1992-05-06

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities were disappointed to learn of all the amendments that were not included in yesterday's omnibus bill.
They were disappointed that there were no amendments to the Immigration Act, the Broadcasting Act, or the Evidence Act. They were disappointed with the very limited amendments to the National Transportation Act.
They wanted to see deadlines, timetables and enforcement mechanisms. Instead they got promises of further review, further consultation and further delay.
The concerns of disabled Canadians are not recent. They have been discussing these issues with the government for many years. After all this time, disabled Canadians expected a much more substantive and comprehensive bill.
Once again we have a very fancy press kit but the content is not very impressive.


CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, the government has recently announced a half billion dollar action plan to combat child poverty which includes a substantial budget for community based child development initiatives.
This will provide funding for self-help groups and community based agencies to establish prevention and
development initiatives similar to those recommended by the subcommittee on poverty. These will improve the quality of life and opportunities for high-risk children, in particular, the 20 per cent of poor children who experience long-term poverty.
Municipal infrastructure spending, a national school lunch program, a national day care program, anti-business economic policies would do little to help these very needy children who suffer disproportionately from unhealthy pregnancies, poor nutrition, learning disorders, poor health, dangerous environments, cultural and sensory deprivation, isolation, loneliness and negative selfimages.
Big governments do not have the answers. Thousands of local agencies and community groups have long lists of projects and ideas, many of which were included in the poverty report. These will give those children a sense that they are valued, cared for and will give them brighter futures.


CHERNOBYL
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker,
the world recently marked the sixth anniversary of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in Ukraine.
In Ukraine, evidence continues to mount that the environmental and human damage from the accident is far greater than what various pro-nuclear institutions would have us believe.
The International Atomic Energy Agency did a study in Ukraine but ignored the two groups most affected by the event, the evacuees and those who helped in the clean-up.
According to Dr. Panov, spokesperson for an officially accredited NGO at a recent conference in New York in preparation for UNCED, some 8,000 young men who worked on the clean-up have since died from various diseases caused by radiation. Yet the Canadian minister of energy, ever the faithful lap-dog of the international nuclear community, wrote me the other day that the

May 6, 1992
consequences of Chernobyl were "not as serious as many people have been lead to believe".
Canada and other nations need to put aside their fear of exposing the truth about this event and come quickly to the aid of Ukraine in dealing with this issue.
Help with the sarcophagus is needed, help with unbiased studies and help to ensure that other similar reactors in Ukraine, Lithuania and elsewhere do not melt down. That help is needed now, before any more damage is done to planet earth in the name of this particular energy option.


WORLD WOMEN'S HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our women's hockey team on its outstanding performance at the world women's hockey championships in Tampere, Finland.
On April 26, during an exciting final game, Canada's women's team shut out the U.S. 8 to 0. Thanks to this major victory, Canada now has the only team so far to hold the women's hockey world championship title. We are looking forward to seeing women's hockey become part of the Winter Olympic Games and hope that will be the case by 1998. Meanwhile, I am sure that all members present and all Canadians will wish to join me in applauding this outstanding achievement by all members of the Canadian team and their coaches, and in wishing them good luck at the next championship games.


PITCH-IN WEEK 92
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Pitch-In Week 92 is taking place this week in several provinces across Canada.
Last year it involved over two million volunteers. It is an extremely thrifty and effective public initiative. For example, for every dollar spent on organizing the national program, $141 was contributed by volunteers, the media and local governments.
The objectives of the Pitch-In Week program are to involve Canadians in environmental enhancement activities; to clean up litter while encouraging voluntary action as a means of resolving the littering problem; and to encourage the reduction, re-use and recycling of waste.
Last year, over 7,800 projects undertaken by over two million Canadians in over 1,100 communities across Canada donated labour totalling over $72 million.
I urge all Canadians to support this program in order to help make active environmentalism a reality for all Canadians.
In my community there is a similar program. Take Pride Winnipeg is encouraging all residents to get a grip on litter. I join Laurie Hunter and all of the participants in helping to try to make Canada a cleaner place for all of us and all of our children.


TORONTO RIOT
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, for the past two nights the streets of downtown Toronto have been the scene of intolerable violence and looting.
On Sunday I watched in disbelief as an organized peaceful demonstration against racism turned violent and Toronto began to look like south central L.A.
Constituents have called me saying they will continue to feel safe only if the police continue to have the power to stop all violence and crimes. I support the efforts of the Metropolitan Toronto Police in quelling the violence and in attempting to keep Toronto safe for everyone.
I also support calls to put an end to systemic discrimination that continues to raise its ugly head in Canada and the United States.


THE LATE RAYMOND BLAIN
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Raymond Blain, municipal counsellor for Saint-Jacques in Montreal, died yesterday. Mr. Blain was dedicated to improving the lives of his constituents, and he was also a friend. Mr. Blain represented a disadvantaged section of Montreal. Saint-Jacques also includes the Gay Village, and Mr. Blain, who was a
May 6, 1992

member of this community, was instrumental in bringing the gay community and the general population of Montreal closer together.
Raymond Blain was one of the first gay politicians to come out of the closet. In doing so he helped to make the entire community aware of this reality and brought hope to the entire gay community. He leaves us with a message of faith in the future, a future that he wished to see based on non-violence, sharing and non-discrimination. Raymond Blain, thank you!


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not perceive themselves as belonging to a racist society. On the contrary, we want respect and equal opportunities for all. However, some members of our society feel left out and have the impression they have been treated unfairly. Very often they are right. We must try and break down the social and economic barriers that inevitably lead to despair, aggressive behaviour, and sometimes even riots.
More than ever before we must pool our resources to find new ways to cope with new realities. We must be more willing to listen to what people have to say and more sensitive to the many signals people are sending us.
Mr. Speaker, racism is everybody's business. It is up to each and every one of us to stop racism. The government has shown it is prepared to do its share. It cannot do this in a vacuum. It needs every one of us. Canadians should be able to treat human values as they should be treated, with great respect, and to do so they must fully understand their significance.


NUNAVUT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from my constituency of Nunatsiaq where on Monday, residents voted overwhelmingly in favour of a boundary for a new
territory in the eastern Arctic. My constituents have reaffirmed decisively their desire, commitment and readiness to have their own government.
We are now firmly on our way toward the establishment of Nunavut in 1999.1 want to congratulate all those who worked so hard and for so long to achieve this goal.
I want to thank all the people of the Northwest Territories who supported our aspirations. We are grateful for their understanding and endorsement.
The people of both the eastern and western Arctic can look forward to governments which are closer to them and more responsive to their needs.
History was made on Monday. A giant step was taken in the building and strengthening of this nation. We must all work together now to ensure a smooth transition to Nunavut.


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians are celebrating National Forest Week in recognition of our country's greatest natural resource.
I come from a province where forestry contributes immensely to our economic and social well-being. Each year nearly $1 billion is injected into the Nova Scotian economy for the manufacture of forest products. Some 21,000 people are directly and indirectly employed by the industry, 4,000 of them in my South Shore riding.
Nova Scotia provides 50 per cent of Canada's exports of Christmas trees and indeed the finest Christmas trees in the world they are.
On behalf of all Nova Scotians, I encourage all members and all Canadians to participate in National Forest Week activities planned throughout the week in communities across the land.


SAINT-LAURENT'S FIRE-FIGHTERS
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was parliamentary day for the International Association of Fire-fighters.

May 6, 1992
Today, I would still like to point out the excellent work done by fire-fighters and more particularly to commend the fire-fighters in Saint-Laurent. I also believe that the Association's requests must be considered and it is important as well to recognize their professionalism.
I want to congratulate the fire-fighters in my riding on being one of the first groups to receive the "code 2" designation.

I would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the fire-fighters of my riding who have, for many years now, maintained a code 2 rating and to compliment these dedicated men for their community involvement in Saint-Laurent.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Garth TUrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the economic recovery is fragile, but it is under way and that is good.
Interest rates are low, and that is good. People are willing to invest right now, and that is good. The federal government in its last budget introduced measures to help small business financing, and that is good.
What is not good is the fact that economic expansion right now is being threatened by a lack of credit. The big banks are restricting credit, calling in loans, asking for unreasonable collateral and hurting small business.
At a time when the bankers in this countiy have made record profits, surely the banks can afford to loosen up to help small businesses and help farmers in this country. These people are asking for no more than the Reich-manns did, which the Reichmanns got, and at considerably less risk to the economy.


NATIVE SCHOOLS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, yet again I find I must rise in this House to condemn the government and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for its failure to address the chronic underfunding of schools on reserves.
This afternoon the Chief of the Red Sucker Lake Indian Band will announce that his community school will be closed due to serious building code and health and safety violations. The deplorable condition of the school at Red Sucker Lake is known by the Department of Indian Affairs. The department's own report cited serious problems requiring immediate action including rotting floor beams, the need to replace inadequate plumbing, the need to replace an antiquated chlorination system that produces toxic fumes, the need to excavate the foundation and remove contaminated soil that produces fumes that seep into the main building.
I call upon the minister of Indian affairs to commit the necessary funds to begin the process of new school construction in Red Sucker Lake as proposed by his predecessor in the fall of 1987.
Indian Affairs itself has identified a number of schools with very serious building code violations like Red Sucker Lake school. It is time to clean up and improve these schools.


STAY IN SCHOOL INITIATIVE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the stay in school initiative is designed to reduce Canada's high school drop-out rate.
It is an excellent program that has worked well in my riding. Stay in school began in Cumberland County in February 1991 with the federal government kick-starting the program.
The community then jumped in to establish partnerships. The partners are teachers, parents, and employers who work together to come up with creative projects that will keep our youth interested and in school.
One example of a very successful project is the "Second Chance" program in Springhill. It actually brings kids back to school by involving them in a semester program as a way of completing their classes.
There are over 40 projects in my riding that are successful under the stay in school initiative and it is working well.
May 6, 1992



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
The large cities of Canada are in big trouble because of unemployment, food banks, violent crime, drugs, homeless people. Yesterday this government was sent an SOS. Will the Prime Minister meet right away with the mayors of the big cities of Canada to address these very urgent problems?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to meet with anyone at any time if it might be helpful in dealing with a given problem.
Sure, we have social difficulties in some of our big cities but I would be disinclined to describe it in the same terms of imminent calamity that my friend uses.
The Conference Board reported this morning, for example, that business confidence is up to its highest level in two years. The economic turnaround continues. So there will be both economic and social improvements.
While we have serious difficulties that we have to deal with in some of the major cities, I do not believe there is that kind of crisis to warrant the terms that some members of the House use to describe a difficult situation.
Sure, I would be happy to meet with whomever at any point in time if that would be helpful and I would happy to entertain as well any reasonable and direct suggestions from members of the House on this or any other subject.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is prepared to meet with the mayors, they will be very pleased to have the opportunity to hold discussions with the Prime Minister, because I do not think that this government has paid much attention to the mayors of our big cities for several years. Not more than a few months ago, they again asked for help from the governments. They are ready to launch job-creation programs immediately and to pay a third of the cost, but the Minister of Finance stubbornly refuses to listen to them.
Oral Questions
The important thing for the cities is to restore social peace and give people some hope. Will the Prime Minister instruct his finance minister accordingly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I received no request from the mayors of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver for a meeting such as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned.
The Minister of Finance and other ministers regularly meet with officials of the large cities to discuss bilateral problems and new possibilities. The Government of Canada, together with the provinces, has programs that make life easier for Canadian municipalities. Of course we can improve them, but it will take specific suggestions to do so.
Speaking of big cities, the other day the Leader of the Opposition went to Montreal and met the mayor of Montreal. On Sunday, his office announced that he would make an important speech on economic and social problems. Instead, he delivered a trite speech in Montreal, while his office in Ottawa released a much more detailed presentation.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us whether the Montreal speech or the text released in Ottawa should take precedence.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in Montreal I spoke of the problems this country is facing because of the economic policies of this government which has created the mess we are in today.
I spoke of high unemployment, misery in the street. People cannot find housing. There are 15,000 homeless people in Montreal. I spoke of the problems of the people in Montreal. I said to these people of Montreal and the rest of Canada that what we need in Canada is a government that cares for the people, and that day is coming soon. When the Prime Minister calls an election, we will solve these problems.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely it. The Leader of the Opposition said he went to Montreal. Indeed he did go to Montreal. The problem with Montreal is that he left his speech in Ottawa. The major speech he was to have delivered Sunday in Montreal he did not deliver. The office in Ottawa put out a speech. I must say the speech

May 6, 1992
Oral Questions
the leader did not deliver in Ottawa was much better than the one he did in Montreal.
Apart from the platitudes that came out of him in Montreal, there was not a single solitary suggestion as to what might be done, except to break the bank with borrowed money and that we will not do. We are working to lower interest rates. We are lowering interest rates. We are increasing economic growth. We are attracting greater foreign investment. This is going to create more jobs.
If my hon. friend has another idea or a better idea, please tell the House of Commons now.


SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It has to do with the fact that the federal government's support for community-based drug outreach and rehabilitation programs is terribly inadequate. Street and community workers want to meet with the government, address the root causes of drug use, discuss drug education strategies, and receive commitments for long-term rehabilitation programs. When will the Prime Minister announce an adequate funding policy for community based programs that would prevent drug use, anticipate solutions, and offer long-term rehabilitation?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to drug abuse and substance abuse, the minister announced four weeks ago another $270 million going into the treatment of drugs. We are working with our provincial colleagues, with the Departments of National Health and Welfare, in regard to co-ordinating our efforts along with the municipalities so that we can get a better handle and treat the youth with regard to drug abuse.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary realize that despite this influx of money, drug trafficking and use in our cities is on the rise? What will the parliament secretary and the government do to ensure that the money announced last
March will reach community based drug prevention and rehabilitation agencies instead of being used for glitzy campaigns and fancy conferences?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, it is not for glitzy campaigns and fancy conferences. We are here to treat this very devastating problem we have and it has to do with substance abuse. With regard to the drug trafficking area, you have heard from the Solicitor General on how he is approaching that. As I said, the $270 million that was announced some weeks ago is maybe just a beginning, but indeed we are working with all the agencies across the country to help alleviate this problem.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It seems increasingly clear that the government will proceed with enabling legislation on a referendum and possibly with a referendum. I know that the Prime Minister is well aware, as is everyone else in this House, that such an issue requires careful ground work and a well thought out plan and answers to important questions.
Therefore, I would ask the Prime Minister if the enabling legislation that he is proposing will determine what will constitute a majority in a vote, if it will also determine how minority interests will be guaranteed and what the process will be for determining the question of a referendum.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the House leader has begun consultations with the House leaders of the main political parties. Am I wrong on that, Harvie?


Mr. Andre:: No. Yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, I see.


An hon. member:: Give him time.


Mr. Speaker:: Can I help?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Forgive me. It was not a consultation. It was a conversation that the House leader had with both other House leaders, precisely on some of the questions that my hon. friend raises, or conversations or consultations that will no doubt lead to that.
May 6, 1992

The government is considering the nature of the legislation and in the process of doing this is taking into account some of the questions my hon. friend raises. As soon as we can, when we have the outlines of what might be acceptable, I know that the House leader will meet with the House leaders of the other parties to get the benefit of their views and criticisms and then bring it forward for consideration by the House.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. It is true that this party has been advised that enabling legislation will be brought forward, but not in terms of the questions that I have raised.
Quite separate from House leaders discussions, I am interested again in asking the Prime Minister what he has thought out as the plan in terms of these questions. Has he considered such issues as what the length of a campaign would be around a referendum, what kind of funding would be available, whether there would be spending limits or third party advertising? These are questions quite separate from that of the House leaders discussions. We have been advised there will be enabling legislation, but I am assuming that the government has thought this out well and has a plan.
My questions are simply directed to the Prime Minister and asking for his responses to these questions.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in conversations with House leaders and whips and deputy House leaders yesterday of the three parties, I indicated to those present that the question for example of spending limits, public assistance and so on are tied into what is permissible under the charter of rights in terms of restrictions and that is something that needs to be looked at. As I indicated, we would be discussing this further with the opposition after we have the benefit of legal advice and so on.
Those kinds of questions, important though they are, are details that I had indicated we would be discussing. In terms of the length of a campaign, the minimum length is dictated by the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of the tasks that we would require of him in the legislation. To some extent, that depends on the details
Oral Questions
in the legislation, but it is also the fact of how long it takes him to enumerate and establish things. That is a practical detail which we can get from the Chief Electoral Officer when we present him with our proposals.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, again for the Prime Minister. Obviously, these are all important questions but if enabling legislation is going to be put before the House next week, as the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has suggested, surely the government has some responses.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. The Prime Minister knows very well that even holding a referendum does not allow him to amend the Constitution without the agreement of at least seven provinces that have 50 per cent of the population. Therefore it is very important for the provincial and territorial governments, as well as native people, to be involved in formulating the question that the government may ask in a referendum.
Will the Prime Minister involve them in formulating a question and how will he do so?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we hope to solve this problem in the negotiations now under way in Saint John, New Brunswick with Mr. Clark and his provincial colleagues.
So if a settlement is reached within a few weeks, even better. At that time, if an agreement is reached or the provinces give us an indication of their intention to proceed, either unanimously or on a 7-50 basis, together as a party, we will make a judgment on the basic document.
If there is no agreement, we will have to break the deadlock somehow and a referendum is a legitimate way to do so. But before going ahead with a referendum or passing a bill, we will of course seek the consent and approval of the opposition parties, as well as the co-operation and concurrence of the leaders of the two other major federalist parties in this House.

Oral Questions


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, recently there have been indications that the negotiators of a North American free trade agreement are completing the text.
I would ask the minister whether he could confirm these rumours. Will he explain what adjustment assistance programs this government plans to introduce to help prepare Canadians for a more open North American free trade area?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in questions that have been put to me by the media, last week was a good week in the negotiations. A number of things were moved on the negotiating front. Some of them were important as far as Canadian interests are concerned.
I have been asked whether an agreement is imminent. I have said that was not the case, that we still had some major issues to resolve. This may take us a few more weeks as yet.
On the question of adjustment, my hon. friend is aware of the significant increases that have been brought in to increase training for people who are between jobs or people who are looking for a job change. That is important whether it is in relation to a free trade agreement or whether it is in response to the ongoing change that is under way in the economy today.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that if the challenges posed by a North American free trade agreement are the same as those posed by economic globalization then Canadians need creative adjustment assistance programs now, free trade agreement or not.
When will the government introduce a far-reaching program of adjustment assistance as a prerequisite of freer trade, as was promised repeatedly four years ago in the last election?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend has pointed out that there is a requirement for adjustment programs just in response to
the significant amount of change that is going on in the global economy today. The increase in that change resulting from a North American free trade agreement is not likely to be that great because of the significance of trade with Mexico relative to the over-all size of our trade. It is less than 1 per cent.
My hon. friend is very much aware that since the free trade agreement came in we have had the report of the de Grandpre committee. We have responded to that by increasing the amount of training. We have responded with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board which brings business and labour together in order to advise the government on what training programs should be made.
I might observe that when this legislation to increase the amount of training in the unemployment insurance budget was brought into the House, his colleagues here and in the Senate held up that legislation for over a year. It was for that reason that we were delayed in bringing these important adjustment programs on stream.
Thankfully they are on stream because of the persistence of this government in bringing about the adjustment programs that are necessary.


