indicative of the concern of many people of the constitutional debate we are going through at the present time.
I had the meetings in the way I did because I did not want to speak at them. By that I mean I wanted to hear what the constituents of Prince Edward-Hastings had to say. I can tell the House and all Canadians-and I am not tooting my own horn-that that is what many Canadians want from us as members of Parliament. If nothing more, they want us to listen and to pass that on. Again I appreciate that opportunity here tonight. They had many concerns and they had many questions. They want their feelings and representations considered in this important national debate.
As I say, I have received many letters. I have responded to those to the best of my ability. I have extended as much information to those people as I possibly could and I know they have appreciated it.
It may not be a surprise-and I am sure it is not-to those in the House and to those who are watching that the public has grown very cynical of elected politicians. Many times it has fallen upon myself and others here to field criticism and objection over our behaviour in the House. I have to admit that too often I had to agree with them. With an effort such as holding the town hall meetings I had an opportunity not to lecture, but to hear my constituents.
I may not use all my 10 minutes. I want to table these and it is my understanding that we can table them with the Clerk tonight. I would ask to do that when I am finished. I have forwarded them to the joint committee and have had letters of acceptance and recognition. I appreciate that as well.
I am going to go through the conclusions quickly. I want to say from the outset that I am not making excuses. I do not necessarily agree with all of them. I may
agree to different degrees with some of them. I can say that I know there are likely people in the House and people watching tonight who will be shocked and not be very happy with some of them, but the point of this session tonight is to hear what Canadians have to say.
The proposal on property rights is supported but considered too vague. These are referring to the 28 proposals. Although the override or notwithstanding clause was the object of considerable discussion by the participants, the consensus was that implementation should require a 60 per cent vote of Parliament or legislatures rather than a simple majority.
The distinct society is opposed by the majority along with any special status for Quebec. Aboriginal claims have the support of the majority but with some concerns about self-government and the period proposed to finalize any agreements. The Canada clause is favoured except for the items requiring governments to preserve language rights and Quebec's role in preserving and promoting distinct society.
People want more voice in government and more responsiveness from MPs. An elected Senate with regional representation gaining favour is supported with the Senate having significant powers. A majority opposed concurrent election of the Senate with the House of Commons. The proposed composition of the Supreme Court was not supported by the majority. Consensus on an amending formula for the Constitution favoured approval by two-thirds of the provinces and a referendum with a double majority. Unanimous approval and veto by any government or group was strongly opposed.
A majority approved the free movement of people, goods, services and capital, but the support for exclusive authority to lie with the federal government was marginal. Marginal opposition was expressed against opting out provisions. The harmonization of economic policies did not receive majority support. Questions respecting distribution of government powers were not strongly supported except for the strong opposition to the delegation to the provinces of responsibility for immigration and culture.
There was no significant opposition to eliminating the federal declaratory power. In general, people favour a strong central government. There is strong opposition to delegating powers to provinces unevenly. There is equal support and opposition concerning federal introduction

of cost-shared programs in provincial jurisdiction but strong opposition to any opting out of such programs.
There was extremely strong opposition to the council of Confederation. Many commented that there was already too much government.
I read those into the record and I repeat, I do not necessarily agree with all of them. Some of them I do agree with, some of them I do not. We do not have the time for me to discuss that and to put my views forward tonight.
However, I would like to agree with the previous speaker. We know-and if we do not, we have our heads hidden in the sand-these feelings and these concerns are out there. As I said at the start, some of these are very strong statements. I am sure there are members in the House tonight who will say: "There is part of the problem". We have to be realistic. Those are the views of some Canadians.
Let us hope and pray for the spirit of compromise, the spirit of understanding and the spirit of respect which I think is gaining ground. These meetings took place in mid-November. I was pleased with some who attended those meetings. When I saw them there I thought: Here are some very strong-minded, strong-willed, strongthinking people. At the conclusion of the meeting they thanked me for having it and said: "Lyle, I feel and think differently now than I did three hours ago".
I stress and urge all Canadians to attend any of these meetings, view all of these things, and go forward as we all need to and should in the spirit of compromise, understanding and respect for all other Canadians so that we can keep it together. Together we stand and divided-I don't know what the answer is and I don't really think it would be a good one.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my comments this evening by indicating that I have the most common culture as a Canadian sharing something with you tonight. I have the common cold.
So if I sound a little bit gruff and a little harsh it is very systemic and very Canadian to have one of those at this time of the year, unless you are among the more fortunate and go to Florida for the winter. But I don't
The Constitution
consider them quite as Canadian as we who stay here and work throughout the entire year and maybe play at Canada throughout the entire year. But a vacation is nice sometimes and sometimes I am envious that I do not take more of them in the nice south in the wintertime.
Although I am an elected member of Parliament I do not wish to speak on this subject so much as a member of Parliament, but as a Canadian and as a son of an immigrant who came to this country from Europe in 1929, and he thought for ever and a day that he was coming to one country, Canada.
So many other people who came to this country and made this country a strong, powerful nation, who built this country up into a modem society, they came to every province, they came to the east coast, they came in the earlier part mostly from Europe.
They came to the west in droves after the turn of the century and built up the west. They came to a Canada that they had read about as a promised land, as a place where they could make a living, raise a family and be away from the crowds and the disparity that occurred in some of the countries they lived in.
After 125 years, which we are now going to celebrate as a country, so many of these immigrants-and I am not talking about the founding nations so much in my report, although they also were very instrumental in putting this country together, knitting it together and creating the provinces-I am talking about my own particular family, where my father and mother came here in 1928 and they worked hard and they prospered and they raised a family which now lives in the province you are from, Madam Speaker, in your own constituency. I have a brother working and raising a family there-to the coast of British Columbia where I have a brother working.
We sons of immigrants grew up in this country because we were proud of it. It offered us opportunities. It offered us opportunities because it was diverse, it was large, it was rich, and it had many, many people with the desire to work hard and take that risk and leave home and start a new life.
My father celebrated his 90th birthday two weeks ago, and he is still quite strong and able, a little wrinkled maybe. He made a speech about this country and how danged foolish we would be to even think of dividing it. He worked hard and he is still living, together with my

