1992-03-27

[Stage Direction]
[English}

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-21, an act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are six motions in amendment at report stage to Bill C-21.

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, and Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, are identical. After consultation, I chose Motion No. 2 to be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, and Motion No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, are identical. Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, and Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, are also identical. After consultation, I have selected Motions Nos. 4 and 6 for debate. They will be grouped for debate, with a vote on Motion No. 4 applying to Motion No. 6.

I will now submit Motion No. 2 to the House.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 22
and 23 at page 1 and lines 1 to 20 at page 2.
He said: Madam Speaker, I certainly want to say first of all that your decision on the appropriate way to proceed this morning has been first rate.
I would like to explain there might seem to have been some duplication between my hon. friend from Essex- Windsor and myself. The reality is that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor is busy today pursuing duties outside the House. As a result he is unable to be here.
He was hoping to be here, so that is the reason for what appears to be duplication. It is not duplication. The fact is that I am pinch-hitting for my hon. friend. I appreciate the support that my friends from the Official Opposition give as well.
I want to begin my discussion in the debate on Motion No. 2 by identifying first what became clear in committee. That is, this bill is essentially a phoney bill.
The bill is an effort by the government to justify the goods and services tax by suggesting that the surplus revenues raised by the goods and services tax would be used to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt and therefore, the structuring of this special accounting procedure.
All it is is a bit of smoke and mirrors in an effort to say that this goods and services tax is good for Canada because it will be used to pay down the deficit. That is absolute nonsense. If the government was interested in paying down the deficit, it is simply a matter of having excess funds at the end of the year depending on various programs, and that would occur naturally.
There is no need for a special account or special legislation. It is simply a matter of good government. Since we do not have good government, obviously the government has had to come up with some type of

March 27, 1992
Government Orders
imagery to give the impression at least, that it is attempting to do this.
I say that as sort of a preliminary statement. Anybody who is taking this as a serious initiative by the government obviously does not recognize the pure politics of this. I feel very saddened that politics has had to become involved in this critical issue in terms of deficit and debt reduction. Once again, that is the government's decision.
What this amendment does is it says that in the legislation generally, it identifies the GST surpluses to be used to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt. It also includes the possible sale of select Crown corporations, the proceeds of which would be used again to reduce the deficit or pay down the debt.
What has become clear when looking at the reaction that various witnesses have provided is that this provides the government with an opportunity to hold some fire sales and start selling off, if you like, government assets.


Mr. Milliken:: They've been doing that already.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands reminds me, unfortunately, that they have already started to do this in some rather illogical ways.
Setting that aside, what this will do is provide the government with the incentive to hold a fire sale and sell off valuable government assets to, at the last minute, probably before an election, pay down the deficit, or at least to give this impression.
In the best interests of the country, Canadians have said that this is not the appropriate course of action and that Canadians do not support this course of action. It would simply not be a logical clause to have continue with the legislation.
My hon. colleague from Essex-Windsor, and now through my own motion, simply says: "Let us eliminate from the legislation, that particular sector". Anybody who has studied this with any detail would support this initiative.
I know my hon. friend across the way has indicated some interest in this provision. We are simply saying with this motion: "Let us remove the lines at the bottom of page 1 and the first 20 lines on the top of page 2". That would essentially eliminate the Crown corporations from being part of this phoney deficit reduction legislation.
It is as straightforward as that. If we would simply adopt this motion, we could proceed then and deal quickly with the remainder.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, we are considering Bill C-21, an Act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada.
This government announced a wonderful measure to create through legislation a fund where all the net revenue from the GST, sales of companies, privatization and money that some Canadians want to give to the government would go for the sole purpose of reducing our national debt and/or our interest payments on it.
My colleague opposite says that we should take out the money from any sale of companies that the government owns, i.e. privatization, to see what we get from the GST. Madam Speaker, I think it is completely frivolous to want what Canadians do not want. Why have only the amount collected from the GST, when the books for the fund to be created will be audited annually by the Canadian government's accountant, so that we will be able to identify very clearly the net receipts from the GST. We will also be able to identify very clearly the net receipts from the privatization of companies and also identify the amounts received from Canadians.
I should tell the hon. member that in 10 months, the Canadian government has already received $375,000 from some Canadian taxpayers and this money was used to pay the interest on the debt and thus lower the tax burden. It is important to point out that so far $375,000 has been received from Canadian taxpayers in addition to the income taxes that they have to pay. Madam Speaker, that shows how important Canadians consider this bill to be and how important it is for them to have a fund where the money needed to pay the interest on our debts and eventually pay them off can go.
Madam Speaker, you will remember as I do that when we were elected in 1984, we talked about the countless Crown corporations, most of which operated at a loss, and we all knew that they were competing with private enterprise. In 1984, Canadians gave us a clear mandate
March 27, 1992

Government Orders
to get rid of companies that cost us money and competed with private enterprise.
In 1988, Madam Speaker, in the riding of Trois-Ri-vieres, I listed the companies that had been sold or privatized and said that we would continue to do so. The riding of Trois-Rivieres gave a clear mandate to your humble servant and the Conservative Party to continue to get rid of the lame ducks which the previous government had bought or set up and so on.
What we are saying today is that the money from the sale of companies, that is the net proceeds, in addition to GST revenue, will be used to reduce the interest payable on the debt and eventually to reduce the debt itself.
The only justification for the NDP motion, Madam Speaker, is allegedly to avoid any possible fire sales. This government to date has privatized companies remarkably well. It has managed to get some Crown corporations back on track and sell them at a profit. The object of the exercise is to dispose of them, but at the same time make money and/or stop losing it. Do not forget that every time the government puts money in a company it owns that competes with the private sector, Canadians' taxes are being used to give a Crown corporation money to compete with other companies that do not have public funds. That is completely illogical, Madam Speaker.
Whence the importance of privatizing companies, and because we have a deficit and a national debt, it is also important to take this money to reduce the interest on the debt and/or the debt itself. Even if we removed the proceeds of privatization from this fund, the government could still sell the companies. Every time it sells a company, it is done publicly and advertised and can be audited by any accountant or lawyer in the country. So my colleague's suggestion of not including privatization proceeds in the fund because it might lead to fire sales makes no sense at all.
Madam Speaker, I hope that this House will reject this motion as quickly as possible so that this bill as presented can pass third reading in the shortest time, especially since that is what Canadians want.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, it is very appropriate today that I support the motion from the House leader of the New Democratic Party. I support it because this government has a track record of dismantling just about every federal national institution that exists in this country. So often we have seen that the process or the management of the dissolution or the dismantling has really not been in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers.
Just think of the Air Canada transaction where it went to the market and dumped the first portion of shares. Independent analysts said that it was dumping those shares at approximately $2 below share value. That is not the right way to go.
What did it do with the proceeds of the shares on Air Canada? It did not take the proceeds and put them back into the federal treasury. It took the proceeds of the shares on the sale of Air Canada and put them into that portion of the corporation that had been privatized. This was almost like a double-dip for the person who had acquired the shares. There was absolutely no public accountability and no debate on that particular transaction.
Before Christmas we passed a bill in this House which essentially allowed the sale of Crown lands by just choosing three independent people to do an appraisal. Once you get those three independent appraisals, the government by Order in Council is allowed to make the transaction. In other words it does not have to come to Parliament.
This Government of Canada has on its balance sheet billions and billions of dollars in assets. They could be in land, buildings, airports, harbours or Crown corporations. Under that bill which we passed before Christmas there is no accountability on the disposition of those lands.
We have a depressed market in our country right now. Let us take, for example, my part of the country. We have tens of thousands of acres in Pickering that we assembled for the super airport that we should have but never did build. It was our government that did not build it, but we made a mistake I believe. There are thousands and thousands of acres there for sale as of the last