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, since its initial share offering last June, Petro-Cana-da's shares have fallen from $13 to about $8. Another 400 to 500 lay-offs were announced at the stormy first annual meeting yesterday in Calgary.
Is the minister of energy or the acting minister of energy pleased with Petro-Canada's performance to date? Why does the company, still 80 per cent owned by the Government of Canada, have funds for continued drilling in Myanmar but seemingly not for Syncrude, for Hibernia or for more oil and gas exploration throughout western Canada?


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought forward many questions. I think it is most important to remember that Petro-Cana-da today is much like a lot of the other oil companies. It is going through a very difficult time with a downturn both on the energy side of it and also on the consumer
May 6, 1992

side of it, with consumers today being much more knowledgeable in the use of gas and not using the gas they normally used years before.
We have to recognize that our industries are in a very difficult way. Petro-Canada has to downsize in order to keep a market available for itself. I think that is what it has done.
It is very unfortunate employees have to lose their jobs; but in a sector that is going through difficult times in order to stay financially viable they did not have any other choice.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, about 60,000 people have lost their jobs in the oil and gas sector in western Canada.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the acting minister has presumably already investigated whether Petro-Canada and its underwriters did a due diligence prospectus before the shares were offered to the public last year. What can he tell us about that study today? Can Canadians rely on a government owned company and its underwriters to provide reasonable due diligence before the Canadian public is invited to buy shares, not afterward?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, the minister in charge of privatization is out of town today. I will take the question and I will certainly ensure the member will get an answer.
  *


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, as the Governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico move rapidly toward a new free trade agreement between those three countries, advertisements begin to appear in Canadian newspapers relative to staking one's claim in the new free trade territory, put in by the Central Power and Light Company of south Texas.
On phoning this light company, the sponsors of the ad in The Globe and Mail, we spoke to Mr. Amando Soto, manager of economic development. He informed us that:
We can provide any company who locales here with a very low cost of doing business-Communities offer land, through giveaways or favourable lease, and tax abatements. Texas offers training packages, and if you're locating in an "enterprise zone" you're eligible for tax rebates.
Oral Questions
Does the minister not agree that this advertising and the positions it supports are a violation of the so-called level playing field between Canada and the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I must say I hesitate to take at face value what my hon. friend is quoting others to say because I think it was some three weeks ago he promised the House that he was going to table a letter from some unnamed senator in Mexico. That letter has never been tabled. Twice he said he was going to table it, and we are starting to wonder why the letter has not been tabled. Possibly it has not been tabled because the letter says something just a little bit differently from what he was saying himself in the House.
In response to the particular question of my hon. friend, my hon. friend has some merit in what he has to say there. It is something we have been pursuing under the Uruguay round negotiations in order to try to address this type of subsidy which is clearly being provided by people at the sub-national level, at the state and local level.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, a previous minister questioned some suggestions I made about correspondence and did not discover that I had tabled the correspondence. This minister is continuing the same habit. I tabled the correspondence three weeks ago in this House, if he would care to find out.
If the minister wishes to cast aspersions as to my veracity, then there is a process known as question of privilege, but he should at least find out that the letter was tabled to begin with.
My second question for the minister is relative to the level playing field. It is impossible for me to understand or anyone else to understand why we would appeal to GATT rulings to defend us from violations of the free trade agreement. I thought we had a panel resolving dispute mechanism in the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. Now they are relying on GATT.
I want to quote further from this conversation and ask this minister a specific question. I was informed that three-year abatements of property taxes are a common incentive but that the companies can go as high as 10 years tax abatement. Corporations usually get together

May 6, 1992
Oral Questions
with the city, county and school districts officials and work out a deal.
Is that or is that not a violation of the free trade agreement? What is he prepared to do about it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend. I had asked whether that particular letter had been tabled and I was advised that it had not been tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if we could leave that particular dispute to another time. Perhaps the hon. minister would like, if he wishes, to respond to the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend is asking a question about the definition of subsidy. He knows perfectly well that matter has been referred to the GATT talks. It is under the GATT talks the matter will hopefully be resolved.
The questions my hon. friend has raised are valid questions. They are questions we are pursuing under the GATT because of the significance that they have.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. This week, long standing suspicions were confirmed that vast quantities of radioactive waste had been dumped in Russian Arctic waters.
What steps has the government taken to ensure that these materials will be neutralized or recovered before they contaminate Canadian Arctic waters? Furthermore, has the government received assurances from Russia that from now on no more radioactive waste will be dumped in their Arctic waters?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we received the same information that the hon. member obtained via the media, namely that the government of the Soviet Union had supposedly dumped toxic radioactive waste. We will check this information. The hon. member also mentioned obtaining certain
assurances from the government in question. We will try, if indeed it is possible, to find out exactly what happened.
The hon. member must realize that today, in what used to be the Soviet Union, it is not always easy to know exactly what happened. Furthermore, I would like to point out that we have an Arctic environmental strategy with a budget of $100 million, as part of Canada's green plan. The purpose of this strategy is to conduct research on the various substances we find in our environment and thus put us in a better position to detect the presence of such substances in Canada's environment.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The threat to Canada posed by the massive dumping of radioactive Russian waste into the Arctic is very serious. What is equally serious, however, is the fact that this government has compromised Canada's ability to react.
The cancellation of a previously announced series of monitoring initiatives and the failure to replace the polar continental shelf project are simply examples of this. They are examples of a government with priorities that are at odds with the needs of the country. Given this new information, what new monitoring measures will the government take, apart from the minor sampling program about which the minister has just spoken, to ensure that the health of northern Canadians is not threatened by the leakage of this waste from the Arctic into Canadian waters?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, only a member of the Liberal Party would call a $100 million initiative a minor sampling program.


An hon. member:: There is no research.


Jean J. Charest: That is false. The member says that there is no research in the Arctic environment strategy. There is a $35 million research program in the Arctic environment strategy.
We have been made aware, and we have known for some time-that is the very nature of this issue-the problems we are dealing with are global. We bear the consequences of some toxic pollution in the air, atmospheric pollution on our territory.
May 6, 1992

The Arctic environment strategy is the method through which in the green plan we propose to deal with this.


NUCLEAR SAFETY
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It is clear that this is not the last time that nuclear horror stories will emanate from the former Soviet Union. The international community is justly alarmed that nuclear power plants are currently operating throughout the whole region without adequate safety containment shields.
Does Canada's contribution to the $24 billion international aid package to the Commonwealth of Independent States include provisions which will minimize the safety risk posed by these nuclear reactors? Will Canadian expertise be formally offered to the Russians?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member has not been following what we have been doing.
Indeed those are things that are not necessarily part of the new $24 billion package but they are things that we have already done. Our initial humanitarian assistance was to victims of Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents within the former Soviet Union countries.
We have provided nuclear expertise. We have offered it through our technical assistance projects. We have some people on the ground. We will be working very closely with Ukraine and other countries in the region on the dismantling of nuclear weapons. We are very involved in all aspects of nuclear safety, nuclear control and nuclear waste through our assistance to the former Soviet Union.
Indeed, it was well under way before the new package was announced.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In November 1989 the Prime Minister proposed the creation of an Arctic council consisting of eight polar
Oral Questions
countries concerned with, among other things, protecting the delicate environment in the Arctic.
Taking into account that such an international agreement will forever affect the way of life of Canadian aboriginal peoples in the Arctic, can the Prime Minister guarantee that these peoples will be active participants in the negotiations and when can we expect the Arctic council to be finally established?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is a little behind because the first meeting of officials on the Arctic council has already been held.
The participation and the work that is being done is in the process of being determined through wide consultations with other countries, including aboriginal peoples.


BILL C-22
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the government announced that it was severing the new Bankruptcy Act, Bill C-22. In severing this act, it has dropped the wage protection fund. In the rest of the act it has looked after all the stakeholders. It has looked after the bankers. It has looked after the lawyers. It has looked after the trustees. It has looked after the fishermen, the farmers, the businesses, except it has not looked after the employees who have lost their wages in a bankruptcy.
My question to the minister is this. How does the minister justify relegating employees to the back of the bus for another 43 years? How can he ignore the interests of those stakeholders in this bill?


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows veiy well that there was a very strong attempt by the government to put together a package that would accommodate the workers.
Unfortunately, the hon. member himself could not agree on the right approach. He disagreed with the government's approach. Therefore, because of the importance of this Bankruptcy Act-the member, I think, supports the Bankruptcy Act-we have decided to press ahead with this and to find consensus among Canadians and among members of this House on this very impor-

May 6, 1992
Oral Questions
tant issue of employees and the wages that are owed to them.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member asks his supplemental, I understand this matter is before the committee. The hon. member phrased his question very carefully and I would ask him to do it again and make sure that it does not get into something that is right in front of the committee, because then it would be out of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the government's approach is to ignore the workers altogether. That is their approach to the problem.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The government, by dropping its priority, is giving up $25 million in this proposal. I want to ask the Minister of Finance how he justifies giving up the priority of the Crown, which is the taxpayers' money, when he cannot find one penny for the workers who have lost their wages in a bankruptcy?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is all over the map. A moment ago he was defending workers and now he is defending the government's Crown priorities. I do not think he understands where he is coming from on this particular issue.
The hon. member knows that this bankruptcy bill is very important for the small and medium-sized businesses of this country. I know he wants to co-operate with the government in getting this important legislation through.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Justice.
The minister was speaking to the media and relating to them her concern about the question of urban violence, and as an example of her foresight in this area she related to them that she had already commissioned a study of law and multiculturalism.
Well, she has commissioned a study on law and multiculturalism but that has now been cancelled because it was given to the Law Reform Commission to be completed.
How can the minister say that she is concerned about our urban violence when the very study she uses as an example of her concern has been cancelled?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, I made no mention whatsoever of any study on the law in multiculturalism. What I referred to was the meetings I have been having with the mayors of the large cities of Canada to talk about getting together at a possible meeting to develop a strategy on urban safety, urban violence and urban crime.
I made no mention of any study.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, not only have we lost that very important study on law and multiculturalism but we have also lost the study on the arresting of suspects and police conduct and powers.
With the loss of the Law Reform Commission and the problems that are being experienced now in Toronto, we will not have these very important papers completed.
Now how can the minister assure the House that we will have the study needed into these subjects when the government is determined to do away with the Law Reform Commission?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the arrest of suspects, if what the hon. member is referring to is the use of deadly force and the examination of the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to fleeing felons, that has been the subject of a review by the government for a number of years. In fact I am ready to take forward recommendations to cabinet to change the legislation. We are at the end of the process, not at the beginning of it.
But I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that since the advent of the Law Reform Commission in the early seventies-which did very good work, I would be the first to admit it-the law schools of this country and the capacity of other research institutions to participate in the development of public policy has grown many fold. The government will continue to contract with those
May 6, 1992

appropriate organizations to seek outside and independent advice in many areas of public policy.


BEEF INDUSTRY
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since 1988 net imports of dressed beef into Canada have tripled. Much of this is ungraded beef. In 1991 the Minister of Agriculture promised Canadians he would instruct his officials to identify this ungraded product to Canadian consumers.
The regulations have now been passed and only the carcasses and containers shipped are marked as being ungraded beef. There is no requirement to identify the grade to the consumer.
Why are Canadian consumers not being informed that the imported product they are buying may be cheap, tough U.S. cow beef?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that Agriculture Canada has a responsibility when it comes to grading. We have and will be putting in place regulations that identify the no-roll, the ungraded, as being exactly ungraded beef.
His other question would be best addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I will bring his question to the attention of my colleague and I am sure he will reply to my friend.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, under the streamlined inspection system in the United States, the plant itself pays for the inspectors.
Last Thursday on the ABC program Prime Time Live, grading conditions in the U.S. beef packing plants showed that of ten samples taken, seven showed fecal contamination.
How can Canadian consumers be certain the beef they are buying has been graded and inspected by qualified United States department of agriculture inspectors when the retailer is not required to identify this product or the grade.
Oral Questions
When is the government going to require that all imported foods be clearly marked for the Canadian consumer with the Canadian grade equivalent?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, we are working with the USDA to harmonize inspections. Our idea of harmonization is to have the United States department of agriculture provide the same protection, not only for their own people, but for Canadians as the Department of Agriculture provides in the security of the food supply for Canadians.
He is aware that we have a process for re-inspection that was implemented by this government. American product brought into Canada is re-inspected at the point that the Government of Canada designates where beef is inspected by qualified professional Department of Agriculture inspectors.


IMMIGRATION
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Many Canadians are gravely concerned about the thousands of illegal refugees and immigrants who are coming to Canada. These people quickly avail themselves of our generous welfare, health and legal assistance and it is costing Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars.
I was pleased to hear that the minister is imposing new visa requirements on eight countries to curtail the flagrant abuses of Canadian immigration and refugee laws.
What is the minister doing to stop the flood of illegal refugees and immigrants from the many other countries throughout the world that were not mentioned in his communique?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, these changes have become necessary to stop the use of fraudulent documents to enter Canada illegally. I want to thank the hon. member for his interest in this matter.

May 6, 1992
Oral Questions
I may add that the Department of Employment and Immigration has put in place a two-pronged enforcement strategy. Outside Canada, this strategy has been very effective in preventing the illegal entry into Canada of persons whose identity is unknown, while in Canada, we have certain control mechanisms that provide information on the unlawful use of counterfeit documents. These are two examples of a new working approach with a view to improving our quality of life while maintaining the integrity of our immigration system.


SMALL BUSINESS
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of small business.
The Small Business Financing Program was designed to provide relief to small businesses in financial difficulty. The problem is that chartered banks get to determine who is qualified and who is not. If a small business feels it qualifies for the Small Business Financing Program and the bank does not, what recourse does a small business have to get that decision overturned?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to tell my hon. friend that originally we had some problems with the chartered banks disseminating this program and making it clear to all branches. I have spoken to all the chairmen of the banks a second time and have written to them. They are now complying and are starting to put this program in the window.
However, my hon. friend should know that this program existed before 1987. There is considerable experience with it. There are clear criteria about how one qualifies and how one does not qualify. It will be the credit managers who make that decision.
If one is unhappy with the decision of the credit manager, there are a number of other programs; the Federal Business Development Bank, for example, with term lending, concessionary lending, with quasi-equity financing, plus there are the regional agencies to help as well. Plus, I suppose, if a small business person does not like the answer from their bank they can go to another bank.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last winter the government spent over $1 million in consultation meetings concerning options for western grain transportation. Yesterday the minister announced after meetings with his provincial counterparts that he ruled out two of the options because they did not appear to have support.
Since the votes at those meetings showed that over 90 per cent of Saskatchewan farmers voted in favour of the status quo, over two-thirds of Manitoba's farmers supported the status quo, and between 55 and 60 per cent of Alberta's farmers voted in favour of the status quo, has the government now decided to simply accept that result and continue delivering the Crow benefit through the railways? If not, why not?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The
hon. member is partially correct, Mr. Speaker. He is correct in his assessment that we had a discussion among ministers going back to last summer where there was a decision made by all ministers of agriculture of the day to become involved in putting forward information to the producers on the WGTA.
Five options were identified. Those are well known. They were part of the work program of Transportation Thlks.
The hon. member quotes votes that were taken throughout the system. I have said before and say again the purpose of Transportation Thlks was not to have people publicly express their opinion. It was a workshop and strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, when my colleague looks at the reports of each one of those meetings he will find that what was written on work sheets in privacy is entirely different from the view expressed when one had to stand in a group and express his view.
The Government of Saskatchewan is the only government through our meetings Monday that made a decision not even to explore efficiencies in the handling of WGTA dollars, efficiencies that regardless of the side of the issue either pay the producer or pay the railroads. They all wanted efficiencies.
May 6, 1992

Would he please speak to his colleague in Saskatchewan and ask him to examine efficiency for the benefit of the producers in Saskatchewan.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell us today when he will table a bill in this House on the preventive withdrawal of pregnant workers in federally regulated businesses, so that it is part of the Canada Labour Code?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague and this House that I intend to table, on behalf of the government, a series of amendments to the Canada Labour Code, including the amendments that my colleague refers to. I will do it soon.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (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 11 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, disclosure of results of public opinion polls.


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


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require that opinion polls conducted by the government
Routine Proceedings
be made public in a timely fashion so members of Parliament and the general public could benefit from information that is raised from the Canadian people on current issues and paid for at public expense.


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


PETITIONS
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour to present another 1,000 petitioners who are complaining this government is mishandling the refugee claimants in Canada and Canadian taxpayers have spent unjustifiably exorbitant amounts of funds on a determination system that has proved to be inequitable and ineffective.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to grant an amnesty to all refugee claimants presently in Canada, subject to the exclusion only of those who have serious criminal records in Canada, or records abroad for offences that would be considered serious in Canada. If the government accepted our recommendation of administrative review there would be no need to call for general amnesty.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition here signed by constituents of Parkdale-High Park protesting the closing of Postal Station B in Parkdale-High Park.
These petitioners believe that as Canadians they have a right to efficient mail service. They have seen that service at Postal Station M has been cut and previous attempts to privatize mail service in their neighbourhood has failed.
They ask Parliament to call upon the minister responsible for Canada Post to review the decision to close Postal Station B. Instead renew the lease and ensure the service remains at the Ritchie Street location.