The Constitution
mom, and as they get older they cannot perceive of this country being divided.
When you consider the hundreds of thousands of people who came to Canada, whether it was to Newfoundland, whether it was the province you are from, Madam Speaker, not coming from Quebec, but coming in fact from other places to start their lives there and having their offspring, their sons and daughters, moving from wherever in Canada, in some cases back to Quebec and adopting that province as their home province with its uniqueness and with its marvellous people, we have to ask the question: Where did this all begin, this desire to make our country two instead of one?
I blame the politicians. I believe it was politically driven, both from outside of Quebec and inside of Quebec. It was not so much from the grassroots. Who wants to divide this nation up? I believe it was politically driven and I believe we have to nip that in the bud right now.
The country, with successive Prime Ministers set about trying to find a way of accommodating that particular problem, as well as others we now face in western Canada of some alienation. I think they have a set of proposals of which I believe all will not be accepted. But there are enough good ones there that we collectively as a country can even become stronger.
The idea of electing a Senate is a terrific idea. I was just down in the United States in Washington and a senator told us that was the right way to go. He said that it would give our Senate some respect. I agree with that.
This appointment of senators is not what we should be doing. It was an old tradition that we brought back from England. Let us elect the senators, it makes sense. Let them be responsible to an electorate. I agree with that. Whether we will end up with a Triple-E or a one-and-a-half-E or a two-E, but I think we should have two Houses and I think that is the way we should govern ourselves. Let us decide collectively to do something like that.
I wonder why we are not sometimes looking at changing this House a little bit and making it more effective. Why do we have to go to the electorate whenever the Prime Minister calls an election as opposed to maybe
setting an election day every four years or five years? Maybe we could avoid some costly elections.
We may have some minority governments, we may have governments lose power, but why call an election, why not have the Governor General find a new government that would form with some other coalition? That does happen in other countries and it is really worth considering in my view.
Let us set the date. We all know when it will be coming. We cannot tamper around a lot with the dates as we are now. I wonder if that should not also be considered.
You hear a lot of people talk about why we should stick together. The best reason I can think of, as some I heard this evening and I am sure we are going to hear, it is the young people, it is the children, it is the next generation. Are we going to leave them a divided Canada?
Are the immigrants who came to this country, who wanted a strong nation, going to have to tell them we could not keep the place together when so many others are trying to do so, when so many countries are trying to find common ground, common markets, common currencies because it really is a way of expressing strength and peaceful co-existence. We do have a new world order, there is no doubt about it.
I am going to end on one more area that will keep this country strong, I believe, from coast to coast, and that is the economy. If we do not work on our economy, there may be more and more reason to say that this country is not working because of our differences and because the politicians have not worked in trying to give us a better standard of living.
Without a strong economy, we will find dissension always in this country. We do go through recessions from time to time. They will not stop because we may change governments. I think we have to harness them or at least adjust to them so that they do not become so deep, creating so much unemployment that in fact it creates nothing but dissension.
We have a great opportunity in this land. This country, I believe, is still regarded as the second best place in the world, if we follow the United Nations position on it.
February 6, 1992

I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that if we divide this nation, we will not be the second best place in the world; we might be the fifty-second or the seventy-seventh or whatever number, because people will see we have lost a great opportunity.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House during this special debate on the federal proposals. After listening to the speeches we have had so far, I must say I am disappointed in the level of this debate. It sounds more like a series of open-line shows than a serious debate, when in a matter of only a few weeks or months the final proposals on the constitutional future of this country are to be submitted to Quebec.
I listened more or less attentively to speeches similar to those made in 1980, with their references to this great and beautiful country of ours and their promises of major changes. Twelve years later, Madam Speaker, such speeches are no longer appropriate. In February 1992, they seem rather irrelevant. After all, when the House meets to discuss national unity, it cannot, in the process, ignore the Quebec question.
Quebec is the only reason national unity is a problem for the rest of Canada. This evening I heard about solutions to all kinds of problems, but no concrete proposals for meeting Quebec's aspirations. I realize now why, after the Quebec round, people wanted to drop the word Quebec and call this the Canada round.
After Meech Lake and the lack of generosity shown at the time by the rest of Canada, they now want to confuse the issue and dilute Quebec's aspirations in this vast, 28-proposal plan. However, Madam Speaker, in the end it always comes down to the co-existence of two founding peoples, and whether, in this institution and in this country, there is any possibility they would be able to get along and prosper together.
Madam Speaker, after Meech Lake, English Canada caught a new virus. It was afflicted with acute consultation, and for a year or rather 18 months after the demise of Meech Lake, we have seen a series of more or less useless consultations. Some were more useless than others, and we all remember the Spicer commission. We had the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, the Castonguay-Dobbie commission now Beaudoin-Dobbie and we have had a series of conferences. Basically, the process is still
The Constitution
going on. Unfortunately, we have become so obsessed by the process that we have forgotten the purpose, Madam Speaker. We are so intent on pleasing everyone and his dog that we have lost sight of the fundamental issues.
Consequently, when we as sovereignists listen to what is going on across the country and we see how the country is getting bogged down as a result, we can only predict that the process is doomed to fail. Madam Speaker, during the past few weeks, a series of conferences has rejected the federal proposals, one after another.
At the Halifax conference, for instance, the whole division of powers package was rejected out of hand. They opened the dictionary and came up with a new concept. To avoid the words "special status" they called it asymmetry, to confuse Canadians even more. Our pseudo-intellectuals thought they could sell this concept to the rest of the country. However, we have already had a reaction from Clyde Wells, one of the people who killed Meech Lake, and who saw through the mist of rhetoric and said that asymmetry was unacceptable in his Canada.
Madam Speaker, at the conference in Calgary, people also rejected most of the institutional reforms proposed by the government. As for the conference in Montreal, it might as well have been called off before it started, because all the proposals for economic union had already been rejected by members of the government. However, the charade goes on, Madam Speaker, and I predict that the Beaudoin-Dobbie report will be a carbon copy of the Charest report. The truth is, we have the same people around the table, the same parties with the same programs.
After the demise of Meech Lake, people still don't realize that talk and consult as we may, there are still two visions in this country. There are two visions that are diametrically opposed, whether we are talking about institutions, the division of powers or provincial jurisdiction. The problem, Madam Speaker, is that there are two visions and only one country. What we need is another country, and that is why Quebec sovereignists say to the rest of Canada: Make the kind of country you want. Make your own country. Concentrate all powers in Ottawa. Form an economic union that will turn your provincial governments into municipal governments. Go ahead, but don't expect us to get involved. We don't want to appear anti-Canadian. We realize some people may