March 27, 1992
Government Orders
budget. We just have to read the newspaper today to see what is happening to the Reichmanns. Olympia & York real estate right now is in the gutter, it is so depressed, it is so low. Therefore, the value of those Crown lands at this moment are very low.
Technically, Public Works Canada could get three independent appraisals on the value of the lands. People could put in bids. They would all be low. Even if they took the highest bid, because the market is depressed, it would literally be a giveaway. Two years, three years from now we may need that land not only for a possible airport, we may need it to lever the province for housing or some other project. I do not know. We will kick ourselves because we gave the government the power to basically get rid of it, sell it off, all in the name of debt reduction.
I always use the example of the House of Commons. Technically speaking, with the act that we passed before Christmas combined with this bill, this government has the power by Order in Council to take bids on this Crown land, this House of Commons. Technically speaking, it could sell it without any debate on the floor of this House. That is a fact, all in the name of debt reduction.


Mr. Thompson:: That is not a bad idea.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The hon. member said that it is not a bad idea. I am sure most Canadians would probably agree with him most days, that it is not a bad idea.
The member for the New Democratic Party in putting forward this motion is trying in a genuine way to put the brakes on this presidential style government where it can just do everything by Order in Council, where there is no debate, no discussion on the floor of the House of Commons.
I gave the example before of the federal presence lands, the Crown lands, Crown buildings in the province of Quebec. We have billions and billions of dollars of Crown lands in the province of Quebec. Let us imagine after the next election the possibility of a pequiste government. Let us imagine that Mr. Parizeau-it is not impossible-could be the premier. Let us imagine he said to his minister of finance: "Let's go and buy off all the federal lands in the province of Quebec". The cabinet here might say: "Listen, in the name of debt reduction, in the name of deficit reduction, let's do a deal with this minister of finance". It is technically possible.


Pierre H. Vincent: There is no money.


Dennis Joseph Mills: What do you mean, no money?


Pierre H. Vincent: Quebec won't have any money.


Dennis Joseph Mills: What do you mean Quebec will not have any money? It does not need any money. All it needs is paper, an IOU. It is no different than the deal that we made with terminal 3. It is no different than the deal that Bobby Rae is trying with the dome stadium in Toronto. Here is a $700 million dome stadium and what is he doing? He is trying to sell it. I think we have actually caused them to rethink it because we have talked about it in this House a few times.
What the private sector says is: "Listen, premier of Ontario, we will buy this $700 million dome stadium. We will give you $100 million now and we will take a $225 million debenture, which we will not start paying the interest on until 20 years from now". Each of the 10 partners put in $10 million for the down payment. They borrowed that $10 million from the bank which means that it is only interest on $10 million. It is only costing them in cash $1 million each to get the $100 million and with the $100 million they have a $700 million deal. Mr. Parizeau, and I say this with respect to some of my business colleagues in Toronto, is just as smart as those guys. I can tell you right now, if he could see an opportunity to cherry pick, buy off the federal lands, the Crown lands in the province of Quebec, under this bill, it could happen by Order in Council without any public debate in this Chamber. I do not think that is right. In fact, if I had my way around here right now, I would be reinforcing the federal presence, not just in the province of Quebec, but in every part of this country.
Madam Speaker, I see you giving me the signal to wrap it up. It is not too often that I agree with the NDP, but on this particular motion I believe they are right on track and I give it my full support.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion, the deletion basically that my colleague from Kamloops moved and I seconded.
At the outset, I want to read into the record that clause because people who are watching and people who read Hansard need to know the specifics of what we are talking. The area to be deleted is clause 4, subclauses (b) and (c) which read as follows:
March 27, 1992

(b)	the amount, if any, by which any amount received as consideration for the sale of shares in the capital stock of a Crown corporation or of a corporation that was previously a Crown corporation or that is a successor to a Crown corporation exceeds the value of the shares as shown in the accounts of Canada immediately before the time of the sale;
(c)	the amount, if any, by which any amount received on the winding up of a particular Crown corporation or of a particular corporation that was previously a Crown corporation or a successor to a Crown corporation exceeds the value of the shares of, or the interest of the government in, the particular Crown corporation or of the particular corporation, as the case may be, as shown in the accounts of Canada at the end of the last fiscal year of the government before the commencement of the winding up; or


An hon. member:: Now we understand them.


Iain Francis Angus: I want to touch on two specific aspects. Let us look at the sale of CN Explorations. It is a Crown corporation that is part of CN Rail. That Crown corporation has some annual revenue that goes to CN, the parent Crown corporation. As we know, CN, like CP, is not in the best financial shape. It is no different than the airlines. It is haemorrhaging. We have seen that in the thousands of jobs that have been cut. We have seen it in the thousands of miles of tracks that have been ripped up.
If this bill passes with this clause included in it, it means that when CN Route is sold, it does not get the money to help it to survive. The money is siphoned off to this phoney debt reduction or deficit reduction plan and there is no benefit. Quite frankly, if CN does not get the use of either the ongoing revenue from CN Explorations or the benefit of the capital from its sale, we are going to have to pay elsewhere. We are going to have to pay in terms of more job losses. We know that CN Rail is in a process of restructuring. I am sure it has kept Ron Lawless on for another three months so he can finish the dastardly deeds he started years ago in terms of the downsizing. We will pay in terms of higher rates, or the taxpayer will pay in terms of additional funds from the treasury that go to sustain the ongoing operations of CN Rail.
This clause has got to go. As phoney as the bill itself is, this clause makes it even worse.