May 6, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by citizens of my riding, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. They ask Parliament not to pass Bill C-203 on euthanasia.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table some petitions today. The petitioners ask Parliament to put pressure on the government to restore the Court Challenges Program, which as we know enabled many Canadians to assert their rights in court and to have their language rights and other equality rights clarified.
Mr. Speaker, these petitions are among many that I have tabled in the House and that I continue to table; they bear eloquent testimony to Canadians' desire to ask the government to heed this request and restore the Court Challenges Program without delay.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by many people from the riding of Malpeque: Whereas the Government of Canada has not maintained its responsibilities for the maintenance of wharfs and harbours in Atlantic Canada, the Government of Canada has agreed to provide properly maintained wharfs and harbours, whereas many of the wharfs in Prince Edward Island are in a deplorable and unsafe state and require major repair, these petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to proceed with necessary maintenance and repair and ensure the safety and future of the fishery of Prince Edward Island.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition to the House from constituents in my riding of Northumberland.
Their petition relates to the amending of the Constitution of Canada and in fact supports a point that was put forward over a year ago by the leader of my party.
The petitioners go on to say that they want a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government and that the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by, one, a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with, two, a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions. The first one is two petitions signed by people and residents of my riding of York West. I think they are quite appropriate in terms of their time because they are requesting the Government of Canada and the Solicitor General specifically to amend the Narcotics Control Act so that the financial assets from drug seizures not go to the general revenues account of the federal government but get shared with the local organizations which are responsible for trying to combat drugs on the streets and back alley-ways of our city.
I am hopeful that the Solicitor General will heed the words of advice that have flowed from thousands upon thousands of individuals who have signed their name to these petitions.


Sergio Marchi: My second petition is again from the riding of York West, residents who are essentially asking, as my leader and my party have suggested for many monts, that the final constitutional package be put to the shareholders of this company called Canada, namely the nearly 27 million people, in the form of a referendum.
Hopefully the government here too will also pay attention to the wisdom of residents in York West.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, today I present a petition on behalf of residents of my riding, people who reside in Copper Cliff. They are requesting that this government enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people with respect to constitutional amendments.
These petitioners also wish to be heard on the future of our country.
May 6, 1992

Routine Proceedings
JUSTICE	SOCIAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to table today. The first is similar to the petition circulated by the parents of Nina de Villiers. It calls upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Barbara Greene: The second petition is similar to others that I have tabled. It urges the minister of immigration to issue minister's permits for spouses and dependant children of persons who have been determined to be convention refugees and allow them to be reunited in Canada through inland processing.


Barbara Greene: The last petition is one that is being circulated by the Tamil community in my riding. It calls upon Parliament to call upon the two parties to the conflict, the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, to express their willingness to accept mediation in the conflict between them and to agree upon a mutually acceptable neutral mediator and to express their willingness to commence negotiations.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions which I shall present very quickly. The first one is with respect to unfair taxation. These petitioners point out that certain taxes discriminate against certain families. Certain people can get receipted day care credit and those who stay at home cannot. They feel there are too many programs. They want it simplified. They want a fair system of taxation.


Ron J. Duhamel: The third petition, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the merging of the Social Sciences Research Council. These petitioners point out that Canada is beset by a host of social problems, such as domestic violence, abuse, environmental problems. In 1977 this council was created and now it is being merged with the Canada Council. They were never consulted. They ask that the decision be deferred, that it be studied further and then that a decision be made.


Ron J. Duhamel: My fourth petition is with respect to education. These petitioners bemoan the 3 per cent tax on student loans, those who need money most. They bemoan the fact that there is a goods and services tax on books; that there are several millions that have been cut from the transfer payments; that colleges and universities do not have enough to keep their students and to provide the quality of education that they want. Tuition fees and student debt are going out of sight. They want changes.


Ron J. Duhamel: In my final petition, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners want no tax, no GST on reading materials. They point out that there has never been one since the beginning of this country. They bemoan the fact that there is one. They want it eliminated now. It is contrary to the principles of a democratic, literate society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Was the hon. member finished?


Barbara Greene: No I was not finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Well would you please finish your petition.
RADIO AND TELEVISION LANGUAGE	SRI LANKA


Ron J. Duhamel: The second Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, petition, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the control of I was only reading the resolved section. Secondly, to language use on radio and television. These petitioners express their willingness to commence negotiations with point out that there is much foul language that is used on a view to entering into an internationally guaranteed radio and television. They want it cleaned up. They accord to establish an associated structure within which believe that it counteracts a family's efforts, the model the Sinhala people and the Tamil people may live in that they set. They ask Parliament to monitor that. peace and in freedom.

Routine Proceedings GASOLINE ADDITIVES


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Stormont-Dundas and Carleton-Gloucester.
These fine people are calling upon the Government of Canada to make it such that a minimum of 3.2 per cent of oxygen in gasoline fuel be made by blending gasoline with ethanol, rather than using the present MMT.
The petitioners further ask that the product MMT be banned.
I am pleased to support this petition and to support the producers of ethanol of the great constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of constituents in my riding, Kingston and the Islands.
These constituents have concerns about the Court Challenges Program, which has helped private citizens and minority groups clarify the constitutional aspects of language and equality rights before the courts. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider reinstating the Court Challenges Program, which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of over 500 constituents in the Wallaceburg area of my riding who want the government to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act to protect stray animals since the high cost of spaying, neutering and euthanasia increases the number of strays.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here. Both petitions come from constituents of mine in Victoria.
The first petition deals with the issue of social housing and calls on Parliament to recognize housing as a shared provincial-federal responsibility, to support the federal non-profit co-operative housing program and to maintain the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is really three petitions all on the same subject.
It calls upon Parliament to enact legislation to provide for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government to be determined by a majority vote of the votes cast in the whole of Canada together with the majority vote in a majority of provinces, with the territories being given the status of one province.
We heard that a bill will be forthcoming in the near future. I hope and call upon Parliament to put it in the same terms as this petition.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 275 will be answered today.


Mr. Robinson: With respect to the government buildings at Tbnney's Pasture in Ottawa, are the lights kept on 24 hours per day, and, if so, (a) for what reasons (b) what is the cost of lighting the entire complex (c) what would be the estimated savings incurred if the lights were turned off at the end of each day?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: As a general rule, the lights in the government buildings at Tbnney's Pasture are turned off each evening after the buildings are cleaned.
There are times however, where maintenance projects or tenant operational requirements require that the lights remain on.
Public Works Canada has been experiencing difficulties with the computerized lighting system at the Jean Talon building, and the lights in this facility have re-
May 6, 1992

mained on 24 hours per day since last fall. The estimated cost of the operation of the lights during silent hours is $2,987.83 per week.
Public Works Canada is rectifying the situation. Repair work has been delayed, because of difficulties in determining the cause of the problem, and finding an appropriate solution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-14 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena is acceptable to the government and the document is tabled immediately.
Motion P-14-Mr. Fulton:
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House of Commons a copy of the August 27, 1991 letter to Mr. Douglas Rutherford, Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice, from Mr. Robert S. Mueller III, Assistant Attorney-General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice of the United States, concerning the letter to Senator Inouye from Judge Heaney of the United States Court of Appeal regarding the improper tactics of the FBI in securing the extradition of Mr. Leonard Peltier from Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-11 in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton East.
Motion P-11-Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements announced on November 22, 1991 by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources Canada concerning the Hibernia Development Project involving the Government of Canada, the Government of
Government Orders
Newfoundland and Labrador, the Hibernia Consortium and the
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Ibesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my debate was interrupted yesterday in the House for other House business. I should recap very briefly the items in relation to Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act which we were debating yesterday.
The bill itself provides a band-aid solution to two or three measures that needed addressing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention to the hon. member that he has 10 minutes remaining in the debate plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.


Derek Vincent Lee: To recap, there are three areas that the bill intended and does address.
First is the speeding up of processing by applicants for the purging of their criminal records.
Second, it changes a couple of rules dealing with criminal records procedure to enhance the effectiveness of the legislation.

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
Third, it addresses the accumulating problem of there being in the bill conditional and absolute discharges which have to be pardoned.
As I said the other day, the discharges under the Criminal Code were intended to produce no criminal record.
The Criminal Records Act now says that even though you have been discharged, you will be deemed to have a criminal record. Now these amendments will remove that and provide for an automatic disposition of the record of the discharge. That is a good thing.
However, these amendments do not disguise some rather significant flaws in relation to the statute itself. As I stand here, I have to say that I do not know why the government chose to address this bill by means of band-aids. It is not a complicated bill. I do not know why it did not go back and reconstruct the statute.
As I have said and will point out again, in a bill where the title is the Criminal Records Act, the term criminal record is not even defined in the statute. The act does not even attempt to manage criminal records in any capacity whatsoever. In fact, the bill does not set out to deal with criminal records; it sets out to deal with records of conviction. That is an important difference.
The mechanism used in the act is that of a pardon. The bill does not even define what a pardon is.
Administratively, judicial officials across the country probably do not have a very good fix on what this statute is trying to accomplish.
To pick up where I left off, I wanted to give an example of one of the problems that exists with this statute that the bill does not address.
If an individual has a criminal record, and if the record of conviction is conveyed to the Canadian Police Record Information System managed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-we call that CPIC-then CPIC has a notation of the record of conviction.
CPIC also has a lot of other information that we generally characterize as criminal records. If it gets there, and most do but not all do, it sits on the CPIC system as a notation of a record of conviction.
Often the records are exchanged with other law enforcement agencies. The United States law enforcement agencies exchange records with us. There are some 100 U.S. agencies that have power of arrest.
When the record is exchanged, it gets on the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service record system or the FBI, the border patrol, or some other system. Once it is there, our mechanisms for getting rid of criminal records do not even attempt to get rid of the notation of the record in the U.S. systems.
In addition to that, criminal records and records of conviction still exist in the Canadian system in municipal police offices, provincial police offices, court houses all across the country, and other government agencies. This statute does not even attempt to get rid of them.
In the definition of pardon, the mechanism that the statute purports to use is as follows: "After your application is approved, you shall have a pardon". This is what happens when there is this undefined pardon. The pardon will be evidence of good conduct. It is evidence that the pardon issued should no longer reflect adversely on the applicant's character. That is a good wish in the statute and not much more than that. It removes any disqualification that the person has by virtue of any act of or under Parliament.
What about all of the other legislation in this country, provincial and municipal? All of those statutes may well and do contain disabilities as the result of a record of conviction. This act does not address those.
In the end, although the act tries to clean up the record, whether it is a criminal record or record of conviction, it does not do either. It does not deal with it. These records still exist randomly, messily in a disorganized fashion. Even though we have one Criminal Code and even though there is one record of conviction in the code, those records continue to exist all across the country. Therefore, this amendment to the statute does not really deal with the real problems of the statute. I wish that it did and hope that the legislative committee which will deal with it-I believe it will be the justice committee sitting as a legislative committee-can begin to address those problems.
May 6, 1992

If it cannot it is fair to say that a future government will, whoever that government may be. I would like to think that members on this side of the House would like a chance to address that challenge.
This is a circumstance where the government has addressed a real need. That I concede. It has speeded up the processing but it has not addressed the real deficiencies contained in the Criminal Records Act. It delivers a lot less to the citizen than it purports to do in the amendments. That is unfortunately so often the case with many of the amendments made in the judicial area by this government over the last few months.
However, cosmetic as some of them may be, as superficial or as much of a band-aid as they are, they do attempt to deal with the needs.
We must deal with the records of convictions and criminal records in all of the provincial capitals, all of the provincial and municipal police forces. That has not been done. We must deal with the records of conviction and criminal records exchanged with other countries, including the U.S.A. That has not been done in the statute and is not intended to be done by the amendment. Also, we must deal with all of those records which should have been placed in CPIC and should have been centralized but never were because of flaws in the current reporting and recording system in criminal records.
The suggestion that the Criminal Records Act deals with criminal records is false. It does not have anything to do with criminal records. The whole issue of criminal records is sitting out there as a federal jurisdiction, unmanaged, and basically unregulated. The information system that is supposed to be there is not.
I congratulate the RCMP on doing what it can. The CPIC system does serve a function. However I think we can make it better.
Having said that, I look forward to being able to take the bill up at committee and maybe there we can make some badly needed improvements to the statute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I have to go to the
Government Orders
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands because that is we are at in the rotation.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief in my remarks on this important bill. I know that the hon. Minister for International Trade and various other titles will want to participate in the debate himself, because I am sure that the subject of pardons is one that is very near to his heart.
It is clearly an important issue in my area. There have been numerous pardons with which I dealt in providing assistance for people making these applications since my election in 1988.1 do not suppose that is surprising, given the number of penal reform institutions in the Kingston area. Some of the persons residing in those institutions have settled in the Kingston area, and after the requisite period of time they have made application on occasion for pardons.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the Solicitor General the other day when he introduced this bill. He spoke of the serious backlog and the problems with respect to pardons. I suggested to him during his speech that part of the problem was exacerbated by government cutbacks instituted by the current Minister of Industry, Science and Technology when he was Minister of Finance. I suspect that these Draconian cutbacks have increased the problems for those applying for pardons. Of course, the minister denied that. He may be right. However, what he did say, and I agree with him, is that he has made every effort to assist members of Parliament when they apply for help with a pardon application and where it is required on a timely basis.
I agree that he has been helpful in that regard and I acknowledge that assistance.
These pardons are very important to the individuals who require them. The public is perhaps unaware of the importance. Many members of the public who wish to travel to the United States are unable to enter that country because of a past criminal conviction, often of a very minor nature. Obtaining the pardon in advance solves the problem at the U.S. border and the individual is able to enter without further obstruction or difficulty.
Accordingly, the question of obtaining pardons is often vital. It is also important in terms of certain job opportunities for members of the public. They may apply to do a

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
job requiring certain security clearances and a criminal record is an absolute bar to their application.
While we may say that this bill seems relatively unimportant to many people who have not been involved with the law, for those who have it represents a significant opportunity to make up for past wrongs, get on with life, and to allow new opportunities to be opened to them.
For that reason I am pleased that the minister has seen fit to do something to speed up the process. As indicated by my very learned colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River, we support the principle of this bill and are pleased to do so. We will certainly review the provisions of the bill very carefully when it is referred to a committee of this House.
I hope that I will have some say at the committee stage on this particular bill, though I doubt that I will be a member of the committee. I will certainly watch the proceedings of the committee with great care. I know that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie would be glad if I was there. I suspect that perhaps he will be his party's representative on the committee.


Mr. Butland:: No, I am not.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He says he is not. I hope that he will watch the progress of this bill very carefully, as I will. I am sure that, coming from a community of similar size, he shares the interest that all hon. members have in seeing that this kind of legislation is enacted promptly and in ensuring that it serves the best interests of those who need these pardons.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-71.1 am perhaps the first non-legal individual to speak to it. I am probably on shaky ground because I do not have any legal expertise whatsoever, and perhaps I am not as concerned with the definition of pardon et cetera as some of the previous speakers have been.
I am hopefully going to approach Bill C-71 from a very pragmatic point of view as it impacts upon many Canadians, 25,000 in 1990. It has impacted upon approximately 20 to 25 of my constituents who have asked me and my staff to intervene on their behalf to expedite the pardon process, which I am happy to do.
As there is a 25,000 backlog of individuals looking for pardons we welcome the facilitating of this process. We understand that more resources in terms of moneys and staff are being given so that the process can be expedited, and we applaud that process.
When the accumulated backlog has increased from 7,000 to 25,000 it is obvious that the demand for expediting the process should have been addressed previously.
The people who have approached me in my office have struck me as being veiy sincere. They are people who are-I do not want to use the word rehabilitated -good, honest citizens who have paid their dues to the system. They are saying: "I want out of this now, I want to get rid of this stigma". It is a stigma. I have received letters from constituents and it is ironic that many of them are applying for work in law enforcement. In fact more often than not they are in some sort of social work, security, or law enforcement position.
It does indicate that these people are indeed concerned and oftentimes have been unaware that the record has stuck with them over a period, in some cases, of eight, 10,12, or 15 years. It is a shame that being guilty of a drunk driving charge 15 years earlier may prohibit someone from proceeding to a chosen line of work.
The concept of streamlining from 18 months down to six months is very appealing. We laud that goal. However, if there is a three or five-year period, it does not seem right that after that period applicants will still have to wait probably a minimum of six months before they are granted a pardon.
If I may draw an analogy from my previous career in school, it is like giving a detention to young people and keeping them after school for the next week. The term is served, but afterwards it is discussed whether to continue the term or not.
Once someone has paid his or her dues or served his or her time, good time with good behaviour, he or she should be excused immediately.
We laud the fact that the 18-month time period is being reduced to six months, but certainly the improvement could be immediate. If we can reduce it from 18 months to six months it begs the question as to why it cannot be reduced to three months or two months, the
May 6, 1992

faster the better. The people looking for these pardons are always in untenable situations in which the pardon is absolutely essential.
I salute the minister for his help. My experience is that it is important to have someone at an MP's desk so that if a constituent calls a member, he or she can intervene. However, after seeing the backlog of 25,000 I am somewhat reticent to ask that the minister or staff intervene when I know that the pile is so high.
I represent a border community which faces the implications of not harmonizing with the United States, or at least attempting to harmonize. If someone has committed any sort of offence in the United States and comes back to Canada and it appears on the computer at the border no matter what is done to attempt to get a waiver from U.S. immigration, or if he or she would like a pardon, it is nigh on impossible to get a pardon from the system in the United States. I speak from a great deal of experience.
The immigration office in Detroit that fields these concerns from constituents or members of Parliament totally ignores them. The people in U.S. immigration suggest that this is the lowest on its priority list. Usually Canadian pardons are at the bottom of the list and the process can go on and on. Actually 18 months in Canada is certainly praiseworthy when compared to the United States.
Were it not for the good offices of Congressman Davis from Michigan I do not know if we would ever get any solutions for Canadians who had committed some offence in the United States.
It begs that there be some international agreement. If we can achieve free trade surely to God we can achieve some sort of agreement on criminal records.
We believe that if you serve your time you should be out of the system as soon as possible. At the same time some say it is a band-aid approach. I do not have the expertise to even suggest it is a band-aid approach but it is an improvement that is required and desired so we will not stand in the way.
The member for Brant has told me we are eager to get this bill to committee. We will take a look at the fine print and not stand in the way of the bill.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate at third reading of Bill C-53.
First I would like to express my gratitude to the members of the committee, particularly the members of the opposition, who helped to facilitate the passage of this legislation. I think it is accurate to say that all members of the House want to see this bill passed.
We may not all agree on the details of the provisions but we do agree on the nature of the bill, on the need for this kind of legislation to be passed, in order to provide an effective measure to deal with aggression anywhere in the world and to enable us as a country to combine with other nations of the world through multilateral organizations and have combined forces to deal with despotism and aggression wherever it is in the world when we are called upon to do so.
I would like to thank those who appeared before the committee as witnesses to give expert testimony out of their own concerns and sometimes out of their own experiences to explain to us the kind of provisions and the kind of exigencies we are dealing with.
I speak specifically of groups such as humanitarian organizations, the Mennonite Central Committee, or the doctor who appeared before us or groups such as the bankers association, those who were a coalition opposed to the actions during the gulf war.
We received a whole spectrum of points of view, largely as a result of their experience in the gulf war,