The Constitution
prefer to live in a very centralized country, but we feel this goes against the initial pact of Confederation.
We can assume that English Canadians will develop their own kind of country and their own kind of institutions. We also have to recognize the fact that through the years, francophones and Quebecers have achieved greater maturity, both economically and culturally.
When I hear speeches that recognize our distinctiveness on the cultural level only, I must say that Quebecers' aspirations now go far beyond culture. We have also learned to use the economy to shape our present. We also want to control the instruments of our economic development. Therefore, Madam Speaker, when I see the process in which we are engaged, I must regret that we are talking at cross-purposes and that here in this House people still dream of the good old days and still talk about sharing the wealth, when this Parliament has got the country $400 billion in debt, when we know that every day the Minister of Finance makes decisions on the basis not of sharing the wealth but of sharing the debt.
I would like to be able to believe that the sharing of powers is not necessary at this time and that everything is going well in the best of all worlds. In reality, there is duplication every day; there is waste that our fellow citizens can no longer afford.
I would like to tell you that this debate is not artificial, but it is, Madam Speaker. The reality is that back in their ridings, some members mentioned the reactions of their constituents who do not want any special status for Quebec, who do not necessarily want any new power sharing, who want an equal Senate where Quebec would be equal to Prince Edward Island.
I know that some Canadians think that. They can make their country as they want to, Madam Speaker. But we are telling you tonight that the process this country is in does not fit reality and the last chance, Madam Speaker, was the Meech Lake accord. There are no more chances. The reality is that your process, the one being followed here, talks about the good old days. However, the people have matured much more than this Parliament. Madam Speaker, let us hope that we find a way to maintain the dialogue, to shape new institutions, perhaps common economic institutions, but be sure of one thing: Quebecers will decide their future themselves. This Parliament will not dictate to them what their future will be. Accordingly, Bill 150 of the National Assembly provides for a referendum on October 26 and I hope that this Parliament will respect the democratic choice of Quebecers.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, on a night when we are discussing the new rules for the country of Canada and our relationships within the country I thought it would be appropriate for me, even though it is also contrary to our rules, to introduce to you-and I hope my friends will forgive me doing this-the 11th Ottawa Hunt Club B-Pack Cubs and B-Colony Beavers, who are with us studying rules.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary has very openly broken a rule which he knows very well. He also knows very well that the only person in this place who can openly recognize someone in the gallery is the Speaker. As someone who was in the scouting movement many, many years in her youth, I will join with the House and say hello to all of them.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, my friend who preceded me, because he spoke eloquently as someone looking at a picture of the past and in that picture he sees the future. I accept everything he says to us because he is talking about one vision of Canada. He says that we must save this country and build a country that is evolving. He reminds us that this country was created by a pact that resulted from negotiations between two founding peoples, yes, but their combined population was less than three million 125 years ago.
Today, Madam Speaker, the population is completely different. Our population is now over 27 million. My colleague, my friend, will be the first to admit that the population of the country he knew in the past is no longer the population he sees nostalgically, somewhat romantically, in that picture, some idealized dream of a past that never really existed. That said, I would not deny that there are legitimate aspirations, because every
February 6, 1992

people, all the peoples of Canada, have aspirations that must be considered in the future balance of this country. The history of Quebecers in North America and then in Canada is also my history. As a Canadian, when I was a young student, for me, the history of Canada was the history of Quebecers' experience, because for me they were Canadians. Like many recent arrivals to this country, I felt part of that experience.

It is an experience from which we have built our own Canadian experience. My hon. friend says that maybe this debate should have been one in which we start to talk about how to save this country.
I do not think there is a member in this House who would not want to save this country, like my constituents and the constituents of all members of this House. The questions have really become frustrating ones about how this is to be accomplished. Even worse, it is a perplexing one: What kind of country do we see?
My colleague from the Bloc has given his image of a country. I am not sure it is an image which is shared by all he would pretend to represent, although it is a legitimate position nonetheless. I also represent a sizeable section of this country which not only has deep roots in the geography, tradition and heritage that is Canada, that is Quebec, that is every other province but has a stake in the future and aspirations of all Canadians, whether they define themselves as-

Quebecers, Ontarians or British Columbians- [English]
they are part of something which we all aspire to build, because, as my colleague said-

we want to make a country in our image.