An hon. member:: Which clause?


Iain Francis Angus: I am dealing with clause 4 and the deletion of subclauses (b) and (c). Let me take us back to the sell-off of Air Canada, Canada's flagship in the air. The
Government Orders
government sold 100 per cent of its shares. If this bill with this particular clause had been in place then, that revenue would have gone for deficit reduction as opposed to where it should have gone, which is to increase safety for the airlines. The Government of Canada has had 70 vacancies in aircraft inspectors for several years, 70 inspectors short of what there should be. In the future this kind of sell-off would prevent the reallocation of resources, the reallocation of the capital gained by the sale of a Crown corporation back into that same industry.
It is not clear from my wording of this whether or not any of the funds that will be gained, and I use that term loosely, from the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 in Toronto, the most profitable airport in our system, will be used by Transport Canada again for improvements in the system.
We already know that the revenue to the federal treasury which will result from this privatization will be considerably less than the revenue the treasury gets today from the profits of Pearson airport. We know it will be less. It is just basic economics, I suggest. If we have a profit centre then part of that revenue goes to pay for that profit centre as opposed to being total profit coming to the federal treasury.
I support my colleague's amendment. I think it makes eminent sense. However, as I said before, the whole bill is dumb, phoney and misleading. It is not going to work in any case.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I would also like to contribute a few comments to the debate this morning on the report stage of Bill C-21.
I have been listening to the debate since we started at ten o'clock, and it is my impression that the government is acting after the fact, like the bank that left the door open and then decided to take all kinds of security measures after its safe was cracked during the night.
Earlier, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talk about privatization and how the government sold a number of Crown corporations. I already made it clear during the debate on second reading that I did not agree with the bill as a whole. I think that if the government wants to reduce the debt, it

March 27, 1992
Government Orders
should introduce an accounting system that makes sense, which is what the rest of the country wants.
Through our Income Tax Act, we tell our business people how to keep their accounts and report their assets and liabilities, but the government still uses a cash accounting system. I think that is the problem. However, to get back to Crown corporations, Madam Speaker, during the past seven and a half years this government has either sold or privatized all Crown corporations that were crucial to the survival of this country.


An hon. member:: They gave them away.


Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, they gave them away, as the hon. member for Toronto said. It was a fire sale, and not just the ones that were losing money, but Crown corporations that were making a profit.
Because it is their philosophy to leave everything up to the private sector and let the market decide what happens to this country, they privatized practically everything. And now they say: If anything is sold, we have to do it according to the rules and put the money in a special debt reduction fund. Again, this is like the bank with its security measures after the fact. It is all a bit late in the game. That is what they are doing with this bill, and that is why I am against this motion. And not only should clause 4 be deleted, the whole bill should be dropped.
We had a report from the Auditor General who wanted to clean up the government's finances and even suggested standardized financial statements that would be accessible to all Canadians, so they could see the government's accounting activities for themselves. They are now operating on a cash accounting basis. And what is the government trying to do with this bill? It would have Canadians believe it is tidying up its finances, and that surplus moneys from the GST and sales of Crown corporations will all go straight into the debt reduction account. Madam Speaker, that is a lot of smoke and mirrors. In fact, it does not mean a thing. A government that tells Canadians that it wants to reduce the national debt while it is doing the exact opposite should not be surprised that today, Canadians no longer trust their political leaders.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very brief submissions on Bill C-21.1 did not intend to speak, but when I listened to my friend and colleague from Broadview-Greenwood and my friend and colleague from Montreal I felt compelled to make a few comments about Bill C-21.
As other members have indicated, this is a fraudulent, if I could use the term, piece of legislation. It does not mean anything. It is an attempt by the government to hoodwink Canadians into believing that something serious is being done about the national debt which stands at about $410 billion.
What it has done is bring forward Bill C-21. It is four or five pages long. There are eight sections to it. In effect it has brought in an act of Parliament to open up an account. This is like any individual home owner in the country deciding to open up a special bank account to deal solely with the mortgage on the house and once the interest is paid off to use the account to pay down the debt. Does that mean that the mortgage will be paid off any quicker? Does it mean that fewer interest payments will be made just because a separate account has been opened to pay for the mortgage? Somehow money has to go into this account in order to service the debt on the mortgage, to make the interest payments.
The government is saying that it will set up this special mortgage account to help pay off the interest on the debt over a long period of time. If it keeps its fingers crossed, once the deficit is eliminated it will be able to use the surplus to help pay off this huge national debt. Once it has eliminated the deficit it is going to have either a balanced budget or a surplus.
I can use the analogy of a homeowner with a mortgage account again. If he sells a car or some furniture, he can take that money and put it in the mortgage account to help make the monthly mortgage payment or to help reduce the mortgage on the house.
It is all smoke and mirrors. It may look tidy because a separate statement might come in at the end of every month and at the end of the year the bank may send something saying that x number of payments have been made on the mortgage debt. But ultimately there is only one income coming in and all the expenses to be met. The home owner is really not any further ahead by
March 27, 1992