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
although in the case of the MCC it had to do with their experiences in Cambodia. They pointed out that working with the Canadian government gave them greater latitude in their charitable work in countries where there was aggression than if they were working, for example, under the aegis of the American government.
They spoke regarding their concerns about the effect of this legislation would have in their arenas. It may be that some of these witnesses feel that the amendments and the legislation do not accommodate their concerns.
I would like to point out to the House that the bill we are passing today, hopefully, is what we call framework legislation. It is designed to provide a structure to give the government of the day the mechanisms to deal with the aggression that we are talking about in the confines of this bill.
Framework legislation is, by its very nature, flexible. For example, clause 4 gives the kind of latitude to the government to allow humanitarian organizations at the discretion of the government and at the discretion of the conditions that exist at the time.
It gives the government the kind of latitude, for example, sometimes to allow those humanitarian organizations to do the very thing that they seek to do. What we have to be careful of, as I pointed out yesterday, is that the humanitarian value systems that we espouse and enjoy in Canada are not abused by the despots, by the naked aggression in other countries.
It was our experience as a nation that when the original United Nations resolutions were passed, they did allow for exceptions for humanitarian food aid or medical aid to be transmitted to the Iraqi civilians. It soon became necessary, however, to restrict those resolutions in such a way that it narrowed down the opportunity to do that kind of humanitarian work.
The tragedy is that the very subject that we are dealing with makes it difficult to carry on humanitarian work. I pointed out in committee that when we were dealing with sanctions for South Africa, a lot of the arguments that came to us in the House of Commons against the use of sanctions centred around the fact that the impoverished, the disadvantaged, the unprotected would suffer the most.
Therefore, the unemployed, the blacks living in poor regions, would be the very ones to suffer when they were the ones who we wanted to emancipate. I recall very clearly at the time that Bishop TUtu said: "That is absolutely true, but that is the price we have to pay in order to put pressure on the government to change the system so that ultimately we can enjoy the kind of freedom and human rights that all of us are seeking".
I suppose that is true in every situation where sanctions are employed. As I said yesterday, the most horrible experience is war. The next most horrible experience is the imposition of sanctions. It will be the innocent who suffer.
I say to the humanitarian organizations that the specific exceptions they are asking for are, in effect, included in the bill because it is framework legislation. If we were to enumerate the exceptions, we would fragment the nature of framework legislation and thereby constrict the very flexibility we want in this legislation.
The second point that is of interest to people, to members of the House and others is the role of Parliament at times such as this. I know that there are members who would like to see mechanisms in the legislation which call for the mandatory recall of Parliament within a certain number of days. There is something attractive about that, because all of us in this House believe in the widest public debate of matters of national and international interest and concern.
However, as I pointed out yesterday, there are standing orders already which enable us to do many of the things that the opposition has in mind. I guess at the very bottom of it-and I speak for myself now, I am not speaking on behalf of the government when I say this-there are times when we have to choose the way of doing things between what would essentially result in an American kind of congressional system and a parliamentary system, which is the heritage we enjoy in this Chamber.
We operate under a system of responsible and accountable government with an executive branch that is responsible to the people and pays the political price if it ignores them.
Recall of Parliament is an executive responsibility that is part of the parliamentary system here and in other Parliaments of the world. If an executive of the parliamentary system ignores the wishes of the people he will pay the political price.
May 6, 1992

In addition to that, there are all of the other parliamentary precedents and standing orders which allow for full debate of issues such as this. There are opposition days, standing orders and all of the other devices that are at the disposal of members of Parliament. The committees can be recalled for full accounting.
I want to assure the public that is watching and members of the House that this is a bill which I think many of us would like to have seen implemented at the time of the gulf war. Many of us would have liked to have seen it implemented during the time of the sanctions on South Africa and I suppose in the case of Rhodesia.
I think the public will welcome this legislation. While the opposition may wish that some of the amendments they put forward had been accepted, I want to assure them and the public at large that the bill we are dealing with today will meet the goals they have in mind, even though some of the technical details do not espouse some of the amendments they put forward.
I want to thank again the members for their co-operation in the facilitation of this legislation and the ability that this will give Parliament on behalf of the Canadian people to deal with the need to co-operate with other countries and multilateral organizations in bringing pressure to bear on despotism wherever it exists in the world.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to add some concluding comments on this bill at third reading and to express a general approval of the bill. It is necessary for Canada to pull together in one statute the powers and responsibilities of the government to act in one of the most crucial and important decisions that any political system has to make and that is to undertake reaction or responses to acts of aggression internationally or to threats of peace and security. We have taken that position from the outset.
However, I use this third reading also to express great regret at what this bill could have been and what it has in fact turned out to be.
There was an opportunity at the outset for this to be more than just a technical bill. It could have also been an opportunity for the Government of Canada to set forward some principles and policies about how we
Government Orders
would respond to the changes going on in the world and how we would attempt to use these powers in a different kind of way than what we saw happen during the gulf war when the drums of chauvinism, emotion and nationalism were at the height and when the whole hysteria and fever of war took over and made it a black and white situation.
Here was the chance to set out how a government in a modem day has to modulate and be carefully composed in its way of approaching these difficult war and peace type decisions. Unfortunately, at the second reading of this bill there was none of that from the minister and we have received none of that since then.
There is an interesting phrase that the parliamentary secretary used. It is now called framework legislation. That is a euphemism. I suppose one thing we could say about the parliamentary secretary is that he will make the world safe for euphemisms. It is simply another word for entrenching executive power and making it as immune as possible from democratic accountability and responsibility. Framework legislation is a way of saying: Let the officials and the minister decide without having to meet the test of public judgment and public accountability on an ongoing basis.
It is the old style of governing. It is the style of governing that has made so many Canadians angry or mad about what is going on. They want more from their govemments. They want more from their Parliament. They do not want a group of people in back rooms making decisions, especially life and death decisions. This is not deciding whether we are going to raise the tax on purple gasoline by a few cents. This is talking about the Government of Canada taking unto itself enormous powers to control public and private life and activity. When we take away all the frills, we still come down to the basic judgment that will be taken behind a closed door by a minister and the cabinet.
That has to be a source of major regret. Here was a chance to step forward, to show Canadians that we were prepared in parliamentary terms not simply to hand over immense powers to bureaucracies and the executive

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
power of government, but to leaven it with some sense of more openness, transparency and accountability.
We tried. There were a number of proposals. We tried to do it, but those were rejected. They will not be rejected that long because I think the time has come for different ways of making decisions, especially in the crucial area of Canadian foreign policy. The time is over when decisions like this one are to be made by those in the striped pants or the inside experts.
The reason is that if we expect Canadians to be engaged fully in the support of Canadian international actions-peace keeping, sanctions and sending troops abroad-then Canadians must be involved in making those decisions. The only way that we can build a consensus or an acceptance or legitimacy for such crucial decisions as these is to ensure that Canadians themselves are fully engaged and involved in the process; not after the fact, not at some time hence, not at some time when we get around to it, but when the decision is to be made.
The parliamentary secretary says: "Trust in us". As I said yesterday in the House, look what happened in the gulf war. It took six weeks for Parliament to be called back into session. If we ever wanted to see an example of why we should not trust a government, there it was right there. The ships were steaming to the Middle East. People were waving goodbye to their loved ones, and where were members of Parliament? There were back home tending their gardens, sitting in their constituency offices, and trying to answer questions of their constituents about why they were not in Ottawa having a debate about what Canada was doing over in the gulf.
To say that the standing orders account for it, the parliamentary secretary should know better. I expect he has read the standing orders. There is no standing order that allows Parliament to bring itself back. It is purely an executive decision, and this government has proven that executives make bad decisions; not just once, probably about 10 times a day. On this decision I do not think anybody can argue that it was a serious and fatal challenge to democratic accountability to keep Parliament in the dark for six weeks while we were engaged in one of the most serious initiatives taken since the Second World War. It was unacceptable to Canadians.
Maybe the parliamentary secretary is right. Maybe that is why they are paying an electoral price, because people
realize that there is an inherent disdain for parliamentary institutions and that there is an inherent arrogance: "Hey, we will look after it. Never mind asking questions or having debates in the House. We will make the best decision".
Unfortunately and tragically that same attitude was expressed even in the process by which this bill was made, the committee system itself. The parliamentary secretary was quite right. We had some valuable contributions: wheat pools, bankers, refugee organizations, humanitarian groups, Mennonite communities, all coming not in opposition to the bill but with constructive proposals.
They raised very serious questions. They said that the drafters of the bill were not omniscient, that they did not understand all the implications. They thought they could plug some of the loopholes and correct some of the problems. They thought that questions dealing with food and medicine should be given statutory exemption.
Is that a radical statement? If it is so radical, why is it included in the United Nations own rules dealing with it?
Would Canada be prepared to take such an extraordinary step even though the United Nations already does? Oh, no. The government's answer was: "Hey, we cannot trust these groups. Trust us. We will make that discretion". It did not listen to them. That is part of the regression of this legislation.
If we are legitimately to invite representation, not in a confrontational, partisan way, but in a legitimate way of people setting out their real concerns, and they get tossed out of hand as if they did not count for anything, how can we convince people out there that the system works? In fact it becomes a little bit of charade. It becomes a smoke screen: "Yes, we will have a committee. We will invite you to come. We will listen to you, but by goodness don't present anything that gets in the way of our game plan because we are going to roll right over you".
How are those people going to feel when they go back, that they were listened to, that they legitimately had a chance?
I cannot remember one representation from the committee that was antagonistic to the government. It was not a matter of politics being played. There is something inherently anachronistic, old boy school, fusty or maybe
May 6, 1992

it is just the control of power, that has the minister's officials, the departmental officials and MPs on the government side all getting together and saying: "Hey, we cannot accept this".
Why? Is it because they drafted it? Is it because it is good and every piece of legislation emerges out of the bowels of the government pristine perfect? Are they kidding me? Come on, we know better than that.
Here is a legitimate opportunity to show a give and take, a dynamic process of change and amendment, and what do we get? I think the government accepted maybe one or two amendments. It was something like that; it was nothing of consequence. It left out in the cold those groups who were saying: "During a sanctions program when we are deliberately trying to put pressure on the government of a target country, we have no business victimizing the people of that country. Therefore we want to ensure there is the right to deliver medicine, humanitarian goods, services and food".
Let me, if I might, quote for a minute Dr. Eric Hoskins, head of the Harvard study team on Iraq. It is dealing with the problems of Iraqi children and some of the problems that he and others have faced getting into this area. He says: "The procedure outlined in the bill is time consuming, ambiguous in deciding a permit for exemption, subject to bias, no longer accessible to many humanitarian workers, and completely impractical in acute emergency situations which by definition invariably require an immediate and urgent humanitarian response". That is from somebody who knows, who was there. However we did not listen to him, just as we did not listen to the banking association that said: "We have some problems here. Let us see if we can work something out". The pools, the same issue. The Canadian Mennonite community, the same problems. They were not being listened to. It shows the contrast.
If I can go back to the disturbing trend participating in this bill pointed out, it is the large gap between rhetoric and reality. The Prime Minister of this country loves to parade himself as the past co-chair of the children's summit, one of the great deliberations of our time. I applauded him at the time for the effort.
Let me read a key provision of the declaration which this government ratified at the convention on the rights
Government Orders
of the children: "In accordance with their obligation under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, state parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict".
I ask the Prime Minister where he was when his own government was turning down amendments and changes that would have provided the obligatory requirements to protect children in cases of conflict.
Where were you, Mr. Prime Minister? You were where you usually are. Once the photo opportunity is over, the reality sets in and you simply do not care any more.


Benno Friesen: There is a bit of misreading there.


Lloyd Axworthy: I just heard the parliamentary secretary say there is a misreading. No, it is not a misreading. It is a mistake on the part of this government in failing to live up to the obligations it ratified last December.
Eventually that kind of decision-making will have to come to an end and will come to an end.
Finally I come back to one other point. I was amused by the summation of the parliamentary secretary when he said in so many words that this was a chance for Parliament to be involved. It struck me exceedingly strange, because that is the same gentleman who yesterday rejected amendments to ensure that when Parliament was not sitting there would be a requirement for the government to call it back into session to deal with these matters. He rejected an amendment which said that the minister responsible should be required to table reports outlining how sanctions are working so that Parliament and, through Parliament, Canadians can understand how children are being affected in Iraq, South Africa or wherever the sanctions may be. He is the same gentleman who rejected an amendment requiring that there not be such a large block of members for a debate to take place and that there be a certain amount of time.
The standing orders of the House do not provide the kinds of assurances and guarantees we need for parliamentary partnership in making these crucial decisions. Without those once again we are denying the very roots of our system unless we believe, as I suppose the parliamentary secretary seems to believe, that the Gov-

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
eminent of Canada is the executive of Canada, the cabinet of Canada, and said: "Oh, my goodness gracious, if we accept those amendments we will become like Americans".
I did not quite follow that large leap of logic because one of the geniuses of our parliamentary system is that when Parliament is in session it is able on a daily basis to question the executive and hopefully keep it honest as a result.
I will go back to my point. How can the opposition question the executive on a matter of imposing sanctions on a country if Parliament is not even being called back to discuss the matter?
I suppose the ministers, at least some of the ministers we have seen recently, prefer not to deal with committees or with Parliament. They avoid them. It is like pulling teeth to get them to come before committees. Do not tell me that they are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to make themselves heard or to defend their case. Hardly. I just wish the minister was here at third reading of this bill. Not that I have in any way underestimated the abilities of the parliamentary secretary, but this is the minister's bill and I have not seen the minister for months dealing with the bill in any way, shape or form. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs, this should be one of the most important initiatives taken and should have had the full guiding hand during that period.
The bill is here and third reading will take place. It will go on to our friends in the upper House who I hope and encourage will give it some careful scrutiny and make some suggestions for changes that we may want to consider and look at. I believe they were not given proper consideration here in the House of Commons, which is too often the case. However, that is for them to decide.
In the meantime I will conclude by lamenting a lost opportunity for this government and this Parliament to have taken a fairly bold and generous step forward as we work our way through a very turbulent and changing international environment, to provide some real leadership to other countries and to the international system on how to deal with this crucial issue. Unfortunately the bill takes a step back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first two speakers under Standing Order 74 had 40 minutes if they
wanted to take it with no questions and comments. The next speaker will have 20 minutes plus questions and comments.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to participate in the debate on this very important and historic legislation.
My colleagues in the New Democratic Party at second reading debate on the principle of this legislation strongly endorsed the principle of the bill. Indeed, it was my leader, the member for Yukon, and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who at the critical time in January last year appealed to the community of nations, appealed to the United Nations not to proceed to the tragedy, the madness of war and instead ensure that tough, effective economic sanctions were given an opportunity to work in the context of the war in the gulf. We know that did not happen.
We know that the victims of that war continue to die today. Over 300 children a day are dying in Iraq, innocent victims of that war. Over 50,000 children have died so far.
Let me be very clear. We believe profoundly in the concept of common security. We believe strongly that the United Nations and other multilateral bodies must be strengthened, must be renewed to ensure that collective action can be taken in the case of significant breaches of international law and of grave threats to international peace and security.
Certainly there must be significant reform of those institutions, the United Nations and, indeed, of other multilateral institutions of which Canada is a member, including the OAS.
Many of us believe that the steps that were taken that ultimately led to the war in the gulf bypassed fundamentally not only the letter of the United Nations charter but the spirit and the intent of the United Nations charter. In effect, the United Nations was hijacked. The United States, in particular, was able to wrap itself in the flag of the UN and conduct a war that led to disastrous results, environmentally and in human terms.
We believe as well that sanctions must be consistent and that when, for example, the Secretary of State for External Affairs points out rightly that in the context of Haiti where a democratically elected president, President Aristide, was overthrown in a brutal military coup,

what better opportunity for collective action than that within the context of the OAS?
Yet, as the minister herself pointed out, some OAS members, including the United States, are abandoning their commitment to sanctions in the context of Haiti.
At the same time, the United States continues with its immoral stranglehold on the economy of Cuba, imposing an economic embargo which is cruel, unjust and unprecedented in its severity. There is no economic embargo on Indonesia with respect to its massive violations of human rights in East Timor, Guatemala or elsewhere. Yes, we believe fundamentally in sanctions, but surely we must also recognize that the community of nations must have common standards to ensure that the standards are not in fact riddled with hypocrisy.
In the context of this legislation, the bill which is before us, Bill C-53, we had an opportunity. As the member for Winnipeg South Centre stated, we had an opportunity to improve framework legislation, to ensure that we listened to the witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee. We had very compelling evidence from those witnesses. They were witnesses who themselves worked on the front lines in Cambodia, Iraq, Africa, Central America and elsewhere.
We heard evidence from the Canadian Friends Service Committee, the Canadian Arab Federation, the prairie pools, the bankers, the exporters, the Canadian Council on Refugees, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Ottawa Gulf Crisis Group, Dr. John Place, Professor Nakhjavani of McGill University and we heard from the national president of the United Nations Association of Canada, Geoffrey Grenville-Woods.
If there was one theme that was very clearly enunciated during the witnesses' appearances before the legislative committee, it was that this bill falls far short. Yes, we support the principles, and indeed I believe that all of the members and all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the principles of the legislation, but they pointed out some very serious concerns, some very serious weaknesses in what the parliamentary secretary has referred to as framework legislation.
Government Orders
I want to just touch on some of these in this third reading debate. I hope that perhaps there might be some opportunity that the government might reconsider. Certainly the reality is that when this bill goes to the other place, it will correct a number of important weaknesses that remain in the legislation.
First of all, what is the threshold for the imposition of sanctions? It is at once too broad and too narrow. The legislation is very vague when it comes to who may actually make the decision, the fundamental decision which triggers some very, very significant economic sanctions.
On the other hand, it is too narrow in the sense that where there are grave violations of human rights which have occurred in a foreign state and which do not necessarily involve a threat to international peace and security or where the actions of foreign states or one foreign state pose a significant threat to the environment, either the global environment or the Canadian environment, there is no opportunity in those circumstances for Canada to take the kind of tough, effective action that we may very well want to be in a position to take under this legislation.
Second, in the provisions of the bill in clause 4, which deal with the seizure of assets, once again it is a very powerful remedy. It is one which in some circumstances is certainly appropriate and necessary.
The potential for abuse has been pointed out. It was pointed out by witnesses; abuse of innocent people, abuse of organizations which are doing important humanitarian work is very great.
The bill would allow the seizure of the assets in Canada of respected humanitarian organizations such as the Mennonite Central Committee, the Red Cross and other groups that are working in the humanitarian field in countries against which sanctions have been imposed. There is no assurance that the requirements with respect to a seizure might not allow the release of assets for solely humanitarian reasons. Yesterday I mentioned the proposal of Dr. Eric Hoskins and a number of very distinguished Canadians operating through Global Ed-Med Supplies whose chief patron is the Governor General and whose executive director is the Order of Canada winner, Doreen Wicks.