If we want to construct a country, what kind of an image is that? It is a country in evolution which takes into consideration that more than 40 per cent of the
The Constitution
people of this country have their roots in a history neither anglophone nor francophone in origin.
They see themselves as proud proprietors of the destiny of this country as much as anyone else. The key point that we should be concentrating on in this debate, in the discussion of the proposals that will eventually come before this House, is whether all Canadians will have proprietorship in the proposals this House must consider.
Until this point we have not reached that kind of consideration. As my colleague has said, we have taken a picture of the past seen with great nostalgia and inferred on that picture attributes which perhaps were not considered then and which we wish to selectively attribute through our historical interpretation. Whether we come from one side of that picture or the other we are excluding better than one-third of this country.
Most important, we are excluding the aspirations and the perceptions of the great majority of Canadians. They are beginning to suffer frustration and anguish upon seeing the growing intolerance which I see as a member of Parliament.
I, too, like some of my other colleagues, have sent out questionnaires. I have sought out opinions. Unfortunately, most of the results say that this country is a uniform, monolithic, homogeneous concept which coincides with the writers' own. I do not fit in that definition either, and I could see how my colleague from the Bloc would also not fit into it.
We have a higher calling in this House. I, and my colleagues from all parties, have a calling to ensure that we gather all of those ideas together and demonstrate some leadership. We cannot afford to marginalize those who saw this country as an opportunity to develop a nation built by working collectively, in collaboration, by ongoing co-operation and ongoing negotiations in which the key words were evolution and growth.
Maturity develops when we have a rapport that is not exclusive and is not excluding. There was an article in Time earlier this week alluding to the concept of a multicultural America. I think it is also a very worthwhile concept for the Canadian experience. It is only when we begin to understand the true meaning of this

February 6, 1992
The Constitution
kind of a philosophy, this kind of a concept that we define multiculturalism, that we throw away very quickly with the same kind of disdain that many of our less tolerant Canadians view bilingualism or a multicultural experience or in fact any other kind of experience that is not their own and not particular to their parish.
What we have to do with the debate that has begun tonight is to consider very seriously where the initiatives of the government's proposals are going to take us as individuals, as citizens of this country. Let not any of us give attention to all of those who would wield power by trying to influence a decision based on jurisdictional interests.
Like my colleague, I too am tired of seeing a premier from this province or another province wax with all kinds of arrogance and with all kinds of righteousness on constitutional position and tear the country apart as a result. Positions should be discussed in this House. All of us have the obligation and the authority to do so.
Yes, we can draw upon many of our constituents. I too would like to table in this House at least five of the briefs that were presented at a constitutional piazza in my riding. Over the course of seven hours people from all walks of life, such as Dan Iannuzzi, a publisher of the magazine, Communita' Viva, spoke about some of the reforms of institutions of Canadian-Italian business associations, youth groups and other community groups as well, all of them with a stake in this country and all of them feeling left out, all of them saying: "We can support a new constitutional package if indeed one must be had. If not, we would like to have a stake in what is going to be the outcome". With that stake we also gain that proprietorship. With that proprietorship we can afford to give support. We can afford to talk about those things which are germane to each and every one of us on a day to day basis, the economy, the way that we relate to our parents, to our families and to all of our neighbours.
All of those things cannot be achieved unless we allow all Canadians to draw that picture that my colleague painted so eloquently a few short minutes ago. We can expand that picture to include the whole complexity of Canadian society and give it the philosophical requirement it needs to sustain continued growth. That sustenance cannot be found except through a concept that
recognizes equality, diversity, partnership, collaboration, co-operation and justice.
That concept is encapsulized in one word, "multiculturalism". It is not encapsulized in any other. Only under that concept can we permit the kinds of differences and kinds of distinctions and the kinds of authorities and jurisdictions at a legislative level to ensure the flow of the evolution of a development of a country in which we can all take part.

Quebecers, Canadians, everyone. Thank you.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a spirit of great optimism that I stand before my colleagues today to speak about the positive momentum and energy that is building around the government's constitutional reform process.
Recent developments lead me to believe the federal government's efforts to promote a dialogue on constitutional reform is clearly having positive results. Granted, our constitutional discussions have a long history. Within the last 13 years the federal government has embarked on no fewer than 15 reports on the Constitution: Pepin-Robarts, Donald Macdonald, and Keith Spicer to name just three.
Last September, my government tabled its 28 proposals in the document Shaping Canada's Future Together. The process to make them known to Canadians across this great country is clearly galvanizing public interest and a desire to solve these issues for generations to come.
In the past weeks Canadians' well-known tolerance and respect for diversity have been diligently applied to the process of building a new Canada. Through the process that has been put in place, namely a special joint committee, the five national constitutional conferences, and the parallel process on the aboriginals, many opinions, some strongly stated, some passionately held, are being advanced. The constitutional conferences are providing Canadians with a first-hand look at how complex nation-building is in reality.
I would venture to say that there appears to have been a subtle change in the atmosphere toward the broad constitutional issue since Christmas. By this I mean that
February 6, 1992