setting up a special mortgage account. It does not do anything.
What is the net result of wasting our time here this morning and wasting everyone's time setting up a different bank account? Perhaps I am missing something and a government member could stand up to clarify it. Is there any real advantage to this bill being passed? Are we going to accelerate our mortgage payments on the national debt? Are we somehow going to get a better deal from the banks and pay less interest? What does it do? It does not do anything. It sets up another bureaucracy. It helps the Poindexters who push paper around to have a little extra work to do.
The reason I object to this nonsense is that Canadians want this place to be relevant. When they see the Parliament of Canada debating a stupid bill, Bill C-21, it makes them wonder. It makes thinking Canadians wonder about the priorities of this Parliament.
We have 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed. We have over 2 million Canadians on welfare. We have people suffering out there because of the economic crisis. Instead of debating creative ways of putting people back to work and getting this country working again, instead of talking about what is of real concern to Canadians, we are debating setting up another bank account.
The government is setting us up for the next election. It is going to say to Canadians that it brought in the GST but it is not spending the GST on silly little things; it is taking all the revenues from the GST and from the sale of Crown assets and using that money to pay off the national debt.
A debt is a debt is a debt. Whether it is one account, 50 accounts or 150 accounts, the debt still has to be paid. The government wants Canadians to believe that somehow we are that much further ahead because these moneys will be used to pay off the debt.
We have heard the old adage about selling family assets to pay the rent, selling the furniture to pay the rent or to pay the mortgage. Let us think of the stupidity of that. If we keep selling the furniture to pay the rent, sooner or later all the furniture is going to be gone, but the rental payment has to be made at the beginning of the month. And sooner or later the sheriff is going to come knocking on the door.
Government Orders
The government is not kidding anybody by passing this special piece of legislation so that whenever it sells a Crown asset it will help pay the interest payment on the debt. As a country we have a limited amount of Crown assets of Crown corporations. If the government keeps selling federally owned lands, sooner or later it is all gone. It is history. There is no accountability as my friend from Broadview-Greenwood says. That is of major concern to people on this side of the House. There has to be some accountability.
We do not want cabinet ministers behind closed doors up a couple of floors from where we are speaking making decisions to sell off assets that belong to each and every Canadian without having some degree of accountability in this House.
If the government wants to sell the furniture to pay the rent then we, as the tenants or homeowners, at least should have the right to know what furniture is being sold off and on what conditions. That should be discussed in the family, not in a closet upstairs.
This place is where the government is held accountable. This place is where the government should come forward to explain its actions, not in some back room a few floors away from this Chamber.
In closing, let me just repeat what a waste of time it is, what misplaced priorities this government is demonstrating by bringing forward this phoney and fraudulent piece of legislation. Canadians out there are demanding that this Parliament become relevant and do something important, that it deal with the real issues and the real problems facing Canadians, but we are wasting our time discussing and debating setting up another bank account.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleagues have said about this matter. We are speaking to the motions by the member for Kamloops.
The bill reminds me of a ceremony that was held to honour a local business person. The speakers said that he had made a lot of money in the flower business and so on, and talked about what a great fellow he was.
After all of the speeches were given he got up to speak for himself. He said that as a matter of fact he was not in flowers. He was in fertilizer. He did not make money in

Government Orders
flowers, actually he lost money. Finally, he was not involved in fertilizers, his brother was. That is a joke.
The bill is what we are talking about. I thought that joke was quite relevant. I left British Columbia out of the story. I was going to place the joke in B.C. but I decided not to in deference to my friends from B.C. They still did not laugh.
We have an enormous financial problem in Canada, brought on in very large measure by the government opposite. As has been pointed out, the former Minister of Finance, the member for Etobicoke Centre, added more red ink, more debt to the backs of young people, old people and middle-aged people than any other finance minister in Canadian history.
Government members run around the country telling anybody who will listen to them, which is increasingly not very many, that they are the paragons of fiscal virtue. I think that the debt was $168 billion when they came into office in 1984. It is now rapidly going over $420 billion. By the way, much of it is held outside of Canada.
When the Germans, the Japanese and the Taiwanese get tired of buying this government's debt paper, and to be fair the papers of the provinces and the private sector, if that day ever comes we will have an enormous problem in this country.
Our children are going to have an even greater problem because of the financial profligacy of this government and other governments-I concede that-over many, many years.
The government is introducing Bill C-21 and pretending to Canadians that it is actually going to use the GST funds to reduce the debt. When we bear in mind that there will be a deficit of at least $20 billion in the account for the next five years, how can any serious, intelligent person take the government seriously?
How can we ask Canadians to believe in this kind of measure?
There is the old statement that nobody ever went broke in Canada. Actually, it was an American story. I will put it in British Columbia.
There is the old story that nobody ever went broke in the United States underestimating the intelligence of the American people. I would put it to those opposite that this kind of bill will just increase the
cynicism across Canada. It will tell everybody who has passed their grade 9 examinations and who has ever looked at an economics book, and I submit that virtually no one on that side of the House has ever studied economics, that this is a complete farce.
This is the debt servicing and reduction account act. Is there one member on the other side who actually believes that this is actually anything other than smoke and mirrors? I would ask them to raise their hand. Not a single hand goes up. Those members do not even believe in it themselves.
They do not know over there whether they are Keynesians or Milton Friedman economists. I would bet that if we asked one of them if they could tell the difference between John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman they would have great difficulty in telling us the difference between their economic theories.
Keynesian economists argue that government must spend generously to kick-start stalled economies in times of difficulty. However, among weak-willed politicians the second half of Keynes' advice is virtually never followed. He said that we must save money in good times, which we had up until about a year and a half ago.
This country has completed six years of prosperity. However, the Mulroney government has run six years of large deficits totalling about $210 billion. It tells us that it is because compound interest only began in 1984, it did not exist before then.
Today this government has neither a sound fiscal policy nor even much ability to borrow money from people who have managed their economies more soundly in other parts of the world.
The monetarists say that inflation can be avoided if central banks will ensure that the money in an economy increases at the same rate as real growth in that economy. Specifically, central bank governors, like John Crow, must carefully control the amount of currency, bank deposits and other money instruments to ensure that the supply does not expand excessively and thereby cause prices to rise.
I will readily concede that Mr. Crow has done a great deal to bring inflation down. As we have heard many times, inflation is at an all-time low point. But at what price? How many of those in the constituency of Red Deer are unemployed today? In Edmonton the rate is more than 12 per cent. I think 40,000 or 50,000

Edmontonians are out of work. They do not want to be out of work.
At what point do we take the monetarist philosophy-Mr. Crow is certainly the best-known practitioner of it in this country-and say that at some point we have to ease up, we must circulate more currency, more purchasing power, more M-l and more M-2in the economy?
This bill is simply part of an effort by those opposite to convince Canadians that they are doing something when the only thing they are doing is trying to grind the economy into cement. If they do not realize that then they do not realize anything.
My party is in favour of these amendments and would urge those opposite to recognize that there are real people out there, real men and women, who want to work. Margaret Thatcher would be delighted with the policies that this government is following, so would Ronald Reagan. However, the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher is, thank goodness, now gone. We now have to move on to other things, such as creating wealth and getting people back to work.
Will the government be satisfied with 15 per cent unemployment, 20 per cent? I do not have the foggiest idea what motivates those opposite because it certainly is not their constituents.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the House agree to calling it eleven o'clock and proceeding with members' statements?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, for years the federal government has steadfastly refused to state categorically that Canada's fresh water is not for sale to the United States and not for sale to Mexico.
However, we now learn from the leaked North America free trade agreement, the one that was leaked to us by Ralph Nader as opposed to being presented to us by the federal government, that article 1401 states that non-energy pipelines will now be used to move products from Canada through the United States and into northern Mexico. What is a non-energy pipeline?
If a pipeline conduit is not to be used for natural gas or oil, it is likely not to be used for sewage or for wine. This is a back door, under the table, secret deal. It is an underhanded, not up front approach to provide the ways and means to transfer water from one basin into another.
To be more specific, the North America free trade agreement is enabling legislation to divert and deliver Canadian fresh water into the parched American southwest and into the desperately fresh water deficient areas of northern Mexico.
If the federal government plans to sell Canada's rivers and lakes to Mexico-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The member's time has expired.