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
This group is seeking the release of assets to purchase infant formula and heart medicine for the Iraqi people who are dying. They have 856,000 tins of infant formula ready to go, 250,000 bottles of Isordel heart medicine, and still there is no action from the government.
The bill is not clear enough. In circumstances such as this, assets should be unfrozen to allow for the release of humanitarian goods.
As well, it is very important that we recognize that- [Translation]
The Canadian refugee council appeared before the committee and asked us to make sure the bill was amended to provide that refugees, persons claiming refugee status and claimants whose file is being processed for humanitarian reasons cannot have their property seized on the grounds that they are foreign nationals in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we proposed amendments that would have made it clear that persons claiming refugee status who were not covered by international conventions would not be affected by our amendment. The Refugee Council explained that to meet our international obligations under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, which Canada signed in 1969, this bill must be amended to protect such refugees.

We have ignored the representations of the Canadian refugee council. We have ignored the representations of the humanitarian organizations, including Dr. Hoskins, with respect to the release of foods and medicines in times of war in which sanctions are being imposed.
This is despite the fact that the fourth international Geneva convention of 1949 explicitly prohibits any restrictions on the free passage of food and medicine, including during war time. We sought an amendment which I proposed on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues to build into the legislation those exemptions, exemptions in the key section of the bill with respect to sanctions against goods, sanctions against the transfer of technical data, sanctions against the transfer of services and services from Canada to another country.
The government systematically voted down each and every one of those amendments despite the eloquent representations that were made by witnesses before the committee and despite our obligations under international law.
The provisions of the bill with respect to compensation remain far too weak. Once again, we tried in committee to strengthen these. A number of witnesses made strong representations in this regard but to no avail. They fell on deaf ears on the government side. For example, we suggested that it should be mandatory that the government appoint a minister to consider claims for compensation. The government rejected that. It is particularly important that there be careful consideration given to claims for compensation in circumstances in which, for example, Parliament may reject the decision of the executive to impose sanctions.
The final area I would like to touch on in my remarks concerns the role of Parliament itself. The parliamentary secretary has said that this is framework legislation.
But, in fact, this legislation gives carte blanche to the executive, to the government of the day, to completely bypass Parliament in imposing sanctions. There is no requirement that Parliament be recalled if it is not sitting.
Many of us remember only too well the failure of the government of the day to recall Parliament in August of 1990 at a very critical time in the period leading up to the war in the gulf.
There is no requirement for full and comprehensive debate on the imposition of sanctions. The bill provides for a three-hour debate. Given the implications of this kind of legislation, surely that is not acceptable. Amendments were proposed and they, too, were rejected.
Finally, the bill makes no provision for ongoing review of the impact of sanctions. We tried in committee to persuade the government to accept an amendment which would ensure that there was a report every two or three months to the appropriate committee of Parliament, for example, the standing committee on external affairs, in order to enable us to review the impact of sanctions.
May 6, 1992

We know that certainly was not possible during the war in the gulf, one of the most heavily censored wars in global history. Presumably we should be learning the lessons of that war and of the tragic failure that that war engendered.
In conclusion, I want to once again express our support for the principle of this legislation, but also our tremendous sense of disappointment that the government has failed to respond to the witnesses who appeared before the committee.
Witnesses offered a number of important amendments to strengthen the legislation, to make clearer and more precise the circumstances in which sanctions might be imposed.
The amendments would have ensured that refugees and refugee claimants are not the victims of the seizure of their assets. In many cases those refugee claimants of course have fled the countries that have been targeted by sanctions.
The amendments would also have ensured that those who wish to provide desperately needed food, medicine and other humanitarian aid are able to do so without the kind of restrictions and impediments that are involved in the exemption and exclusion process, restrictions referred to by Dr. Hoskins in his evidence.
And finally, there were amendments which would have ensured a meaningful role for Parliament in this process, instead of simply rubber-stamping an executive decision.
As we heard from a number of witnesses, the fundamental concern in this legislation which is not addressed is that if nations and their leaders are subject to sanctions, we do not intend to make war on civilians or the environment.
Under the terms of this legislation there remains a risk that innocent people will continue to die, that innocent people will continue to be victims of economic sanctions. We very much regret that. We made an attempt in committee to strengthen the legislation.
Certainly I would hope that in the very near future in this country there will be an opportunity for us as a government to ensure that the principles of equity, of fairness, of justice prevail in this legislation as in other legislation in this country.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. Mary Collins (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: that Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak in support of this bill, given first reading in this House on Monday, which proposes amendments to the National Defence Act.
Having had discussions with colleagues on both sides of the House, I understand that there maybe a predisposition to move this bill forward to committee of the whole and third reading following second reading debate if time allows today.
I also hope that members who have had the chance to examine this very short bill will agree with me that its provisions are well justified and deserve to be passed quickly by the House.
I would like to spend a bit of time giving the background to this bill and the military justice system. I know many people are not that familiar with it.
We live in very dynamic legal times. This has been so for the past 10 years since the coming into effect of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In that time, the government has spent a great deal of effort on legislative amendments designed to bring our existing legal structures into conformity with the charter.
In some cases, however, we have had to wait for the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada on various charter provisions. Once we have received those court decisions we have reacted, sometimes on very short notice, by amending the affected legislation.

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
As an example, hon. members will recall that the government passed amendments to the Criminal Code and various other statutes just last year. These amendments were required because of a Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the disposition of persons who were found at trial to be mentally incompetent.

Mr. Speaker, the bill tabled today also arises from an interpretation that the Supreme Court gave us on a specific point of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result of a ruling that the Supreme Court rendered in February 1992, the National Defence Act must be slightly amended to comply with the requirements of the charter.

In a few minutes I will discuss the nature of the specific amendments we are proposing. First, I would like to indicate the general subject area of these amendments and that is the code of service discipline. I know my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception is, perhaps, more familiar than even I am with this code having lived with it during his time in the Canadian Armed Forces.
I would like to take a few minutes just to put this subject into context. To understand the military justice system in Canada, one must first understand that it is part of an over-all program for the enforcement of discipline in the Canadian forces.
It is no exaggeration to say that the essential element in military success is always discipline. In war and in particular, modern war, the successful force will be the disciplined force. This is especially true for countries with modest-sized forces, such as Canada.
The reputation of our forces for effectiveness and efficiency, a reputation for which Canadians have good reason to be proud, is built in significant measure on the internal discipline which is a feature of the life of the forces.
Of course, the strongest discipline in a soldier is self-discipline. From the moment that a recruit is enrolled, the Canadian forces concentrate on instilling self-discipline. This is done in both group and individual
training, relying primarily on positive motivation and feedback.
Disciplined behaviour is strongly encouraged and rewarded. Soldiers learn quickly that the undisciplined simply cannot get the military job done. For the great majority of young Canadians who enter military service, this positive training is enough to instil the self-discipline that in turn leads to unit pride and accomplishment.
For a small number of soldiers however, positive reinforcement is not enough to maintain discipline. The Canadian forces therefore needs a mechanism to impose punishment in cases of undisciplined behaviour.
This mechanism must be constantly visible, visible to the soldier and credible in his or her eyes, whether in peacetime or in war. To be credible it needs to be designed and operated in keeping with the realities of military service. It has to operate quickly. It has to be available wherever our troops are deployed. It has to be consistent and it has to be fair.
Most important, the soldier has to believe that it is consistent and fair. A system that does not recognize basic human values simply will not be effective with our professional all-volunteer force.
This point cannot be over-emphasized. It is not in the interest of the Canadian forces or the Canadian people to try to impose a disciplinary system in the military which is not in accord with fundamental Canadian values.
The foundation of the disciplinary system of the Canadian forces is the code of service discipline which constitutes the largest single part of the National Defence Act.
The code has two essential elements, first a description of the various offences that military personnel may commit. These include such purely military matters as disobedience of a lawful command, desertion, mutiny, and so on. Also included are criminal offences from civilian life, such as theft or assault.
The second element of the code is a system for the trial of charges which are laid against soldiers. The code of service discipline provides for a completely separate
May 6, 1992

system from that which Canadians are used to for the administration of penal justice.
This system includes a hierarchy of tribunals by which members of the Canadian forces can be tried if they are charged with service offences.
The lowest level of tribunal is the summary trial. The great majority of military trials are of this type. Summary trials are held before a commanding officer who has limited powers of punishment. These trials are normally used to deal with minor disciplinary offences, particularly those which arise in a training context.
Summary trials, as their name implies, can be held quickly within the unit. The results are highly visible to other members of the unit thereby enhancing discipline.
Substantial safeguards are in place to ensure that these summary trials are fair. In particular, these safeguards include the right of the accused to elect to be tried by a higher tribunal if any significant punishment is proposed.
In the military justice system the higher tribunals are called courts martial. As with much of Canadian criminal law our military justice system has its origins in British law. The court martial has been a feature of the British military system for several hundred years. In fact, it is also passed down to our various allies who share our heritage of common law.
While there are minor differences between the court martial systems in, for example, Canada, Australia, the United States and of course, Great Britain, all of these systems provide for the trial of military members by other military persons.
In particular, all systems have types of court martial which involve a military judge sitting with a panel of officers. The function of the panel is analogous to that of a jury at a civilian trial.
One might ask whether it is necessary to have this separate system of justice in which military members sit in judgment over their own. The short answer to this question is yes.
Let me quote in fact to the House from the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada which has given rise in fact to the bill now before us. In discussing
Government Orders
the purpose of a system of military tribunals Chief Justice Lamer spoke as follows:
The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency, and morale of the military. The safety and wellbeing of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Service Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs. In addition, special service tribunals, rather than the ordinary courts, have been given jurisdiction to punish breaches of the Code of Service Discipline. Recourse to the ordinary criminal courts would, as a general rule, be inadequate to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military.
Further on in the judgment Chief Justice Lamer states again:
The existence of a parallel system of military law and tribunals, for the purpose of enforcing discipline in the military, is deeply entrenched in our history and is supported by the compelling principles discussed above.
Hon. members may be interested in knowing a little more about the Canadian system of courts martial, which in an indirect way is the subject of the legislation before the House. There are four kinds of courts martial in the Canadian system. Two involve a military legal officer, trained as a judge, sitting alone. The other two, called general and disciplinary courts martial, involve the military judge sitting with a panel of officers called the president and members of the court.
Courts martial have varying jurisdictions and powers of punishment. The purely military offences I mentioned a few minutes ago can only be tried by general or disciplinary courts martial, the two categories in which there is a military jury. The amendments now before the House are concerned only with these two categories.
With respect to territorial jurisdiction, Canadian forces courts martial may sit anywhere in the world. They are however prohibited from trying offences involving homicide and sexual assault when these offences are committed in Canada.
I want to emphasize that trials by court martial in the Canadian forces are relatively rare, reflecting the high standard of discipline in the forces. There are usually fewer than 100 trials by court martial each year, and

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
incarceration of any kind is awarded in less than half of those cases.
Nevertheless, the court martial system is important. It must continue to have the flexibility to provide speedy trials at remote locations. To ensure the prompt enforcement of a fair and visible system of military justice Canadian forces courts martial have been held in recent years in places where our troops have been deployed, for example, the United Kingdom, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, the Golan Heights and Cyprus.
Members should also have a clear understanding of the relationship between the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Armed Forces. Some Canadians might be under the impression that the Canadian forces are in some way exempt from the essential elements of Canadian law which protect the rights of all Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The charter is the supreme law of the land. This means that every member of the Canadian forces enjoys exactly the same protection before the law, including military law, as any other Canadian citizen. For example, Canadian soldiers enjoy the same protection against unreasonable search and seizure, against arbitrary detention and against the unequal application of the law as other citizens do.
When a Canadian soldier runs afoul of criminal law he or she has the same right as any other Canadian to counsel, the same right to remain silent, the same right to know why he or she has been arrested or detained, and all the same rights of trial, including a court martial.
In short, the Canadian Armed Forces do not operate in a vacuum. Canadian domestic law, particularly law designed for the protection of individual rights, applies fully to the Canadian forces. This has been recognized all along by the forces. The fundamental mission of the Canadian forces is to uphold Canadian society and its values and not to try to live outside the law.
In summary, we are addressing the coming together of two essential elements in Canadian society. The first is the proud Canadian tradition of an effective and dedicated military force founded on the essential quality of discipline. The second is that fundamental respect for
individual rights that forms the very basis of our society. These two elements have historically stood together in Canada and will continue to do so.
Let me turn now to a more specific consideration of the amendments put forward in the bill before the House. The purpose of these amendments is to fine tune the Code of Service Discipline to ensure full compliance with the charter as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
A few moments ago I spoke about the general and disciplinary courts martial, the two types of courts in which military members sit as a kind of jury. In its recent judgment the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether such courts could be truly independent and impartial as is required by the charter. The Supreme Court stated clearly that our parallel system of military tribunals, staffed by members of the military who are aware of and sensitive to military concerns, is not by its nature inconsistent with the requirement of the charter.
However, the Supreme Court did express its disapproval of some of the means by which these military juries-if I may call them that-are selected and appointed. In particular the court noted that under the current system the selection and appointment of members of a court martial is carried out by the same senior military authority, called the convening authority, who has made the decision to put a certain member on trial.
The Supreme Court noted as well that it is the same military authority who also selects the prosecutor. In considering whether a court appointed in this way could truly appear to be independent the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the fact that all of these roles are in one set of hands, that of the convening authority.
To repeat, these roles involve the decisions to put the accused on trial, appoint the prosecutor, and select and appoint the members of the court.
The Supreme Court held that the principle of institutional independence requires that a court martial be free from external interference in matters relating to its judicial function. The court considered that this freedom is not apparent when a member of the military executive responsible for appointing the prosecutor also has the authority to select and appoint members of the court martial.
May 6, 1992

Thus to comply with the charter the appointment of members should be in the hands of a military authority other than the one who appoints the prosecutor.

Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the amendments contained in the bill is to ensure the separation of these powers. The bill provides that the task of choosing and appointing the members of a court martial will be given to a senior military officer who is not involved in the disciplinary process and is totally independent of both the prosection and the defence.

In other minor ways the proposed amendments reduced the links between the military executive and the members of the court who are appointed to try a given individual. For example, the authority convening a court martial could formerly decide within a prescribed range how many members could sit on the particular court. That number will now be fixed by statute.
Similarly, in the past the military executive could pass regulations limiting the role of the military judge in deciding questions of law at courts martial, that power of limitation is now being removed.
Also, along the same lines, the convening authority has previously been empowered to exclude the public in certain limited circumstances from a trial by court martial. The bill would remove that power from the convening authority, however the court itself would retain it just as a civilian court does in an ordinary trial.
I think there is one more proposed change worthy of mention. As a result of the fact that the members of a court martial will be appointed by an authority at arm's length from both the accused and the prosecution we have considered it advisable to allow the prosecution for the first time to object to individual members appointed to the court.
Formerly, only the accused could object. Thus, under the proposed new regime the system will again be similar to that of civilian criminal courts in which both sides can object to specific members of a proposed jury.
I have touched on all but one or two very small changes contained in this bill. The minor changes that I have not mentioned are also directly related to the aim
Government Orders
of reducing any possible perception that the military executive could interfere with the proper judicial functioning of a court martial.
I would like to add a word or two about the urgency of these amendments. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in mid-February it has been impossible to hold trials either by general or disciplinary court martial. The Canadian forces have therefore been deprived of the use of these essential tools in our disciplinary system, and not surprisingly a backlog of cases has built up and continues to build.
I hope that all hon. members will recognize that although the amendments contained in this bill are somewhat technical they are nonetheless essential. They will not in any way harm the operational effectiveness of the forces. In fact, they are vital to that operational effectiveness.
Finally, these amendments raise no policy issues except for the continuing policy, which I know that all hon. members will support, of ensuring that this important aspect of Canadian law complies fully with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In moving that this bill now be read a second time I ask all members to support its speedy passage.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my hon. colleague, the hon. Associate Minister of National Defence, on her discussion of the purpose of the amendment to the National Defence Act, the derivation of its need and the necessity of this amendment.
The minister made a first class presentation of the continuing need for a military justice system and Code of Service Discipline. She said that this amendment guarantees that the military Code of Service Discipline and the military justice system will be consistent with our other code of discipline and the ultimate test, which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I want to speak on the bill as well, perhaps in the same kind of tone as the minister. As she suggested at the outset, I will be speaking from a slightly different perspective, having been required over a few years to see the system in operation and to be allowed to make an independent judgment, sometimes stated and sometimes not, on the efficacy and justness of that system.