there is more confidence that the process itself is working.
Canadians recognize that it has a much broader legitimacy and so it is a catalyst to inspire better ideas for achieving benefits for all Canadians.
Clearly the constitutional conferences have helped. This is due in part to the fact that Canadians from a wide variety of backgrounds have come together and somehow there is a greater sense that the country is at risk, that we risk losing something truly wonderful.
Canadians at these conferences are taking a national perspective on these issues, which is most heartening. All this is not to say that there will not still be sharp debate in our future. There is a lot to talk about and a lot of agreement still to seek, but this vigorous debate is providing many excellent ideas which will be very helpful in making improvements to the original package.
Let me detail for you some of these positive signs. The spirit of openness and diversity of opinion has marked all three conferences held to date, but participants at the first one are still talking about the spirit of Halifax. At this first conference the unexpected happened. Delegates demonstrated first hand to the rest of the country that they were open to accommodation to ensure that Quebec remains a member of the Canadian family. They were even prepared to suggest that the federal government should change its power-sharing arrangements, that such an act of accommodation would be made to ensure that Quebec is kept as a member of the Canadian family. Canadians have spoken and my government will listen.
Delegates to the conference in Calgary spent the bulk of their time talking about the Triple-E concept, a Senate that is elected, effective, and equal. As you may know there was overwhelming agreement on the first E, that the Senate ought to be elected.
Most people thought a more effective Senate is also a good idea.
True, there was no real consensus on the third E, no agreement on whether each province should send an equal number of senators to Ottawa. My government is anxiously awaiting to see how the special joint committee deals with this issue.
The Constitution
Furthermore there are now a number of formulas on the table that may meet with broader acceptance, such as proportional representation.
At the economic union conference in Montreal there was a broad view that the Constitution should be brought up to date allowing freer trade in services, in capital and people, not simply goods. This is certainly something that the government believes is important. Although there was less agreement on our other economic proposals, we must separate the underlying principles to continue Canada's wealth and prosperity.
Some criticize the language of our precise proposals but fortunately there seems to be a growing acceptance that economic union powers can be expressed as acts of joint decision-making, not unilateral authority.
My government looks forward to the discussions this weekend on distinct society, the Canada clause and Canadian values at the fourth conference. Already in the past few months many Canadians have suggested that accepting Quebec's distinct society would be the natural thing to do.
The future of Quebec in this country is a question to be addressed by every Canadian. When one-quarter of our population wonders if it is wanted, then that is a problem to all of us.
Canadians will voice their opinion on the need to reflect in our Constitution the reality that Quebec is a distinct society so that the French-speaking majority of Quebec can feel at home finally and forever in the Canadian family. The government will listen carefully to those views.
On the aboriginal proposals there seems to be a growing willingness in many quarters to describe the aboriginal right of self-government as inherent, as long as this is in the context of Canadian law or Confederation.
As you can see there is a momentum building. The mood is more buoyant and more positive. This bodes well for the country.
Almost as important as the conference subject matter is the tone with which it is discussed. It is particularly important at this sensitive time in our country's development that these discussions be characterized by a recog-

February 6, 1992
The Constitution
nition that compromise and accommodation are the essential ingredients for a united Canada.
That is exactly what has occurred in the last three conferences. Canadians are to be commended for their level-headed yet passionate approach to the process of nation-building. It is a process that is working extremely well. It is demonstrating that Canadians are seeking to understand one another's point of view in the interests of building a more united Canada.
As the joint parliamentary committee prepares its report for February 28, a report based on presentations by many different groups as well as the advice from the constitutional conferences, the process for a consensus has gradually begun to take form. Very shortly the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee will provide its recommendations to the government. Regardless of the direction of these recommendations, I am pleased to see that an openness of spirit is growing across the country. Now more than ever, as we enter the final stretch of this stage of the constitutional reform process, the ability of all parties to compromise, to conciliate and to achieve consensus will be paramount. The government intends to continue this open consultation process.
As the Prime Minister recently said: "We will remain flexible, open-minded and focused on an achievable consensus that can serve durably for generations to come".
The federal government looks forward to continued, vigorous and reasoned debate to ensure that the best possible constitutional package is achieved in this Canada round. It is clear from the spirit of compromise that Canadians want to keep this country united and prosperous. My government intends to do everything in its power to achieve that goal.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to say a few words about the unity of our country. I do so as the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, but also as a citizen of this country, bom in Quebec, who chose Ontario as his province of residence.
Mr. Speaker, the electoral district in Ontario which I represent has a francophone majority, which is rather unusual and practically unheard of for some Canadians, and I would even say for some Quebecers. I have travelled many times in Quebec with my family, and I remember one trip in particular. I stopped at a service station near Quebec City, and the young man who filled my tank spoke to me in English. I answered in French, but he kept answering in English. He thought I would
appreciate that being from Ontario and as far as he was concerned, I was an anglophone. I had a hard time explaining to him that in Ontario like anywhere else, francophones speak French.


Mr. Rocheleau:: But the young man was English.


Don Boudria: No he was not. The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer said the boy was English. He was not and I am sure if the hon. member had heard him, he would have realized that. No, this was a francophone who was trying to do me a favour by talking to me in English.
My point is, Mr. Speaker, that first of all, this young man was not aware of the existence of franco-Ontarians, and what is even more important, I think, is that he was being friendly and wanted to please someone by speaking what he assumed to be his language.
And that is something we ought to remember. Every time Canadians quarrel about language, we forget there are many other Canadians with similar differences. The exception does not prove the rule, it is the rule, and we should remember that.
Mr. Speaker, Longueuil township is in my riding, and formerly it was the seigniory of Longueuil. This was before the Constitution Act of 1791, which separated- this may interest the hon. member for Shefford-Ontario from Quebec. The Act of Union of 1840 united Ontario and Quebec, and we have had a united Canada since that time, and I hope we will for many years to come.
Mr. Speaker last fall, I sent my constituents a questionnaire asking them for their views on the constitutional question. I now have the results, and I sent a copy to all the members of the parliamentary committee responsible for examining these issues. In fact, I sent copies to several members and to all the media in my riding, as well as to the respondents themselves. About 500 people returned the questionnaire, and here are their responses to some of those questions. I would like to share this with you.
The first question was: Do you think a constitutional declaration on the nature of Canada should include our commitment to two official languages? Ninety-two per cent of my constituents answered yes, 11 per cent said no, and 7 per cent were undecided or did not reply.