WORLD THEATRE DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, today is World Theatre Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have made the theatre their special form of expression and, as has been said from time immemorial, the best cure for anxiety.
I would like to mention the outstanding work being done by all stage performers and writers for the stage, by professionals, amateurs and volunteers. To overlook their contribution would have been unforgivable.

March 27, 1992
As its subject is the human condition, the theatre is a reflection of society and mankind, and its impact is felt well beyond the stage itself. Whether it moves us or makes us think, the theatre contributes to the development of society and mankind.
Speaking on behalf of the federal Minister of Communications and on behalf of all parliamentarians here in the House, I again wish to pay tribute to the entire theatre community which gives us food for thought, to paraphrase Victor Hugo.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon member's time has expired. The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas.


ARCTIC WINTER GAMES
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, recently I had the opportunity to attend the 1992 Arctic Winter Games at Whitehorse in the Yukon. The games are a unique blend of sport and cultural events which bring the peoples of the north together for a week of competition and international friendship.
Athletes and artisans from Greenland, Alaska and Russia joined with Canada's representatives from the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and northern Alberta.
The games featured such sports as hockey, figure skating, and cross-country skiing along with sports that are native to the Arctic region, such as the high kick, dog sledding, and snow-shoeing.
On behalf of this House, I congratulate the 1992 Arctic Winter Games Host Society. I would also like to thank the major funding partners of the games: the city of Whitehorse, the Government of the Yukon, Sport Canada and the Yukon Lotteries Commission, along with the many other sponsors and volunteers for their efforts in making the games a very enjoyable experience for the participants and spectators.
I wish to remind members and Canadians that the next Arctic Winter Games are scheduled to be held in Slave Lake, Alberta in March of 1994.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my constituents continue to offer me thoughtful advice and comment.
Margaret Armstrong of Acton writes:
Raising two small children and trying to run a home on one income is very difficult with the current tax set-up.
Brian Holahan of Caledon writes:
Everything in this country is great, except for the excesses of government. After a shake-up, we'll be all right. The bottom line is balance the budget quickly, or you and I will go down in history as jerks.
John Ptolemy writes me:
We are taxed every way we turn. I am doubly penalized by the current tax system which allows two spouses who both work to have their incomes taxed separately while in my case, where I am the only income-earner, I cannot split my income with my spouse.
Finally, Ena Mellor of Bolton writes:
I think it is most unfortunate that people generally have lost faith in politicians. To a large extent, I think the media is to blame. The press seems to have set itself up as the official opposition.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of bringing these voices of my constituents into Parliament.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada came to Quebec to give notice of his failure to deliver what Quebecers were expecting on the constitutional front.
Forget about national reconciliation with honour and enthusiasm. That is now over and done with, and scare tactics, blackmail and nasty attacks are the order of the day.
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is becoming increasingly isolated. After wooing PQ votes in 1984 and 1988, he has now made an about face. Even worse, yesterday he attacked those who sincerely want to renew Canada.
He rejected the timeframe of Bill 150, adopted in the National Assembly by the Quebec Liberals. He condemned the Quebec Liberal Party's Allaire report, calling it a plan to dismember the country. He rejected
March 27, 1992

the consensus of the Belanger-Campeau report, calling it the end of Canada.
In fact, the Prime Minister of Canada condemned the premier of Quebec, because Mr. Bourassa voted for Bill 150, he signed the Allaire report and he signed the Belanger-Campeau report. The Prime Minister-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Chicoutimi.


ROAD THROUGH PARC DES LAURENTIDES
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region is separated from the greater Quebec area by the natural barrier of the Parc des Laurentides, also called the killer road. It is imperative to make this road safe for the well-being of our region at every level, economic, social, cultural and indeed at the family level, for all the people from the Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean area who are now living in Quebec City, in Montreal and elsewhere.
Given the structural problems confronting our region's economy, there is a need to focus our economic development on small and medium-sized export businesses which will have to use this antediluvian road. Statistics show that people from everywhere are afraid to venture on such a goat path, as it was referred to by a former premier of Quebec. I think that arrangements could be made with the Quebec government to meet a growing need of our region.
In closing, Madam Speaker, dare I say that, for our region 300,000 strong to have a stronger sense of our Quebec and Canadian identity means among other things extending the Trans-Canada Highway into our region.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, a federally owned Crown corporation, has said no
to the request made by the Devco Pensioners Association for information pertaining to retirement packages.
The Devco Pensioners Association is being denied this information even though it is already available to management and some senior employees. The Pensioners Association has been advised that if it requires this information it should seek legal counsel and go to court.
I call upon the minister responsible for this Crown corporation to instruct its senior representatives to release this information to this association. This kind of behaviour on the part of a federally owned Crown corporation is unacceptable.
The workers have a right to know what is going on. This attempt to hide information only serves to enhance suspicion as to how this corporation is being run and how certain employees are being given preferential treatment.
Once again, I urge the minister responsible for this Crown corporation to instruct those officials with Devco to release this information to the Pensioners Association and demonstrate a little honesty.


PROUD TO BE CANADIAN TOUR
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, as you know, service clubs throughout all of Canada make a tremendous contribution to the quality of life in each of our communities. They have earned our collective thanks for that.
In addition to the many good works which all of them perform on a regular ongoing basis, one group in particular, the Kinsmen and Kinettes of Canada, have launched a national unity campaign which is particularly worthy of mention.
Since the beginning of January the Kin family's "Proud to be Canadian" tour has been travelling across Canada, having commenced virtually simultaneously on the east and west coasts. They are providing Canadians everywhere, particularly our youth, with the opportunity to sign specially designed Canadian flags as a show of hope and love for the country.
I applaud Kinsmen and Kinettes for reminding us that we as Canadians have every reason to be proud of our achievements in this our 125th anniversary.