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
Suffice it to say, members could probably prejudge what my conclusion would be. I was very pleased to see this amendment because I had anticipated it for some time. As I discussed this informally with the minister before we made these presentations I could tell that we were both glad. I am sure that other colleagues in the House familiar with this system are equally pleased.
The bill essentially, as the minister pointed out, provides some technical amendments. They are technical in a sense, but in some ways they are involved with principle. The principle is that it allows the military justice system to continue by bringing it in line with the charter.
quires punishment more severe, not less severe as some people would suggest, than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct.
As a result, the military has its own Code of Service Discipline to allow it to meet its own particular disciplinary military needs. It falls from that that special service tribunals like a disciplinary court martial, a general court martial or a summary trial, as was again described by the minister, has to exist to allow breaches in the Code of Service Discipline to be effectively dealt with. The corollary of that of course is that recourse to the ordinary criminal courts would be inappropriate, inadequate and perhaps untimely to serve this particular disciplinary need.
If somebody were to hear me say this and take it out of context, they could perhaps ask: "Are you saying then that the military system has not been in line with the charter since it was brought into existence?" Some may answer yes, and some may answer no. The fact that it has taken many years to bring this amendment along, and the weight of the Supreme Court having to be brought to make the decision that ends up in these amendments, is an indication that the very amendments that we are talking about here today were at least judgmental and did take some time to develop. Perhaps I would be allowed to touch on those aspects as well.
We do have a separate system of military justice. The purpose of that is to allow the Canadian Armed Forces to deal with matters that relate directly to discipline, efficiency and the morale of the military, which is essential.
The defence of our country, as was pointed out by the minister and reports on this subject, depends very much on the motivation and the readiness of those men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces to be prepared to protect against any threat to our national security. That requires them to be mobile, to be in the field and to be away from the normal system of doing things in our country.
For the armed forces to remain in a state of readiness, the military must be capable of enforcing internal discipline quickly, effectively and efficiently. If there is a breach of military discipline, it has to be dealt with quickly and sometimes, depending on the situation and where the unit is, regrettably frequently. It often re-
I think that is an indication of why we do need and will continue to need for as long as we can see a separate system of military justice. I think those involved in the business can defend it with little difficulty.
I would now like to bring into my presentation three aspects of the charter because I am going to refer to them later on. Article 1 of the charter, which is very general, sets out that:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
That is a general statement that basically confers legality on the whole discussion here today.
Article 11(f) I think is important because of the nature of what we are discussing here today. It says:
Any person charged with an offence has the right
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of a trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
This article recognizes the existence of a military tribunal.
The item that is very pertinent to our discussion today is article 11(d) which says that:
Any person charged with an offence has the right
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
The crux of the discussion today is has the system of military justice been fair, has it been independent and has it been impartial?

May 6, 1992

A court martial is a very serious business. It has a structure, a fairly simple structure, in which you have the members of the court martial. They are the tryers of fact. You have a representative of the Judge Advocate General, generally called the Judge Advocate. His job is to preside over the proceedings very much like a judge. He is chosen from the ranks of the militaiy. The members of the court martial, or courts martial in the plural sense, must be of the rank of captain or higher. They are trained in this business. Their training is designed to ensure that they are sensitive to the needs of discipline, obedience and duty on the part of the members of the military, and also to the requirement of military efficiency.
In that sense, the court martial represents to an extent the concerns of those persons who are responsible for the discipline and morale of the military.
A reasonable person might well consider that the military status of a court martial's members would affect its approach to the matters that come before it for decision.
The whole question, as I understand it, being determined by the Supreme Court of Canada, and what really resulted in this change being made here today, was the perception in the case of a reasonable person who had knowledge, both of the law and of the military justice system, whether he would be perceived to be independent and impartial.
Before I go on I want to quote, if I may, an opinion which indicates to me, and I hope to you and the House, that this was not an easy decision to make. I am going to quote a good friend of mine, who served with great distinction and was awarded the Order of Military Merit in the Canadian Forces, Colonel Jim Fay, who is an acknowledged authority in the business. He prepared a study of Canadian military law entitled Canadian Military Criminal Law: An Examination of Military Justice. Colonel Fay and I had many a discussion on the fairness of military trials, the very subject that we are discussing here today.
I am going to quote what Colonel Fay had to say because it gives, if not the other side of the coin, some indication of the difficulties one encounters in deciding what is fair and what is impartial and what is independent in the military system of justice. He says and I quote: "In a military organization such as the Canadian
Government Orders
forces there cannot ever be a truly independent military judiciary. The reason is that the military officer must be involved in the administration of discipline at all levels. A major strength of the present military judicial system rests in the use of trained military officers who are also legal officers to sit on courts martial in judicial roles. If this connection were to be severed, and true independence could only be achieved by such severance, the advantage of independence of the judge that might thereby be achieved would be more than offset by the disadvantage of the eventual loss by the judge of the military knowledge and experience which today helps him to meet his responsibilities effectively. Neither the forces nor the accused would benefit from such a separation."
Clearly, when this was written there was some belief from a lifetime of military judgment and military discipline in the experience of a judge that it would be very difficult to achieve fairness, independence and impartiality in the total military sense if military judges were to be totally removed from the system.
The definition of independence, as seen by the Supreme Court of Canada, really hinged on three things: The security of tenure; financial security; and institutional independence. It was believed that the Judge Advocate at general courts martials did not enjoy sufficient security of tenure. The Judge Advocate General is one of the three people in national defence appointed by the Governor in Council; the deputy minister and the Chief of Defence Staff being the other two. He is not independent but is really part of the executive. He serves as an agent of the executive in supervising prosecutions. That is his job.
Furthermore, the regulations in force, and I am talking about the National Defence Act, at the time of the trial that led to this decision, the Judge Advocate was appointed on a case by case basis. As a result it was believed that there was no effective guarantee that his career as a military judge would not be affected by the decisions tending to favour the accused rather than the prosecution.
Here again, a reasonable person might well have entertained a fear or an apprehension that a person chosen as a Judge Advocate had been selected because he had satisfied the interests of the executive, or at least

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
he had not disappointed executive expectations in his appointment. Therefore, the conclusion was that it was questionable. It was decided eventually that the military judge in this particular case, under the particular system where the judge was appointed by the executive, did not qualify.
The second question was one of financial security. Here the argument was that a military legal officer's salary is determined, in part, because of his performance evaluation and his performance evaluation is determined by his immediate superior. In the case of maritime command, his immediate superior was the deputy commander. Consultation was always held with the Judge Advocate with respect to the performance of that particular officer. I think the point was that his future was very much affected by the executive.
There were no formal prohibitions at the time these decisions were made against evaluating an officer on the basis of his performance at a general court martial. The belief was that his performance at a court martial was part of his general performance and, perhaps, it would be difficult to separate the two. The point was that the executive had the ability by virtue of his preparation of the performance evaluation to interfere with the salaries and promotional opportunities of officers serving as Judge Advocates and members at a court martial.
Although the practice of the executive may very well have been to respect the independence of the participants at the court martial in this respect, it was not sufficient to correct the weakness in the tribunal status. Once again, a reasonable person would perceive that financial security was not present in this case.
If I could be permitted a parenthetical comment, it would be very difficult to cite a case where it could be shown directly where a performance evaluation was decided on a performance, either as a member of a court martial or as a judge at a court martial. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when people judge other people, what is objective and what is not objective? The point here is that on the toss of the judicial coin, if I could use that expression, the benefit was given to the accused and the benefit given to the person on trial on the basis that he is innocent until proven guilty. Certainly, from my discussions with my colleagues they believed that seemed to be a very reasonable approach to life.
The third thing was the institutional independence of the tribunal, once again in the minds of a reasonable and informed person. I just talked about and quoted Colonel Jim Fay on using other than military judges and military officers to perform as judge and jury in the case of an accused. Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court, in looking at legislation governing the general court martial, revealed to them that military officers who were responsible to their superiors in the Department of National Defence were intimately involved in the proceedings of the tribunal.
In particular, it was unacceptable that the authority that convened the court martial, that is the executive who is responsible for also appointing the prosecutor, should have the authority to appoint members of the court martial to serve as tryers of fact. The appointment of the Judge Advocate by the Judge Advocate General also undermined the institutional independence of the general court martial, the point being that the close tie between the Judge Advocate General who was appointed by the Governor in Council and the executive was obvious.
The belief and the judgment was to comply with section 11(d) of the charter, which I read a few moments ago, which talked about an independent and impartial tribunal. The appointment of a military judge to sit as a Judge Advocate at a particular court martial should be in the hands of an independent and impartial judicial officer. That was the basis of the judgments that were made.
As the minister pointed out, what essentially has happened is that amendments have been made to the National Defence Act which cover those areas that cause concern essentially with the executive or the officer who convenes the court martial also appointing the judge and also having certain discretionary powers, that are now with this amendment, taken away from him.
I suppose the other aspect of this is that now a convening authority has less total authority in the conduct of both a general court martial and a disciplinary court martial and less discretion with respect to removing the convening authorities power to exclude the public from a trial. That does not exist anymore. Mem-
May 6, 1992

bers of a court martial are appointed as a statutory number as opposed to giving the convening authority an option.
I am delighted to say that we discussed this among our colleagues and we are quite prepared to give the bill our seal of approval. We are delighted to do so because of the background that I put forward.
Before closing, I want to reaffirm to the Canadian public that the military Code of Service Discipline is necessary. It is fair. It is perhaps as fair as any system can be. I am convinced this amendment makes the system of military justice totally consistent with the charter and with the Canadian system of justice.
Before I sit down I would, having been so kind to my colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence, remind her that there are some other areas of legislation. The National Defence Act has not been overhauled in some time. I remember working on it back in 1978. It was some years before it came for discussion in this House. I see the minister smiling. She is aware that there are certain aspects of the National Defence Act that need in a positive sense streamlining, that need overhauling and that need to be discussed here on the floor of the House of Commons.
First, we need legislation that tidies up the business of what parliamentarians have to do before our country considers itself at war. We went through a great period of confusion during the Persian Gulf discussions. Essentially the government of the day committed the country without recalling Parliament. That was a very serious error in judgment.
I would like to see and I believe I am speaking for my colleagues and other members of the House-this is not meant as a political ploy, it is an impartial statement-we really do have to tidy up that business about the requirement to recall Parliament before you send your country to war. The definition of what is meant by active service is pretty messy right now and it needs to be tidied up.
The second point I would like to raise is really for the minister's benefit. I know that one of the principles of national defence today, as it has been for a few years now, is the total force concept in which the use of
Government Orders
reserves, both supplementary ready reserves and primary reserves, are essential.
In order to make that policy effective, which I support and my party supports, we really need legislation to tidy away the legal niceties of this aspect. I know it is going to be very difficult but until this happens I think we are going to have to start that long road uphill to get that legislation under way.
The only way we are going to do it is to introduce legislation, go public, get public reaction, and hone it. It will take years but I really do believe in my heart of hearts that we need to get on with it.
I have been speaking a little longer than normal but I felt it was necessary to go through it in that detail. I thank the members of the House for their indulgence.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak at second reading of the bill. We too will support the bill and will accommodate the usual procedures by agreeing that we should consider the matter in committee of the whole, if we can proceed that way. We appreciate that the bill is urgent and needs to be dealt with promptly.
The bill, as set out by the minister, is an amendment to the National Defence Act in a very narrow and specific area. The Supreme Court of Canada in February of this year found that in certain respects the court martial procedures under the National Defence Act are counter to the charter.
Some of the areas were cleared up by regulation but one remained. Essentially it was the broad issue of the selection of the judge and jury which the court found procedurally lacked independence. In order to assure the independence required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms this bill is before the House.
I appreciate what the bill does to take away from the prosecutor, the convening officer, the right to appoint- in effect the judge and jury to deal with the court-and has set up a far more independent system so that the accused will be entitled to be tried by an independent tribunal.
We support the bill. Specifically the way in which this is achieved is to remove the convening authority's power to appoint the president and members of the court. The bill also provides that an officer other than the convening authority designated by the regulations made by the Governor in Council will do the appointing of the

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
president and the members. We have had it explained to us that the proposed system will be a random selection from among those serving in the forces.
The conveying authority's power also will be removed. The power to prevent a court martial from making a finding of guilty or not guilty on a charge where the charge alleges an attempt to commit an offence that power will be removed and it will turn on the evidence before the court.
The bill will remove the convening authority's power to exclude the public from a trial. The bill will remove the statutory authority available to the military hierarchy to limit the role of the Judge Advocate in deciding questions of law and mixed law in fact. It will remove the convening authority's discretion to vary the number the officers constituting a general court martial and a disciplinary court martial and to establish that the required number of officers will always be five in the case of general court martial and three in the case of disciplinary court martial, the current minimum numbers prescribed for these courts.
The bill will also provide that both the prosecution and the accused may object for cause to the members and the Judge Advocate appointed for the court. Finally it will allow consequential amendments to the act consistent with the above points.
On the understanding that that is what the bill in fact does, then we support it. It has been clearly undertaken to us that the bill now is in full compliance with the Canadian charter and that the court martial proceedings now comply with the charter.
We agree that it is urgent because we understand there are at least 20 or 30 cases now that are awaiting the improvement in the procedures. Until the procedures are brought into line with the charter, these cases cannot proceed. Justice requires that Parliament deal with this very quickly. As long as we can be assured that the bill does what we are told it does, then we can proceed with it.
I have had an opportunity to talk with an official with the Canadian Bar Association. She made it clear to me that she was not going to be able to reflect the official position of the Canadian Bar Association on this. As a result of those discussions I believe that the assurances we received are correct. My own review of the bill also
leads me to that conclusion. I suppose if we are all H incorrect some court some day will tell us.	H
However, on the understanding that the bill brings the H procedures into conformity with the Canadian Charter H of Rights and Freedoms, then of course it has our	H
support. In view of the requirements for urgency we are	H
prepared to accommodate that.	H
However, before I sit down, I want to deal with a H couple of other related issues. First of all, while this H aspect of the military court martial proceedings would H now appear to be fixed, there may be other areas in the H administration of justice within the military that need H| some examination.
It has been brought to my attention, for example, that the prison in Edmonton is a particularly backward and regressive institution; that it is run in what was described a Victorian manner and that a strong case could be made for taking a look at what is going on within that prison. Perhaps in the larger context we should look at the way in which those who are charged with offences or convicted of offences that require incarceration are kept and maintained and whether that is consistent with the norms that the government and the Parliament of Canada is seeking to impose in the correction system in general.
I will undertake to draw to the minister's attention any specifics in this that have been brought to my attention and would look forward to her undertaking to look into that.
There is another area that has also been brought to my attention and that is the issue of legal aid for those who are charged with offences. My understanding of the procedure is that legal assistance is provided. It seems to me that it is an important element in our system of justice in this country that an individual has the right to have counsel of his or her own choosing.
There are obvious limits on that and the limits apply within the legal aid system. Still our legal aid system as it applies in most provinces, and is supported by the financial assistance of the government, attempts to provide a degree of accessibility to that right of choice for counsel, and as well as the opportunity to seek experienced counsel in difficult and important cases. As I say, it has been brought to my attention that these

May 6, 1992

principles need some application in the case of the Canadian military.
I would hope that as we are now talking about the administration of justice, or at least one aspect of it, we can use this occasion to bring that concern to the floor of the House of Commons and to the minister.
This amendment offers me another opening. My friend from the Liberal Party has done that in part. What we have in front of us is an amendment to the National Defence Act. It is in front of the House because of the Supreme Court decision which struck down the court martial procedures and forced the Department of National Defence to respond to that decision. The only way it could do so was to bring an amendment before the House.
However, as my friend said earlier, this House has heard other requests for amendments to the National Defence Act. The time has surely come to begin to take a very serious look at all aspects of the National Defence Act and not wait until the Supreme Court of Canada has forced the situation.
Yesterday before the defence committee the minister gave some useful assurances in response to a question of mine on that issue. I would hope that she would take this opportunity to reaffirm the commitment that she has made on behalf of the government to launch a review of the National Defence Act.
As my friend said earlier, this will take some time. Though I must say that it always puzzles me why it has to take as long as these things do, when there is urgency the system can apparently respond. However, there are a number of issues that need a careful look, and I would like to list them and put them on the record of this Parliament.
There were at least two issues that came up in the Oka crisis, in which the Canadian forces were involved, that require a review of the provisions of the National Defence Act. The first is the issue of cost. The forces in Oka were called out under the provisions of part 11 of the National Defence Act, with which the provincial governments can call to their assistance the Canadian forces. The Canadian forces are obliged to respond to that call under the terms of the National Defence Act in aid of the civil power.
The constitutional responsibility for law and order at that level is with the provincial governments. The
Government Orders
Canadian military, which is a federal responsibility, is being called to aid the provinces in narrow limited circumstances.
However, the bill is charged to the federal government and the federal taxpayer. There ought to be a review of those provisions. In my view it will necessitate amendments to the National Defence Act to clear that up. That is something which I would hope the government will look at.
There is a second and perhaps even more serious matter. That concerns the constraints that may be properly applied to the Canadian forces when they are called up to serve under that provision of the act in aid of the civil power. A few years ago this Parliament undertook a very comprehensive review of the War Measures Act and came up with the necessary balance between the needs of the state for order and the use of the military to maintain order, and on the other hand the rights of Canadians, as described in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in emergency circumstances.
A very elaborate and intricate system exists in the Emergencies Act to ensure that when the Canadian forces are called up under that act certain reports are made to Parliament and certain other constraints written in which would not constrain the forces from doing the duty that they have to do but would ensure within reasonable limits that Canadian rights and freedoms are protected.
None of those provisions apply when the Canadian forces are called up under part 11 in aid of the civil power. There need to be amendments to the National Defence Act to ensure that either the provisions of the Emergencies Act apply or some other reasonable provisions would apply in those cases so that the rights of Canadians are properly governed.
As well, we obviously need to tighten up the reporting provisions of that part of the act because we have never had a satisfactory report from the Government of Quebec on the use of the forces in that situation. That is clearly necessary and should be included.
Second, during the gulf war we saw another weakness in the provisions of the act that need review. When the government puts Canadian forces in a combat situation there should be clear provisions for the approval of Parliament of that action, as had been the tradition in this country prior to the gulf war. Furthermore, there should be clear provisions for consultation with the leadership in Parliament when the government is obliged

May 6, 1992
Government Orders
to act quickly in an emergency and when Parliament is not in session.
I believe that all Canadians and all parties in this House would want those provisions in the National Defence Act. The time has come for them to be considered.
There are a number of other provisions I would just like to refer to. One is the issue of freedom of conscience. Our charter now provides freedom of conscience to Canadians, but that right is not given those serving in the Canadian forces. It is possible for this Parliament to design an opportunity for those serving in the forces to exercise their real freedom of conscience in appropriate circumstances consistent with their obligations as members of the forces.
Another is the use of the death penalty. Throughout the penalty provisions in the National Defence Act the death penalty is given as a possible penalty for an offence under the National Defence Act. It is crucial that fact be reviewed in view of the continued expression of this Parliament that the death penalty is not an appropriate penalty.
I do not want to prejudge the case as to whether there may conceivably be a case in a military situation in which the death penalty should be retained, although at this stage I will be very hard to persuade on that case.
I am sure that almost all members of this House are at the other end of the spectrum and the fact that there are provisions in the National Defence Act for the application of the death penalty is horrifying and could completely offend every member of this House.
The military may say: "Oh, well, we would not use it in that circumstance". Well, that is not good enough and it should be reviewed in light of the expressions of views of this House.
There is a need to examine a peace tax fund. It has been proposed across this country. There are many people in this country who, as a matter of conscience, do not wish to contribute to the military. Other countries have looked at this proposal. We can look at ways of providing an opportunity for those who, as a matter of conscience, want to have their tax dollars go to a peace tax fund for non-military purposes.
Yesterday I raised with the minister the question of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides that children 15 years or younger should not be recruited into the forces. We need to ensure that the provisions of the National Defence Act are consistent with that convention.
There are three other quick issues that I would like to raise under this heading. The next is the issue of nuclear weapons. Canada does not itself directly use military weapons in its defence. We have been part of collective security arrangements in which nuclear weapons are held in threat to be used, but we have not directly used them ourselves. Canadians across this country have raised very serious objections to the storage of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil and on our reliance on nuclear weapons, albeit indirectly.
It is very clear to many Canadians that even the threat of nuclear weapons is contrary to international law and the norms of international justice. Any country that purported to use nuclear weapons would be offending the fundamental values we hold as Canadians, and which are set out in the United Nations Charter. However the Department of National Defence continues to approve visits to this country of vessels which may well contain nuclear weapons. The day in which we do that is over. The act should provide for restraints on the circumstances under which nuclear weapons are allowed to be brought into Canada and/or stored in this country.
My friend has raised the issue of reserves. It is very clear that needs to be dealt with under the amendments to the National Defence Act.
Finally there is the issue of the rights of gays and lesbians, which the minister has already addressed in committee and on the floor of this House. We are expecting an announcement, we hope shortly, that gays and lesbians within the forces will have their rights protected and there will no longer be discrimination against them.
In light of history it seems to me that it would be helpful if there was an amendment to the National Defence Act to cover that as well.
With those comments I would say that we will support this bill on second reading and we hope that we can proceed quickly this afternoon to examine it in commit-
May 6, 1992

tee of the whole so that it could possibly be adopted by this House today.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following the remarks just made by the member for Victoria about the importance of timely passage, I think there is agreement in the House to proceed to carry this bill through all stages this afternoon. We wish you well in doing so.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1 -Attempt charged, full offence proved


John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is the point at which I could ask the minister to respond to some of the points I made in my speech on second reading. First, in particular perhaps she could indicate whether the government would be prepared to undertake a review of the National Defence Act, at least with regard to the points that I raised, as well as others that will occur to the government.