February 6, 1992

The diversity of our cultural heritage? Sixty-eight per cent answered yes, 15 per cent, no, and 17 per cent, other.
The distinctiveness of Quebec's society? Forty-two per cent answered yes, 41 per cent no, and 17 per cent had no opinion. Here again, the majority of my constituents were in favour of the proposal.
Recognition of the role of aboriginal people? Sixty-two per cent answered yes, 20 per cent, no, and 18 per cent had no opinion.
Actually, the response to all my questions was rather interesting. Thke, for instance, the mobility of goods and capital in Canada. Eighty-eight per cent in favour, 5 per cent opposed, and 7 per cent no opinion or undecided.
Elimination of the provinces' preferential procurement policies? Sixty-four per cent in favour, 14 per cent opposed, and 22 per cent other.
Elimination of interprovincial barriers to trade? Sixty-eight per cent in favour, 13 per cent opposed, and 19 per cent no response.
Elimination of provincial restrictions on the practice of certain professions? Seventy-one per cent in favour, 17 per cent opposed, and 22 per cent undecided.
The answers are not surprising, Mr. Speaker, because in a border region like mine, people are aware of the problems involved in moving goods or services between provinces.
Canadians may recall the story of the contractor in Nepean, here in the Ottawa area, who had been awarded a contract to install pavement in the Aylmer area. When it was found the bricks had been manufactured in Ontario, every single brick had to be removed.
Most Canadians know the story. What is not generally known, however, is the fact that the same has often happened in reverse.
I remember that when I was a provincial member, the Ontario government purchased railway cars from Hawker Siddeley in Thunder Bay instead of from Bombardier in Montreal, although they were more expensive, because it meant keeping the jobs in the province. Of course, the people of Ontario ended up paying more,
The Constitution
because the government had spent more money than was strictly necessary.
My constituents and I feel the kind of restrictive practices that exist today should be eliminated as far as interprovincial trade is concerned. Interprovincial trade in Canada should be increased. We should have free trade among Canadians.
I also asked some questions about an elected Senate. Eighty-one per cent said they were in favour of an elected Senate 12 per cent were opposed, and 7 per cent had no opinion.
Since I left a space for comments, I expected a lot of people to say we should get rid of the Senate or something like that. However, no one did. People were either in favour or opposed or had no opinion, but 81 per cent of the respondents said they were in favour of an elected Senate.
I also asked the following question: Do you think that the decision to create a new province in Yukon or the Northwest Tferritories should be up to the federal government and the ten provinces? Twenty-five per cent. The federal government and seven provinces? Twenty-two per cent. The federal government and the people of the territory in question? Fifty-one per cent. Only two per cent had no opinion.
Should the provinces be involved in appointing judges to the Supreme Court? Sixty-three per cent said yes and 25 per cent said no.
Mr. Speaker, I took this opportunity to tell you about the views of my constituents. I would also like to ask the Clerk of the House to lay the document on the table, and I am referring to the response of my constituents to the questionnaire.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this very important debate.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to participate in this very crucial debate on the future of our country, a debate on whether or not we shall continue as a strong and united nation or whether we will allow, inadvertently or otherwise, Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada.

February 6, 1992
The Constitution
If we are to approach this issue in a realistic and unemotional way, it is important for all of us, whether we live in or outside Quebec, to understand fully the impact and the consequences that separation will have on our lives and on the lives of our families, our neighbours and our friends.
Separation would mean a lower standard of living for all of us. Canadians are bound together not only by a national government, by national programs and national institutions, but also by an interdependent national economy. Separation means severing not only our political ties but our economic ties as well.
In spite of our many provincial trade barriers, six provinces-Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-trade more within Canada than they export to foreign countries. All provinces, with the exception of British Columbia, export significant amounts to Quebec. Of our three largest manufacturing provinces-Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia-only Quebec is more dependent on trade with other provinces than on foreign trade.
Quebec's manufacturing shipments are roughly split between international markets and the rest of Canada. In 1989, 14.5 per cent of Quebec's manufacturing shipments went to Ontario while only 5.9 per cent of Ontario's went to Quebec.
However, in terms of dollars, as opposed to percentages, Ontario sends $10 billion of its manufactured goods to Quebec while Quebec sends over $12 billion to Ontario. Quebec's independence would disrupt those economic ties and could result in the erection of tariffs and other trade barriers.
Separation would create two new countries, each with a smaller population and a smaller economic base than a united Canada. Smaller markets and smaller economies are greater risks for investors. Credit ratings would go down and borrowing costs would go up.
The result would be a rise in taxes or a drop in government services for everyone. Because it did not sign the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, an independent Quebec would have to negotiate its own trade agreement with the United States.
In return for such an agreement, the United States would undoubtedly want, among other things, the elimination of all restrictions on American ownership of Quebec businesses, the unlimited right for Americans to bid on Quebec government contracts and the right to buy Quebec power at Quebec domestic prices.
In addition, since Canada without Quebec would
represent only 75 per cent of its previous size, the United States might very well also decide to terminate not only the free trade agreement, but the auto pact as well.
Quebec's independence would also necessitate a division of Canada's assets and national debt. Some say, based on population, Quebec should assume 25 per cent of the national debt. Others say it should be 18.5 per cent based on Quebec's proportion of gross domestic product.
Without the consent of our creditors, the bondholders, Quebec cannot legally assume any of the national debt. At best, we can make a side deal where Quebec makes payments to Canada for whatever share of the interest and the capital we agree on.
However, if an independent Quebec, because of economic problems, defaults on its payments, the new Canada representing 75 per cent of the old Canada would still be responsible for the repayment of 100 per cent of the present national debt. Anyway you cut it, separation means a lower standard of living for each and everyone of us.
Well, if separation is not in our best interest either individually or collectively, what kind of a Canada do we need? In my view, we need a Canada with a strong national government and we do not need more decentralization.
Supporters of decentralization say that we are overgoverned, that we need to disentangle federal, provincial, regional and local jurisdictions and that we need to get decision-making closer to the people. By doing so, they say, we are going to eliminate duplication, waste and inefficiency.
That all makes good sense, but if we do decentralize, what will happen to national standards? What will happen to our national social safety net? What will happen to the equality of all Canadians and what will happen to our sense of being a Canadian? What do you think, Mr. Speaker, will our taxes really go down?
February 6, 1992