March 27, 1992
I applaud them as well for encouraging us to join together as we will do in early May in Brandon-Souris, to express our appreciation for the privileges that a united Canada has provided, the privileges which we all too often take for granted.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, if a government raised taxes, cut medicare programs and did not create any new jobs in its budget, what colour would its political stripes be?


An hon. member:: Tory blue.


Don Boudria: No, my colleagues. I have just described a neo-Conservative NDP government of British Columbia. Provincial New Democrats behave like Liberals when in opposition, but in government those chameleons turn Tory blue.
The federal Tories brought us the GST. The provincial New Democrats in Ontario and B.C. have given us the GSP, the go south policy. Our NDP comrades are increasing the burden on business and creating an economic climate which is driving jobs south of the border.
Those silk-stocking brothers and sisters of Queen's Park and Victoria should know that Canada is losing
1,000	jobs a day. But they do not care. They are interested in propagating the socialist dogma, not helping people. Locally it will not last. Soon Premiers Wilson and McLeod will join Prime Minister Chretien thereby providing good government for Canadians.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my concern today is about the letter from the premier of Ontario that the Minister for International Trade released a couple of days ago regarding the free trade deal with Mexico. I think that was an improper thing to do. It was a breach of confidentiality.
What really concerns me is with the national unity debate coming up, it seems to me that this adds to the
tension between governments. It is not a helpful thing to do in terms of national unity in this country.
At this particular time we need confidence between the premiers and the Prime Minister. We do not need a breach of trust. We need to build up a relationship that is positive and where there is confidence among all the parties in this country.
I think the appropriate thing for the Minister for International Trade to do would be to apologize to the premier of Ontario. I think that would go a long way toward rebuilding trust in this country and helping solve the tensions that plague us in terms of national unity.


HELP FIGHT LIVER DISEASE MONTH
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, March is being proclaimed as Help Fight Liver Disease Month by the Canadian Liver Foundation. There are over 100 known liver diseases. Some of these diseases are genetic, others are environment or lifestyle related.
Currently two million Canadians suffer from some form of liver disease. Under its mandate to reduce the incidents and impact of all liver diseases, the foundation provides support for research and education.
During this month, thousands of volunteers of the Canadian Liver Foundation will be staffing booths in shopping malls and public places across the country to provide information on liver diseases and to enlist the support of the public in its effort to provide programs for patients and their families.
On behalf of the members of this House, I wish to commend the many volunteers of the Canadian Liver Foundation and encourage all Canadians to support the programs and services of the Canadian Liver Foundation.


FOOD BANKS
Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, a recent study by Statistics Canada shows that the number of food bank users has increased by 69 per cent in Quebec between the spring of 1989 and the fall of 1990. The poverty that appears to exist in the province is even more striking in the city of Montreal.
March 27, 1992

Food banks in Montreal alone give out 12 tonnes of food each day, enough to fill the Olympic Stadium field eight feet high ten times a year. That is absolutely outrageous. Government must spare no effort to put an end to such an atrocity. The Government remains idle while Montreal is growing poorer by the day. The Tories are letting one of this country's major cities become destitute.


MERCHANT MARINERS
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday was a great day for our wartime merchant mariners. They learned that very soon they will be known as merchant navy veterans. Three little words, but they mean a lot. They mean that our wartime high-seas mariners will have access to the same package of programs and benefits as members of the wartime Armed Forces.
As a member of the House Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs for reacting so positively to our recommendations. The committee had heard how merchant seamen felt their contribution to the allied victory had not been properly appreciated. We learned of their long battle to be given the same status as members of the army, the navy and the air force.
Thankfully, we have a Minister of Veterans Affairs open-minded enough to examine anew the role of the merchant navy, to sift out the myths and preconceptions and to conclude that our merchant mariners deserve access to every part of the finest veterans programs in the world.
I join the minister in saying to Canada's merchant navy veterans, welcome aboard.


FISHERMEN'S PROTEST
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, this Sunday, eight trawlers and hundreds of Canadian fishermen are heading out to the Grand Banks for a peaceful protest against foreign overfishing. These fishermen, primarily from Newfoundland, are telling Canada and the world that we must manage our fishing resource properly and that the Canadian government should assume jurisdiction over this area.
Our leader, the member for Yukon, is in Newfoundland today to meet with fishermen and to hear from them firsthand about their concerns.
Our support goes out to these courageous fishermen who are defending their jobs and Canada's fishery. Our support is with them and we look forward to their safe return.


PREMIER BOB RAE
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, today's The Toronto Star reports that Ontario Premier Bob Rae went to, where else, Buffalo, New York to make a speech. One wonders if it was to receive a Man of the Year award from Buffalo City Council. He has done more to assist municipal renewal in that city than anyone since the Prime Minister brought in the GST.
The combination of the goods and services tax and NDP policies have driven millions of Canadians across the border to shop, work and carry on business.
Now the premier travels to Buffalo, no doubt because he can find a larger audience of Canadians there than he can in metropolitan Toronto.
His speech was an apology for his latest bungled and embarrassing efforts at nation building. He insists that in spite of the name calling and public attacks on the federal government, he is really trying to strengthen national unity.
The Minister of Finance of course says exactly the same thing. Canadians must wonder which is the lesser of these two evils.


TAXATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Madam Speaker, several months prior to the handing down of the budget in this House, our Minister of Finance engaged in a very wide-ranging discussion with business people and other Canadians to see what they wanted in our budget.
Evidently the Minister of Finance in British Columbia did not do that. The Minister of Finance here got one message from across Canada. That is there is only one taxpayer. In addition to that, that taxpayer is paying too much. In order to help the taxpayer, the federal government had to cut taxes and had to cut operating costs. Because of the program of restraint in this government,