Mary Collins: I would be glad to reply to my hon. colleague. My colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception also mentioned similar concerns. It is something that we have had some thoughts about. In fact, a few years ago there was a start at doing so but then it was dropped.
I have had discussions with the minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the deputy minister. We will be proceeding with establishing a process, working groups to start addressing the issues and then be able to bring forward obviously to colleagues, and I would be pleased to ensure that colleagues are kept informed and involved in this process.
Government Orders
I appreciate the points that both members made of issues that are of concern. I certainly will ensure that these that can be worked on on our side as well.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, can we look forward perhaps to some kind of interim report by the fall? Would that be a reasonable time limit?


Mary Collins: Mr. Chairman, I know the sense of frustration. I share it too. As I think another hon. colleague mentioned, this is a major undertaking.
The last time they were considering it, they thought it would take about three years. I have, in my discussions with them, suggested that perhaps we might look at a shorter time frame than that. Realistically, I just do not think the fall is possible.
I would certainly be prepared to keep members up to date on our progress.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a long process. I think three years was pretty modest for the iterations that it has to go through.
Once it gets to defence and justice and the iterations back and forth, it does take a long time. While this is important, of course national defence does have other priorities.
I would thank the minister for, I presume, her agreement that we will look at legislation in consideration of the National Defence Act amendments and in consideration of legislation for total force concept, specifically for reserves and indeed for tidying up the business of going to war, if that expression is acceptable.


Mary Collins: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prejudge the issues, but certainly the member has raised issues today as others have. They are on the record, and obviously we are going to have to address them.
I know the total force issue is one that there has been some considerable discussion about in recognition that the act is quite out of date with the reality of what we are trying to do with the total force concept.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I have one other kind of preliminary point.
Perhaps the minister could just confirm-I guess in some sense she did it in her main speech, but now as we set off in a clause by clause consideration-that she has been advised by the law officers that the proposed bill

Private Members' Business
will bring the procedures into line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mary Collins: Mr. Chairman, it will be not only from our own legal officers, but also from legal officers from the Department of Justice who have reviewed it and given us their opinion that this is going to meet the requirements.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mary Collins: that the bill be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mary Collins: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that there is an inclination to call it seven o'clock and proceed with Private Members' Business.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was led to believe that there would be a motion that the government members were intending to offer us, a consent motion. Is this now withdrawn or is it still the intention of the parliamentary secretary to move that motion?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question. I think one or two points having to do with the matter are still being discussed among the parties. I am advised that it would be possible to move that motion during the course of the next hour. It is my expectation that that will be done.
I would like to do it right now and I would do it right now if I were ready, but I can assure my hon. friend that it will be done.
I just happened to have an inspiration while I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I think you will find, Sir, that there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House on Thursday, May 7, 1992, immediately after Question Period, this House shall proceed with a special debate that for the purpose of this special debate the question before the House shall be: "That this House take note of the Canadian position at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development"; that no member be permitted to speak more than once and for a period not to exceed 20 minutes; that under the provisions of this Order the Speaker shall not entertain any amendments to the motion, any dilatory motions or quorum calls; that when no member rises to speak on the said motion but no later than 12 midnight, the motion shall be deemed put and adopted and the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day, provided that nothing in this Order shall prevent a motion for the extension of the sitting beyond 12 midnight to be proposed between 11 p.m. and midnight under the provisions of Standing Order 26; and that for the purpose of this Special Order Private Members' Business shall be taken up and considered from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, indeed there has been the usual consultation between various parties. On behalf of my caucus colleagues I want to indicate that that consultation has been held and we are prepared to support the motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of upgrading the rail link to Churchill and improving the Port of Churchill in order to promote tourism and economic development in this region.

May 6, 1992

He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House in arriving a few seconds late on this. I was at a committee meeting and did not realize that the House would be moving so quickly through regular business.
I put this motion on the Order Paper and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on it today because I feel that Canada is missing out on a great economic opportunity.
We have in this country a national goal to export more grain than we do at the present time. We know that the grain handling facilities that we have in this nation cannot handle all the grain that we wish to export.
Despite this fact, we have a situation where last year we shipped grain through Seattle. We have a situation in this country where the port of Churchill was underutilized at a period when there were strikes in Thunder Bay and at another period when there were strikes affecting the other ports of this nation.
The port of Churchill was open during both of those periods but it was not being used for the shipment of grain. For that matter, the port of Churchill was actually closed while one of these strikes was going on, even though the ice season had not returned to Hudson Bay or to the port itself.
We also have a situation where many of us who live on the prairies, especially the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, are not convinced that the federal government actively promotes the port of Churchill. For that matter, many of us are convinced that the officials of the Wheat Board, of Canadian National, and people within the Department of Transport actively work against the interests of the port of Churchill and the rail line going to that community.
I quoted examples before in this House up to and including the Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board with statements made by those officials where that minister had been completely incorrect, not just misleading but completely incorrect. Yet nothing is done.
We had a meeting in February of this year of supporters of the port of Churchill including residents from Saskatchewan, people from The Pas, from Churchill and other places in northern Manitoba, representatives of the Liberal caucus, the New Democratic Party caucus,
Private Members' Business
both federally and provincially from the province of Manitoba.
We met with the federal Ministers of Transport, both of them. We asked for two moratoriums, one a moratorium on actions by CN and by other government officials which were basically destroying the future of Churchill. By that I meant and used the example of rolling stock being sent out of the Churchill area so it was unavailable for wheat shipments.
We also referred to situations where branch lines which are very important for connecting grain to Churchill were being abandoned by CN. We said we needed a moratorium on that to make sure that the potential for Churchill was developed.
In addition, in our meeting with the ministers we said that we needed a moratorium on the negative remarks that were coming from government officials. We were not trying to censor. We were not trying to prevent people from exchanging honest views. We were saying take a look at what you allow government officials to say about the port of Churchill and ask yourself-we were talking to the Minister of Transport-if you would allow government officials to say the same negative things about the port of Montreal. Would you let them say the same thing about Thunder Bay? Would you let them say something as negative about facilities in Halifax? If it is a rail line, would you allow CN officials to say the same types of things about other tracks and operations they have in this country as they say about the tracks in northern Manitoba?
The government is so nervous about free expression by so many of its public servants. It is amazing how much is allowed when it comes to negative expression about the port of Churchill.
We in the north would not be upset if these negative expressions or negative statements were true. Time after time we have checked out these statements and found out that they were completely false.
The worst example of that was when the minister responsible for the Wheat Board was in front of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and he was asked a question. I listened to the tape carefully. He was asked why the Wheat Board did not use Churchill more often. The minister got up on his podium

May 6, 1992
Private Members' Business
and said: "Why, there are all sorts of reasons. Let me give you an example. Last year we had a ship from Brazil go up to the port of Churchill and it ran into an iceberg. We had to send technicians and welders up there to fix that ship up. As a result, the Brazilians do not want to use the port of Churchill next year".
It is true the Brazilians use the port of Churchill. It is not true that they do not want to use the port in the future. It is not true that the Government of Canada sent welders up there. And it is not true that any ship ran into an iceberg. The minister fabricated the story. He may have been misinformed, but what he said was completely incorrect. It never happened.
We brought this up after checking coast guard records for three consecutive years. It was revealed that there was a Brazilian ship that ran into an iceberg. It was outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It was not even near Hudson's Bay. The ship was not destined for Hudson's Bay.
That issue was raised twice in the House of Commons. We have had all sorts of municipalities and associations raising this issue. We have not had one correction from the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Not one correction.
How can we expect government officials to give Churchill a fair hearing when the minister responsible for the Wheat Board will not do so? Two days ago, we had the results of the hearings that took place in various parts of Canada with regard to the future of grain in this country. It was noted that there was support from Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the port of Churchill, that the farmers there wanted to use the port.
There are things that can happen to improve that port, but what we need is some political vision. We have to have cabinet ministers assess it fairly, look at the capabilities and see what can be done for the future.
I see that my colleague for Winnipeg South Centre is in the House. When he was the Minister of Transport he worked with the province of Manitoba, the New Democratic Party government there, and he came up with a modernization program.
It was a federal-provincial agreement with agreements with CN as well, about how the port of Churchill was
modernized and made viable. A lot of work was done on that agreement but a lot of that agreement was not carried out. A lot of that work was not finished. Again, the government sat silently. It did nothing. It did not look at its economic options for the port of Churchill.
What we have called for is that the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the federal government, CN and the Wheat Board sit down and look at Churchill. Do not prejudge it; do not make rash statements which turn out to be false. Look at the options. Look at the benefits and see what can be done in that area.
In my motion we talk about tourism, other developments in the port, and the rocket range that has been developed in Churchill. We look at those things. We know the federal government wants to put a national park up there. But if we destroy the infrastructure in the meanwhile, none of those things will make any economic sense in the future.
If the rail line is ruined, why put a national park up there? If the port is destroyed, one of the reasons that tourists visit there will disappear. The reason for the community to exist diminishes. What we are saying is look at all of those options and then make a decision.
When those options are being looked at, we should take a look at some of the things that are happening in eastern Europe at the present time. We know that many of those nations need our grain. We know that many of those nations are cash poor. We know our federal government has signed an agreement with Russia to provide grain over the next five years. Those opportunities exist and are occurring. Yet nobody is looking at the fact that Churchill is closer both by rail and by sea to those ports that would receive our grain.
We also know the Russian ambassador wrote to the premier of Manitoba in February of this year explaining that many Russian ships are not busy at the present time. Many of the ships that are reinforced to travel in the north are not busy. In that letter, the Russians indicated they would be willing to look at using those ships in northern Manitoba to extend our shipping season.
Again, with that kind of proposal, that kind of offer, that kind of recognized market, why is the federal government not acting? There is a conspiracy of silence by this government when it comes to good work on behalf of Churchill.
May 6, 1992

If there is a negative remark to make, this government is willing to make it. It does not matter whether that statement turns out to be true in the long-run or not. We have had statements by a number of ministers of this government which have been negative to Churchill. They are made freely. Nobody checks the facts.
What we are saying is we do not want a guarantee that long-term funding is going to be provided to Churchill regardless of the facts. What we are saying is look at the facts, look at the economic opportunities, look at what is going to happen in this nation in the future and then make the decision as a government.
One of the things that upsets us the most at the present time is we know that there is nobody on the government benches who is really listening. We know that when opportunities are there, like the letter from the Russian ambassador, nobody on the government picks it up and runs with it.


Mr. Richardson:: We were busy.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Then we have some ridiculous remark from a member who does not know what he is talking about, as usual.
That is part of the problem that some of the constituents from my riding, from Saskatchewan and from Manitoba face. They are sick of being ignored. They are sick of having people make stupid remarks like that. What I have said is they want an honest hearing. What they want is the chance to explain what the value of Churchill is and they want the government to be listening because that is important to us.
We know that it is cheaper to ship grain from most of Saskatchewan to the port of Churchill. The rail line is shorter and basically downhill. We know that the water distance to many of our markets is also shorter. We recognize we have a shorter season, that is a reality. But we also know we can ship enough grain during that shorter season to not only have the port of Churchill make a profit at its operational end, but also to give a higher return to the farmers as well.
It is ironic that this government would allow the Wheat Board to ship grain through Seattle at the same
Private Members' Business
time that it made no effort to extend the season in the port of Churchill.
I know that my time has almost run out on this. What we are saying is that we want to see someone on the government side who will work for Churchill.
Let me say that the people who live in Portage-Interlake will ask why they elected a government member. The air base has disappeared and the rocket research that used take place in Churchill.
Guess what? Do you know where most of the employment took place? It was in Gimli, in a government member's riding. It seems to me that every time a government member is elected, all we have is another silent lamb, someone who is afraid to get up and say that the government is not paying attention to the concerns in the riding.
For that matter, I should point out that most of the ports in this country are held by New Democratic members anyway. Therefore, I do not think it is really a matter of competition.
What we are looking at is making sure that this country, this nation and, hopefully, this government will look at our economic opportunities, look at developing our grain trade, our tourist industry, developing the potential of this nation.
Again, it is ironic at a time when people are wrapping themselves in the flag with regard to the Constitution in this country that we are creating a sense of regional alienation by ignoring the opportunities that do exist in part of our country.
We only have one Arctic seaport in this nation. Instead of developing it, instead of looking at it as an economic opportunity, we have a government that basically says: "It is a headache. We do not want to deal with it".
What I am saying in this House and I have said it a number of times, is give Churchill a chance. I am asking this House to support a resolution that tells the government to give Churchill a real chance and a real look.


Lee Richardson: Well, that was pretty depressing. Mr. Speaker, perhaps now is the time for some optimism.
I am pleased to respond to the motion raised by the member for Churchill and to have the opportunity to

May 6, 1992
Private Members' Business
speak about what this government has done to promote the economic development of Churchill, particularly in
the tourism industry.
Churchill is well-known as western Canada's only northern deep sea terminal and is principally used for exporting grain. In recent years, however, the port has also been accommodating Arctic cruising by Society Expedition Ships.
Over the years, the people of Churchill have capitalized on its unique attributes, both man-made and natural. This has lead the community and its residents to overcome what may have been considered to be barriers, such as distance and climate. They have worked to improve the economy through innovative promotion of their community as a tourist destination.
Churchill is commonly known as the Polar Bear Capital of the World. As such, it attracts a sizeable number of tourists each year, including an increasing number from Europe and Asia.
Beluga whales and many species of migratory birds have also become major tourist attractions, especially for naturalists and related society expeditions.
From the viewpoint of the outdoor adventure product, this area can combine all the elements of a harsh but breathtaking landscape with educational and enjoyable, historical and cultural attractions.
Churchill has much to offer and has worked strategically with a great degree of sheer tenacity to achieve its status as a tourist site well worth exploring.
In terms of numbers, in 1989 a survey by Canadian Parks Service estimated attendance at Fort Prince of Wales alone to be in excess of 12,000 visitors.
As a responsible government we have to take into consideration that sustainable development of the area's natural resources is of utmost importance for long-term tourism and economic development.
With the possible addition and development of Fort Prince of Wales National Park, which is expected to benefit tourism over all, certain issues have to be addressed. Regulations for the use of the tundra must be developed and enforced.
It is largely the unique natural resources and wildlife viewing opportunities that attract visitors to Churchill. Therefore, future development of the park should proceed with caution and an assessment on the impact on
nature, natural and wildlife resources, should be considered.
We realize that Churchill has witnessed a significant increase in tourism activity in recent years. However, before any future development or expansion occurs it may be desirable for the community to conduct market research, a comprehensive assessment of the existing tourism infrastructure, including opportunities as well as constraints.
The region's ability to attract visitors and supply them with basic services such as transportation, food, lodging, outfitting, et cetera, influences the type and number of visitors to the area and, over the long term, will determine the extent of economic benefits.
As Churchill's tourism activity is currently highly seasonal, the economic viability of future tourism operations must be carefully studied.
As a responsible government, we have not been idle in working with the Churchill tourism community. Under the Canada-Manitoba Tourism Development Agreement major investments were made in the promotion of Churchill. The Government of Canada and the province of Manitoba supported cost-shared initiatives which included contributing to the construction of a 40-passenger tour boat, promoting wilderness tours through Arctic Experiences Ltd. and Frontiers North, supporting B & B scuba diving expeditions and funding a consortium to enable tour operators to market their tourism products effectively.
We also contributed to the development of a video cassette promoting Churchill, a wildlife viewing study and a wilderness adventure market study.
These are but a few of the projects which were undertaken during the last agreement.
The federal government and the province of Manitoba have recently signed a $10 million tourism agreement. Again, as in the last tourism agreement, Churchill will benefit. Already there are tentative plans to subsidize familiarization tours which will be attended by overseas travel organizations and tourism media.
We will be targeting the Japanese and German tourist market under the new program and will be promoting Churchill tour packages. There are also tentative plans for building an additional accommodation facility which is being considered by the private sector entrepreneurs and, to this end, the new tourism agreement may be considered for support.
May 6, 1992