Well, if we do decentralize, the provinces will certainly need additional taxing powers to pay for their new added responsibilities. If we increase provincial taxing powers, we will have to decrease federal taxing powers. That in turn will reduce the number of tools available to our national government for managing the economy and creating an economic climate that encourages job creation and promotes price stability.
Canada is already one of the most decentralized countries in the world. The national governments of the United States and Australia both raise and spend substantially more money in comparison to their state governments than we do in comparison to our provincial governments.
Only Switzerland is more decentralized than Canada. The Swiss manage their economy by expelling foreign workers when unemployment goes up. In Canada this approach would be controversial, to say the very least.
The greater the degree of decentralization, the greater the need for federal-provincial economic policy co-ordination, something which is very obviously lacking between the federal government and the Ontario provincial government during the past few years. While the federal government was trying to restrain spending, the Ontario government was substantially increasing its spending. This increased spending contributed to higher inflation, higher interest rates and a more severe recession.
In 1988 the federal government reduced its income taxes. However, the effect was completely neutralized when the Ontario government raised its provincial income taxes. Further increasing provincial taxing powers will only create more potential for even greater policy conflicts and could lead us into economic chaos. That is the reason for the federal proposals for an economic union.
I think it is significant that in 1977 the leader of the Parti Quebecois, Jacques Parizeau, said: "Because rather often in Canada we tend to talk of the abusive centralized powers of Ottawa, we tend to forget that in reality Canada is highly decentralized". Ten years earlier Mr. Parizeau had said: "Any further decentralization would lead to a fragmentation of decision-making powers that would be incompatible with any rational planning". In my opinion Canadians should take Mr. Parizeau's advice, on this issue at least.
The Constitution
What we do not need is more decentralization. We do not even need more decentralization combined with the concept of an economic union. What we need is a strong and united Canada and a strong and effective national government.
When our country was bom its architects, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Etienne Cartier, delivered a message. Macdonald said: "We are a great country and we shall become one of the greatest in the world if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and into adversity if we suffer it to be broken". Cartier said: "Avant tout, soyons Canadiens", above all, let us be Canadians.
That is a message we should all take to heart. [Translation]


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, for months now, I have listened to the unending constitutional debate in this country. Mr. Speaker, I see one and only one solution to the present problem: sovereignty for Quebec and sovereignty for English Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to return to the federal-provincial conference held in Victoria in 1971, where we all know that things broke down. In the 1980 referendum, I had the privilege to chair the "no" committee on the Quebec side of the Ottawa Valley. We wanted to try to find ways to unite this country and foster understanding from coast to coast. Mr. Speaker, this was followed by the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 which left Quebec out.
In 1985, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Quebec under Premier Robert Bourassa was elected. In the following months, there were meetings that in April 1987 led to the Meech Lake accord, which was ratified by the 11 first ministers, the federal government and the opposition parties. Every province had until June 23, 1990 to ratify this agreement. T\vo provinces, Manitoba and Newfoundland, opposed it. Mr. Speaker, it was the only chance to allow Quebec to enter the Canadian federation with honour and it was refused.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, there have been many commissions and committees. There was Beaudoin-Ed-wards on the amending formula; the Spicer Commission which cost Canadians some $25 million; the Castonguay-Dobbie committee was set up, but we know that Mr. Castonguay resigned because, as he confirmed last week in La Presse, it was going nowhere. This committee was

February 6, 1992
The Constitution
replaced by the one chaired by Senator Beaudoin and Mrs. Dobbie. There have been regional conferences in Halifax, in Calgary and last week, in Montreal. In a week, one will be held in Vancouver, British Columbia.
The three main parties in the House of Commons asked for tonight's debate. I am sorry that the attendance is so low, Mr. Speaker, only a few members. If we took a vote tonight, the Bloc Quebecois would almost have a majority in this House. That is disappointing, Mr. Speaker, in that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member knows that he should not mention who is or who is not in the House. Committees are meeting, and members are watching it on television inside and outside the lobby. I think he knows better because he has been around here for a long time.


Gilles Rocheleau: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Speaker. To continue, we are discussing the seemingly insoluble constitutional problem tonight.
Previous speakers this evening have offered no solution, Mr. Speaker. They only admitted the failure of constitutional discussions to date. The Meech Lake accord was supposed to be the Quebec round so that Quebec could return to the Canadian federation.
Today, Mr. Speaker, with the Conservative government's 28 proposals, it is now the Canada Round which seeks to solve all the problems at one go, even though Quebec was not allowed to solve its problems honorably. For over 30 years in Quebec, since the quiet revolution- a former colleague of yours here, Jean Lesage, was a minister and was Premier of Quebec from 1960 to 1966. The theme of Jean Lesage's election campaign in 1960, Mr. Speaker, was "masters in our own house", masters of our destiny, with control over cultural, social and economic matters. We have been demanding that since 1960, Mr. Speaker. We are in 1992 and Quebec is now ready to take on its destiny, to look after its own affairs. For Quebec, looking after its own affairs is not to lower
itself or English Canada but to enable both to evolve quite naturally, each in their own sphere as they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, English Canada wants power centralized in Ottawa; Quebec wants power decentralized in Quebec. It is all that, Mr. Speaker. We have gone beyond language and culture; we are now dealing with the economy and powers. The best evidence is that the Parti Quebecois wants sovereignty for Quebec and an economic association with Ottawa. The Quebec Liberal Party at its convention last year adopted the Allaire report recommending that Quebec take back 22 powers but still leave a few powers in Ottawa. It is no longer a partisan political issue; it is a question of Quebecers' collective will to look after their own future. That is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker.
On some occasions, we have been called stupid here in this House by the Prime Minister, as my colleague from Shefford was. We asked for apologies but they were not forthcoming. We are sometimes sneered at because we represent the majority political option of Quebecers, who want sovereignty for themselves and Canada to go its own way, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to stop Canada from succeeding, but we do not want English Canada's views imposed on Quebec by Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee is to submit its report by the end of February. This House will surely study it. The committee will surely make some recommendations and then the House will surely come to a consensus, as happened with the Meech Lake accord, and everything wall again be on the table.
Mr. Speaker, that does not work. In Quebec, we are tired of dealing with the Constitution. In Quebec, we want to deal with our political, social, cultural and economic future. We want to have the powers that will enable us to develop our regions. We are always under the absolute control of federal government policies, in the environment, vocational training and recently, education. In all these fields, nine provinces exercise control over one province.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the only thing I want is to have the people of Quebec consulted next October on their future. The referendum should ask Quebecers a clear, precise, unambiguous question on sovereignty and they will decide. For the benefit of both English Canada
February 6, 1992

and Quebec, Mr. Speaker, we must from now on talk about something other than the Constitution. We must talk about jobs for our young people. We must talk about the economy, health and education. We must talk about something else because we are destroying ourselves.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I remember a phrase-