March 27, 1992
Oral Questions
the average cost of operations has decreased 2.2 per cent since 1984.
The budget handed down yesterday in British Columbia increased the government operating costs in that province by 6.8 per cent, about three times the cost of inflation.
The federal government cut taxes. The British Columbia government increased taxes. It is now 9.2 per cent more.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Commission issued a real indictment of this government's record on equality. Women, children, seniors, aboriginals, people with disabilities, visible minorities, gays and lesbians, all were the victims of ongoing discrimination by this government.
What specific measures does the Minister of Justice intend to take to address the outrageous discrimination outlined in the Canadian Human Rights Commission report?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member mistakes the tone and the content of the report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Canadian Human Rights Commission in its annual report is always concerned to point out where we might better our record.
It is true that relative to other countries of the world, Canada has an enviable and very respected record in the area of human rights. I do not think Question Period is the appropriate place to list in great detail all of our initiatives simply because it would take too long.
I would indicate, for example, in the area of gender equality in terms of the subject matters which are in my own purview, dramatic efforts have been made to expand the responsiveness of the law, particularly the criminal justice system to the reality of Canadian women. I have
been involved in appointing a record number of women to the bench. I have appointed more women to the bench than any other Minister of Justice in this country's history and have been very pleased to do so and will continue to do so.
In addition, the very first national conference of its kind on women, law and the administration of justice was held in June 1991 in Vancouver, which for the first time brought together key decision makers and policy makers in this country, senior members of the judiciary and representatives of over 60 national organizations who promote the equal participation of women.
I could go on and on. This is not the proper context in which we should do that. The government has a very fine record in this area.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I would like to zero in on a specific area the minister should be familiar with.
Six and a half years ago, an all-party committee of this House recommended that sexual orientation be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The minister is quoted yesterday as saying that her department would get around to the issue as soon as it had time. "It is not for lack of people working flat out. It is a very controversial issue". Sue and a half years later, 15 years after the first inclusion in a human rights act in Canada, why is the minister putting politics ahead of principle of this very important issue?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, obtaining principle results takes time in the process of government. Since the Equality for All report, the Government of Canada has taken the position in the courts of this land that sexual orientation, for example, is an analogous ground under section 15 of the charter. That is the position we have taken in the courts.
It was in fact the wish of the various groups seeking changes in the Canadian Human Rights Act that amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act be considered as a comprehensive package. That was a decision and approach taken by my predecessors in responding to the Equality for All report and equality initiatives in 1986. That has unfortunately made it more difficult to move the dossier ahead simply because we are dealing with a variety of issues.
March 27, 1992

I met recently in Ottawa with representatives of the various equality-seeking groups who would like to see changes in the Canadian Eluman Rights Act. I indicated that I had hoped to bring forward changes by the end of the last calendar year and simply the burden of work in my department made it impossible to do that.
The gun control legislation took longer than we expected and there simply was not enough staff time. We are now working full out on that particular file and I hope to be able to bring forward some positive things that I hope will delight the hon. member by the time we rise for the summer.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, 15 years ago, the Quebec Government was the first in Canada to acknowledge that people should not suffer discrimination because of their sexual preferences. Today, 15 years later, the minister says in the House that the government is still working on it.
Why did she not endorse the policy established by a unanimous committee of this House six and a half years ago? Madam Speaker, why does the Minister of Justice continue to discriminate directly against people whose sexual preferences do not coincide with those of the majority?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, there is no need for the government to respond to this report today. Six years ago, the government clearly announced its intentions in its response to the parliamentary committee's report. I am now working on those intentions to flesh them out, and I hope that before the summer recess I will be able to table the government's statutory response in the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who under the federal jurisdiction has major responsibilities to protect minorities across this country.
The Canadian Human Rights Commissioner says in his report that the Government of Canada has failed in its job practices to hire and promote women, aboriginals, people with disabilities, and visible minorities fairly.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Minister of Justice what the government is going to do to correct its dismal record as it protects human rights in this country.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the hiring practices of the Government of Canada. I think he is well aware that this government has certainly a record better than that of the government by the party of which he is a member in expanding employment in the Public Service to members of a variety of groups previously discriminated against.
There is a committee of the House of Commons which is in fact reviewing the Employment Equity Act and will be reporting by May 1 of this year. I think a more appropriate response will be able to be given when that parliamentary committee presents its report on its review of the Employment Equity Act as it affects the government.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
The Minister of Justice should talk to the Minister of Finance. She will find out that the Government of Canada on the one hand has rolled back pay equity for women in the Public Service, while on the other hand its own appointed commissioner has said clearly and unequivocally that this undermines the progress as it relates to women.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice, who has an awesome responsibility in federal jurisdiction, when she will stand up for the women of this country, put some teeth into the Human Rights Act and implement programs in order to assist those Canadians.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I have been standing up for Canadian women as long as I have been in public life, which is a very long time and significantly predates my arrival in this House.
The legislation with respect to sexual assault, for example, I think is probably the first legislation under the Criminal Code in this country that attempts to reflect adequately the reality of life as it is lived by Canadian women. The Government of Canada has not

March 27, 1992
Oral Questions
rolled back the commitment to pay equity. On the contrary, we are the only government in this country that not only accepted pay equity but made retroactive payments in pay equity. There is a dispute now between the Government of Canada and the union on the basis on which that payment should be made.
The Minister of Finance indicated in his budget that when a decision comes down in 1993, retroactive payments made under that decision, if the government should lose the argument, will be made only until 1990. The Government of Canada continues to make extraordinary payments to meet pay equity requirements of over $80 million a year. We made retroactive payments of $317 million a year at a time of severe fiscal restraint. We indicated then, with our financial priorities, the priorities we attached to this at a time when there was extraordinary pressure on the government. Fiscally the government of Canada made those retroactive payments and committed itself to pay equity.
That is the truth of the situation. We are the only government in Canada that has made that financial commitment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday we learned that the Montreal Board of Trade released a major economic report, reflecting the views of over 100 leading business representatives from Canada and abroad, which indicated that Canada has lost 400,000 manufacturing and industry jobs since the free trade agreement came into effect. Specifically, they identified the reasons as the high dollar policy of the government, the free trade agreement and the contradictory policies of this government.
Will the Acting Prime Minister take responsibility for what the board of trade identifies as a reason for the industrialization of our country and take some action by bringing down the high dollar value, cancelling the free trade agreement and abandoning this ridiculous pursuit of a North American free trade agreement?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: The short answer is no, Madam Speaker, we will not of course cancel the free trade agreement. As a matter of fact there are many, many success stories regarding the free trade agreement, including in my own riding. Perhaps the hon. member would like to come to Brampton some time and visit some of the companies that have done very well because of the free trade agreement. In fact, they say to me that if we did not have the free trade agreement, it would have been a lot rougher getting through the recessionary period we have just gone through.
Everybody looks for a scapegoat when we go through a difficult period of time. The Montreal Board of Trade is no different. I believe that now is the time we have to work on training, retraining, restructuring and that we have to bring Canada into the position where it will be competitive in winding up this decade and heading into the 21st century. That is what this government is doing in co-operation, I might say, with the provinces. That was one of the major subjects discussed at the First Ministers' Conference.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the hon. minister can say anything he likes, but 100 leading business voices have indicated that one of the major policies this government has introduced that is causing this de-industrialization is the free trade agreement with the United States. It is unfortunate that we have to rely on Ralph Nader for the representatives of the people of Canada to understand what the 500 pages of the NAFTA are all about.
I want to ask my hon. friend the following question. The government knows it has absolutely no mandate from the people of Canada to sign into the North American free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, absolutely no mandate at all. Will he do the right thing and say that the government will not commit the country to this agreement before it has the support of the people of Canada to do so?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that there has been a great deal of consultation on the NAFTA situation. The SAGTtk have been meeting. The ITACs have been meeting. There has obviously been
March 27, 1992