We are aware that the economy of Churchill as well as the tourism industry depends on the continued service from an already limited transportation network. As most tourists today take trips of shorter duration, they tend to use airlines as their means of transportation to Churchill.
However, passenger rail continues to offer travel experiences for both those who have the time and inclination to tour by rail.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize to the people of Churchill that the people of Churchill can be assured that this government remains committed to supporting their efforts to build a diversified and sustainable economy for the future.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, listening to the member from Calgary South speaking on behalf of the government reminds me of some of those times you find yourself travelling away from home in a hotel room and you turn on the television set late at night and on comes a canned two-minute promo written by some tourist bureau writer which shows all the passion and commitment of a slick wax job.
I do not think the previous representative of the government knew what he was talking about or cared about what he was talking about. But I want to tell the House that there are people on the prairies who do. Churchill is an asset not just for the province of Manitoba but for the entire country. Historically, it was the place where the first Red River settlers entered Canada from Scotland. It was the entiy-way for the west, the first initial entrepot or gateway by which western Canada began to be settled in that area.
Since then it has always represented a major and distinctive transportation centre for the entire western-northern region of Canada until recently, until, as the member for Churchill has properly stated, it has been treated with cold neglect.
Yet at a time when we are presumably doing a careful assessment and review of the assets of this country as to what can help develop a different economy, one that is equally and broadly shared, I believe that Churchill does represent the catalyst by which we can open up, in part,
Private Members' Business
the north and in which we can also open up substantial trade opportunities to other parts of the world.
The member for Churchill mentioned that when I was Minister of Transport we signed an agreement with the then provincial government to modernize Churchill. It was the beginning because we had a fundamental belief that the port of Churchill was not simply for the benefit of the member for Churchill and his constituents but it was one of the keys that would unlock the door to western development. That is why we invested substantial moneys to improve the port, build a tug boat, and start adding to the infrastructure of that area.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out one thing. The agreement was never completed because after 1984 the new government cancelled those provisions.
Let me give you an example. One of the most crucial elements in the continued existence of transportation to Churchill is the railway. We initiated through agreements some serious scientific experiments on how to deal with the permafrost plus initiated a renovation of the boxcars at the Transcona shops which would provide jobs for close to 1,000 people, and started the development of a new lightweight hopper car specifically designed for the Churchill line but also available for a number of other commodity carrying systems in Canada and around the world.
The researchers from industry and commerce who worked on it said it had the potential of offering manufacturing sales and export sales around the world because it was designed for countries which did not have highly urbanized dense transportation systems.
All that disappeared after July 1984. The then Minister of Transport, who is now our finance minister and likes to pride himself as being an advocate for the west cancelled out, wiped out, abrogated those provisions of the agreement that would have made Churchill a viable transportation centre.
I could not understand why the province of Manitoba did not take the government to court and force it to live up to a signed federal-provincial agreement. Right now we would not have to go through these silly arguments that we get from the railways and others that Churchill will not work. It would have worked under that agree-

May 6, 1992
Private Members' Business
ment. It would have had the basic infrastructure, the track improvement, and the box car systems. Not only that, we would have developed a new manufacturing industry for Canada. We would have established a niche that nobody else could have occupied.
That is why I find it so ludicrous at times when we hear the government talking about northern need to become more productive and competitive when in fact what it did was cancel out time after time initiatives that were taken. Why? Simply because they were taken by a Liberal government. It was an ideological decision and had nothing to do with ensuring that we would be competitive and productive in this country.
One of the other products of that agreement was some serious economic analysis as to the future of Churchill. What was pointed out was that in relation to the changes taking place in the north, as the hon. member for Churchill mentioned, the new developments taking place in eastern Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union, that Churchill represented our best chip in playing in that game.
I just returned from a visit to Russia and Ukraine two weeks ago where we talked specifically about the new commercial linkages which could take place between western Canada and Ukraine, Russia, other republics. What they were proposing was the opportunity for joint enterprises to make the port of Churchill a substantial connecting link with those areas. They talked about the fact that they have the technology for ice-breaking, for reinforced ships, and they are prepared to put those in as part of a joint agreement between Canada and those republics to make the system work.
The irony is that those new governments and those new republics have more faith in the port of Churchill than the Canadian government has. They see a prospect for it. They see a future for it. The question is why cannot members opposite. Why can they not see its importance in giving western Canada a distinctive, unique opportunity that nobody else in North America has, to be able to ship our commodities and receive goods from those areas at a much lower cost than by going through the seaway.
It is a simple, economic fact. It does not mean to say that the seaway is not important, but what we really need to have is an interconnecting link of water transportation systems.
Instead there is an attempt to shut it down. I know some of the reasons, having been in the transport portfolio. There are very powerful interests who do not want to do it. They begin in the CN headquarters in Montreal; They have never liked the port of Churchill.
I do not know whether that is a corporate culture. Whatever it may be it is wrong. The only way to offset it in countervail is if there is a government prepared to say: "We believe in the port of Churchill. We want to invest in it. We want to use it".
As long as it is a Crown corporation-and God knows how much longer that will be because it is selling off all our assets-it will have to listen. That is why it is very important that some decisions be taken now.
Mr. Speaker, as a son of the west you also recognize the kinds of changes going on in that area. There are some new developments taking place in the prairie regions. There are some new feelings of co-operation in an attempt to bring the prairies together, to look at it as a region as a whole. How can we develop a distinctive transportation system in air, on sea and on land? How do we open up the north? How do we open up new trade links around the world?
I would suggest to members opposite if they have the ear of the Minister of Transport, the associate minister, or their parliamentary secretaries that they should make this part of a prairie decision. They should bring the provincial governments together and bring the concerned economic and labour groups together to work out a plan, of which Churchill would be a major part in developing those kinds of new commercial trade linkages.
That is the way to start innovating. That is the way to start opening up some new opportunities. They should start working in co-operation with that region. Rather than simply let the port of Churchill and its connecting links dwindle away, atrophy, we can turn the asset into a major opportunity.
However it does take some political will. It does take some commitment. It does take some engagement.
I support the member for Churchill on his initiative in this private member's motion. He is trying to bring focus and attention to that very fact. I do so because it is not a partisan issue. It is an issue for all of us in western Canada. It is an issue that each of us feels strongly about.
May 6, 1992

We know that if our region is going to modernize, survive and develop a new opening to the world in terms of trade at an efficient cost, we need the port of Churchill and all the things that string out from it.
It is not that alone. It can become one of the cornerstones, one of the foundations of a transportation system out of which tourism will flow, rocket ranges will develop and new scientific centres will emerge. I believe the opportunities for that area are limitless, but it will take an initial commitment to establish a firm foundation of a rail link and an air transportation link. Out of that the other development possibilities are limitless.
I want to endorse that point and hope that in this case members of the government are listening.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate that has gone on now.
I have an interest in this matter as my riding borders the seaway. It would be nice if there were enough grain flowing to the east that the seaway and the port of Churchill could be taken care of, but that is not the existing situation at this particular time.
We have to look at the entire transportation system in our part of the country, not consider just one aspect of it in isolation. As I say, it would be great if there were enough grain but there is not at the present time. The projections are that there will not be enough in the future. The seaway is crying out for more grain to go to the east as well. It would be terrific if it happened.
They have been dipping into their reserves for the last few years. They have experienced a downturn in the amount of grain that flows through the seaway. We have heard about the other things that have happened as a result, with portions of the fleet going out to sea and going into other service and whether there will be enough fleet capacity if the grain market should pick up. That is one question which has to be considered in this entire matter as well.
The indication was that the government has not even looked at this particular matter. That is not correct. In order to reassure the parties about this situation, on February 20, 1992 the Minister of Transport announced that the 1992 shipping season would commence on or
Private Members' Business
about July 24 in Churchill, depending of course on local ice and weather conditions.
In addition, the Minister of State for Transport is looking at the entire matter. She is in the process of collecting facts on the rail line, the port and the community. This is what is ongoing. This is what was requested by members of the opposition and the mover of the original motion. This exercise should provide a strong body of information with which future decisions about the facility can be made.
Throughout its modem history the port has essentially been a grain port and therefore in competition with the seaway. It used also to handle bulk imported cargo destined for the prairies until the seventies. The container revolution made this traffic uneconomical.
There are certain features about the port. The 140,000 tonne storage capacity grain elevator is the main feature. The harbour and loading berths can accommodate grain vessels loaded with up to 44,000 tonnes of grain. Open storage and shedded facilities are used for general cargo, and liquid bulk facilities are available for handling petroleum products. The port also has a secondary role in resupply operation to northern communities in the Keewatin district.
We had the opportunity in committee this afternoon to hear from a representative of CN Rail. We were looking at it in terms of moving grain, the seaway, and the general transportation system in eastern Canada. Questions were raised in that committee meeting specifically about the port of Churchill.
Some of the things that came out were interesting. The last speaker indicated that there was a study done and that it should be gone into in more depth. They looked at light rail cars and so on. In response to the questions that were asked, it was indicated that the rail line to Churchill is experiencing rapidly escalating maintenance costs. This is due primarily to dealing with the effects of the degradation of the permafrost on which the line is constructed. In addition to the permafrost portions, the southern portion of the line is in major need of rehabilitation.
One of the factors that the minister of state will take into account in assessing the situation is that the maintenance costs on this line are currently 70 per cent higher than the average cost on the grain branch lines. These permafrost conditions result in a sudden sinking of the track during the thaw in late summer and early fall which

May 6, 1992
Private Members' Business
unfortunately correspond to the grain shipping season. This is the time when the line should be used the most.
The reality is that the occurrence of these sink holes precludes the use of standard grain hopper cars on the route to Churchill due to the instability of these kinds of cars on the rough track. The individual from CN indicated in the committee that they are using older boxcars on this particular line. They are the type of car that is not used on any other line in the system. They are used on the route to Churchill for the short season each year.
One of the questions was: What happens to them the rest of the year? Do they just sit there and rust? That was the response that we got back this afternoon in regard to the port. That is going to have to be taken into account when we look at the entire transportation system of eastern Canada.
In 1990 the business revenue generated by the port's activities was approximately $14.45 million. It represents the revenue of firms and government agencies supplying cargo and vessel services, but excludes the value of cargo shipped through the ports. It is obviously an economic generator to the area and very important. The impact of the port amounted to just under $13.8 million, a half million dollars was direct income earned and approximately $9.3 million was re-spending by the employees. The total impact of the port is $4.7 million.
The port does have land for foreseeable industrial development and it can handle smaller-sized cruise vessels. However, the port facilities will need to be upgraded in order to provide better service for the tourists arriving by water when numbers justify the expenditure. By far the greater number of tourists arrive by rail and air.
The 1991 season was a pivotal year for the port of Churchill. Grain exports of 233,000 tonnes were only one-third the volume needed for break-even on operations. This was the fifth year in a row in which grain exports were insufficient to cover operating costs. Consequently, working capital reserves are now eroded to the point where further financial assistance is required if the facility is to stay open.
Commodities other than grain and re-supply cargo have been transported through Churchill from time to time. For example, some sulphur from Alberta was shipped through Churchill in the 1970s. As well, some exploration and drilling activities in and around Hudson Bay use Churchill as their supply base.
As I mentioned, interest has also been shown by some tour operators in Churchill as a port of call. A few vessels have called, but none in 1991. However, these activities contributed only marginally to the revenue base of Churchill.
The main focus of the port has been on grain. It is in direct competition with the seaway in that particular regard, and the seaway is also having its difficulties. In the past 10 years grain exports averaging 410,000 tonnes per year have contributed approximately 95 per cent of the port's revenue.
There was a substantial operating loss in 1984 and 1985, namely $2 million and $2.7 million respectively, resulting from low grain exports in those two years.
The Canada Ports Corporation approved a rationalization plan to reduce the potential loss in 1986. The rationalization program, coupled with a sharp increase in grain volume in 1986, resulted in an operating profit of $214,000 that year. However, in 1987 the tonnage was down and the port experienced a loss in that year of $342,000. In 1988 a record operating loss of $4.7 million resulting from the small volume of grain exports occurred.
Port working capital at the beginning of 1988 of $7.5 million dwindled by almost half leaving the port with only $4.5 million at the end of 1988. Since 1988 operating expenses have continued to be tightly controlled and the port has been able to reduce expenses by eliminating winter maintenance, laying off employees, and by general reduction.
The situation is that the port of Churchill needs approximately 600,000 tonnes of grain to achieve a break-even position. It would be great if that occurred. It would also be great if the rest of the grain could flow through the seaway and the seaway could show an operating profit. Both of these instances are self-sustaining, and they must continue to be self-sustaining.
May 6, 1992

I welcome the minister of state's examination of the port of Churchill. I am sure she will take into account the seaway and the entire transportation system of eastern Canada, and be fair in her assessment. I know the minister of state, I know that she will be fair and I am sure that the member will get the independent review that he is looking for in the context of the transportation of grain and other commodities in eastern Canada.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the motion posed by my colleague from Churchill which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of upgrading the rail link to Churchill and improving the Port of Churchill in order to promote tourism and economic development in this region.
Being from northeastern Saskatchewan, I and my constituents have an interest in seeing the further development of Churchill. This has been something that my parents generation and my grandparents generation have advocated for the region. We have always had some difficulty convincing CNR and the government this is a project that deserves some expenditure of moneys.
The current problem of shipping grain through Churchill is some parts of the rail line are bumpy because of the frost and an inadequate roadbed. It would take a few million dollars to fix that up so the heavy cars that are used over the rest of the rail system in western Canada could proceed to Churchill with full loads of grain, be competitive, and not require special equipment to get there.
There have been a couple of proposed solutions. One was the one the member for Winnipeg South has proposed; that of using aluminum hopper cars to keep the over-all weight of the load down so the amount of grain transported is competitive or similar in total tonnage to that that goes through the heavier steel hopper cars. The other would be to spend a little more money fixing the grade so regular traffic could make the trip to Churchill. That is the basic expenditure that needs to be made.
What we have seen is less than enthusiasm from the players in the grain business to make better use of Churchill. CNR does not seem to be particularly interested in expending any money on the track. When you
Private Members' Business
look at its operation you can fairly readily see sitting in its head office in Montreal, sitting on the edge of the seaway having expended money going east-west across the country, having got lots of money from the Government of Canada to maintain those rails, when it is faced with the choice of fixing this little northern link itself, it would rather not touch it.
As long as it can keep the grain moving on lines that have already been paid for by the government, it gives them a chance to show black at the bottom line instead of red. They do not have to worry about expanding business, watching a little bit of the grain drain out north to Churchill through a shorter water route and cheaper water route which only would put more money in the pockets of prairie farmers and not in the transportation system along the railways and the seaways that have been established.
I think the member for St. Catharines who spoke before me made that reasonably clear. The populated areas of Canada do appreciate having the grain come through their area and they enjoy taking their little bit for services as it goes through.
The choice for western Canadians is fairly straightforward. When we look at the costs involved, just as a simple comparison looking at the cost when we consider the money that went into the development of the seaway, and the east-west rail links compared to the pitifully small amount that it would take to link us into the Churchill route, we wonder why it was not done a long time ago.
Then we start looking at where the population is, where the economic power centres are, where the political power centres are, then we understand why Churchill is a fairly low priority of this government and among the economic elite of the country.
The development of Churchill would aid in the development of a new region. It would make the Churchill area in northern Manitoba more ready for development. It would open the area up for easier access to tourism, but mostly we see it as a smart use of money for economic development.
When you compare the cost of renewing the seaway over the next half century with the cost of transporting grain from central Saskatchewan or Manitoba through Churchill, even to trans-ship the grain and put it into a terminal elevator in the lower St. Lawrence, it still would

Private Members' Business
be much cheaper to do it that way than through the existing routes, but because the existing facilities are there the current power structure prefers to use the seaway, Thunder Bay and so on.
It has been a high volume method of handling grain. I think five or six years ago when I was through the port of Thunder Bay with the transport committee we were told that at that point in time Thunder Bay was still the world's largest grain port. More grain was handled through that facility on fresh water, but it compared with anything that was on salt water. It is still the world's largest grain port, handling more tonnes of grain in a year than any other port in the world.
The opportunity for maximizing returns is fairly high. However, that seaway route has run into some problems lately. More and more this government and the previous one as well have been saying that all of the costs of running the seaway and maintaining it have to be borne by shipping fees. There are a lot miles of water there that need maintenance. When you compare the Churchill option, there is not very much maintenance that is needed. Yes, the shipping season is a bit shorter, but the other operating costs will be extremely low compared to the seaway route if the country has to get to a point some day of deciding whether to do a complete rebuild on the seaway or the other option.
Because of the incrementalism that creeps into our economic structures, the twinning of the seaway will go on and Canada will continue to invest a lot of money in that option. It looks as if this government has decided there will not be very much go into the Churchill option.
I already pointed out that the main beneficiaries of the Churchill option are prairie farmers, mostly from the eastern and northern prairies, who would watch their grain be shipped over less than 700 miles of railway track as compared to over 1,000 miles to Thunder Bay. For some regions of the prairies, it is over 1,200 miles.
The transfer into ocean shipping would be similar. With very little extra we could handle at Churchill some of the world's largest grain ships. By putting a spout out into the deeper water, we could handle that kind of shipping.
We are told by the merchants and shippers and the people who make decisions in Montreal and Toronto that other countries do not like to put their ships through Hudson Strait into Churchill. That is an old argument.
At one time before a speech to the Hudson Bay Route Association 20 years ago when I was just a young farmer, I did a little bit of research before my remarks to the assembly. I dug out some derogatory comments about the shipping prospects for one of the regions of Canada which was published by the city of New York. It had virtually every argument that you hear out of Montreal and Toronto now levelled at Churchill. In fact it was not those ports, but it was in fact the port of New York warning shippers about the dangers of ice and icebergs and bad service because of ice and short seasons at the prospect of using Montreal instead of New York.
The propaganda war continues. It is just that that was a propaganda war of 150 years ago. We are getting into the 21st century when the possibilities of using Hudson Strait for longer and longer periods of time are very much alive.
The savings would be to western farmers. The savings would also be to purchasers, most likely in the northern European countries, particularly Russia. It could provide its heavy population, which is grain deficient, in the St. Petersburg area and areas north of Moscow, which could be easily serviced through Vladivostok, a port that is also an Arctic port. There would be no problems in navigating Arctic waters. The country has been missing an excellent opportunity to provide better service at remunerative rates to those customers in northern Europe and into northern Russia, as well as providing a cheaper service for the use of western Canadian farmers.
I realize where the votes are and where the money power is in this country but I think the country has been missing an excellent opportunity to do a good job of development which would be useful to western Canadians, the north, and our potential customers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no further speakers, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being eight o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 7,1992