In English, a song Je vous aime beaucoup; in English, Mr. Speaker, "I love you". I think that is sort of the basic message that the people of Alberta, the people of my constituency, would have for the people of Quebec.
If I understood enough German to use a similar phrase then I would do so in the Chamber The people in my constituency and the people in the west generally have those kinds of emotional feelings for their citizens of German descent or of Asian descent. We are a nation of people who for the most part came from somewhere. If we backtrack far enough in history there are certainly theories that even our aboriginal people came from other continents and other parts of the world. That is what Canada is.
In listening to my colleague across the way who has certainly come to a different conclusion about the future of this country, I think the people in my riding would say to him: "Be cautious". I guess my own personal history and sense of family says be cautious.
My father's family came from an Irish Protestant heritage and into the province of New Brunswick years ago. Some of them wandered west and some of us are into several generations in the west now. My mother's side of the family came from Irish Catholic and into the Kingston, Ontario area and some of them wandered west. Now those genes are into the later generation.
In the meantime those who stayed behind are killing, maiming and bombing on the basis of religious differences that endured through the decades and through the centuries. Yet, as Canadians we have been able to escape the negative parts of that kind of heritage and replace them with a sense of community and a sense of communion.
The Constitution
If there is a message that exists in my riding from all of the sources that are available to me as a member of Parliament to gather information and to bring it to this Chamber, it is the message that we are proud of this country. This is the finest country in the world. Geographically it is huge. It is immense with potential that lasts for decades and centuries into the future in terms of natural resources and opportunity for generations yet unborn.
Culturally we are perhaps even richer. It is almost impossible to believe that there is another nation on the face of the earth that can boast in its citizenry a language spoken that is not spoken by at least one Canadian.
On my block in the city of Calgary in my constituency, the heritage of the people on that very short block on both sides of the street is enormous: eastern European, Asian, African, South American, American and several generations into Canadian. All of those are on a single block.
When I hear my colleagues across the way arguing for the notion of separation, I say: Be cautious. They have not only a tiny view of the world, a view which is too small in terms of the opportunity system for their children, but they have a view that I think the world says is impossible.
The last large experiment with the notion that you can impose a culture, you can impose a language, you can impose a political structure, was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the notion of imposition had it fall apart. It has come to the notion of a federation which we have had for 125 years. We got there 125 years ago and the notion of federation has taken us to at least the second highest standard of living in the world.
They want to take some six million or seven million people in a piece of geography in North America and say: "We can impose a culture, we can impose a language, we can impose a political structure, and it will work".
In the last 13 years I have acquired some capacity in the French language. I have acquired it in the province of Quebec. I have acquired it by spending a lot of weekends in immersion. I have travelled that province. I have stayed in auberges and people's homes and attempted to feel what it is like.

February 6, 1992
The Constitution
When we get out of the politician's world and in with the people it is a world like my world in Alberta. The people are the same. They want the same kinds of things. They have the same diversity. They do not just speak French and a minority speak English in the province of Quebec; they speak Swahili, Hungarian, German, and on and on and on.
The notion some narrow-minded people have from that province that they can impose a single culture and a single way of thinking on some kind of unified body is a notion fraught with danger, a notion that has within it, inherent in it, failure.
If they achieve some kind of vote on some kind of referendum that says that we will separate and break up the country, and they are to experiment with that, there will be chaos. When he stood in this Chamber and said: "English Canada's views on Quebec", I have news for him. He should travel west more often, he will find out that there is no English Canada's view of anything.
There is no such animal as English Canada. There is Canada with Germans, Hungarians, Chinese, Irish and Scots. There are all kinds of heritages. If you go and live a little while in Newfoundland, a little while in Alberta and a little while in northern B.C., there are differences. The message that comes through is that it is a countiy full of differences.
By working together the way we have for 125 years, we are much, much more than the sum of the individual parts. To lead a group of people with their own children, to produce a tiny, artificial, impossible world for those children is really not doing them any kind of a favour.
Canadians love this country. One of the opportunities that we have had in this Chamber tonight and will have next Monday, Tbesday and Thursday is the opportunity to table a document, make sure it gets to the committee, to put a few comments on the record, to make sure that they get to the committee.
I want to table one. I have had contact in all kinds of ways with all kinds of constituents and I did put out a questionnaire. Over 1,500 people replied to it. I would like to table it and perhaps leave the Chamber with one message.
Of all of the questions we asked about the kind of Canada that the people in my riding would like to see for the future, they were not unanimous on anything. That is the strength of this nation, that we are not unanimous on anything perhaps other than the love for this country.
If we wanted some principles, three stood out. That was effective regional representation, equal provincial status and economic efficiency. Over three quarters of the people in my riding said those were three basic principles for Constitution-making in Canada.
We are about 99 per cent of the way there on all three of those and I hope this exercise in the next few months will take us the remaining 1 per cent and we will have the kind of Constitution that joins us together, makes us all feel proud for another 125 years at least.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no further members seeking the floor for debate, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 5, 1992 this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.53 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 7, 1992
t