Oral Questions
considerable consultation with the provinces, with the [Translation] public service of the provinces and we will continue with
that consultation.	AVIATION SAFETY


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, when the Bush administration signed a preliminary tariff on Canadian softwood imports, Canadian lumber reloaders learned that the tariff does not just apply to the wood, it also applies to transportation, handling and any further changes to the lumber before it leaves the country.
I have received a letter and have discussed the situation with a company from Fort Erie, Ontario, Barrick Distribution Limited. I quote from the letter: "Our company is now very reluctantly looking to relocate in New York State immediately. We will have to hire American workers and lay off our Canadian employees". This company is an innocent victim of the tariff and more closures are expected across the country.
What action is the government going to take so that these kinds of operations will be protected and we will not be sold out again by this government under the free trade deal and NAFTA?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, as I told my hon. friend in the House before, we have naturally protested not just this aspect of the latest imposition of a countervail duty which adds an additional burden to value-added manufacturers, but also includes the freight component of some of the products that are being shipped.
That is why we have unleashed a very strong response to this action. We have mounting support from the consumers in the United States. We have a preliminary determination. There are two more steps in this particular process, after which it will be appealed under section 19 of the free trade agreement, at which point we will of course be vindicated.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said outside the House that he was satisfied that all the legal aspects of aviation safety were in place before deregulation.
In his report on the crash at Dryden which was tabled yesterday, Justice Moshansky said that this kind of argument was unacceptable. Does the government agree with Justice Moshansky that the government has an obligation to Canadian passengers to ensure their safety, well beyond the basic legal requirements?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, before answering the question, perhaps I may express, on behalf of the government, my heartfelt sympathy with the survivors and families of the victims of the terrible accident that occurred on March 10, 1989, and I do so at a time when we are again debating a subject, which must bring back some very sad memories.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It's about time.


Mr. Rocheleau:: A little late in the day.


Jean Corbeil: I see the Bloc Quebecois is more interested in shouting insults across the floor, but I don't think this is the right time.
As far as the question is concerned, I may remind the hon. member that in its preliminary report, the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation said more than a year ago, and I quote:

"The federal government introduced in 1985 sweeping changes to the Aeronautics Act designed to give Canadian aviation its most progressive safety legislation in more than 60 years and to implement the major recommendations of the inquiry into aviation safety headed by Justice Charles Dubin".


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, that response is absolutely appalling. What is unacceptable is the idea that the government would hide behind the tragedy and not respond to serious, important questions about the safety of Canadian air travellers.

March 27, 1992
Oral Questions
The Dryden air crash report recommended that when the transport department identifies a shortage of resources to ensure safety, this information should be communicated up the line to the minister. In its response, the government says: "A policy will be developed".
Is this not an admission that successive ministers of transport have failed in their responsibility to obtain the information that they require to ensure Canadian passenger safety?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, yesterday I mentioned the fact that as soon as the Moshansky commission's report was tabled, the government tabled its response to the 191 recommendations.
I also mentioned that to deal with these 191 recommendations, we had set up an implementation team consisting of 20 members recruited from the Department of Transport and from the industry, including the associations, employers, and employees. I made a commitment that six months from now we would table a public report on the work done by the team during that time.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, in 1989 a leaked memo from the chief of operations and certification of inspectors at Transport Canada noted, and I will quote from that memo: "Air carrier inspection is no longer capable of meeting even minimum requirements". Transport Canada warned the minister in 1989. Justice Moshansky warned the minister again yesterday.
When will the minister provide the required number of commercial jet aircraft inspectors to ensure safety in the skies?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, yesterday I provided all the statistics, and these show that we have the number of inspectors required. I would like to refer the hon. member to the 1989 annual report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board which says this: "The above statistics indicate that the 1980s was a decade of significant improvement in Canadian aviation safety." In its 1990 report, the board said that accident statistics for aircraft licensed in Canada were a clear
indication that the last decade was marked by a significant improvement in aviation safety in Canada.
Madam Speaker, I believe that throughout that time, the Department of Transport continued to give aviation safety the priority it deserves.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, the minister's rhetoric gives us the government position and makes it quite clear that it will continue to put at risk the lives of the air travelling public in this country to save a buck. That is what he is saying.
Just yesterday the director of air carrier standards and operations at Transport Canada confirmed that according to his own department's figures, at least 10 more inspectors are needed immediately for commercial air carrier inspections. Will the minister immediately hire 10 additional commercial jet aircraft inspectors? Yes or no?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear what the chairman of the Moshansky commission, Mr. Justice Moshansky, said this morning in an interview on Canada AM. When asked whether it was safe to fly in Canada, he said: "Yes, I think it is safe to fly in Canada. I think we have one of the safest transportation systems in the world. That is not to say it is perfect. The thrust of my report was to identify deficiencies which should be corrected in order to bring it closer to perfection".


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, yesterday Justice Moshansky brought down a report dealing with the commercial aviation industry. I emphasize commercial aviation industry. Also yesterday, in defence of the government's record on safety the minister said: "In 1981 there were 700 aircraft accidents in Canada. In 1991 there were 449 accidents".
What the minister failed to tell this House and Canadians is that when it comes to commercial aviation in this country, according to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board reports, there has been an increase of 34 per cent in the number of accidents between 1984, the year that this government came to power, and 1991.
I ask the minister to explain why he chose to give statistics dealing with the broad base of the aviation industry, including the general aviation sector and the government sector, as opposed to the real stats which deal with commercial aviation which was what the Moshansky report was all about. Why did he not do that?
March 27, 1992


Jean Corbeil: I repeat again, Madam Speaker, that the report from the transport safety board for 1989 indicates that the 1980s was a decade of significant improvement in Canadian aviation safety. I think all kinds of aircraft are very important in aviation safety because people travel in all kinds of aircraft.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, obviously the minister does not get it yet. Perhaps he is relying on some of those same senior bureaucrats to give him the statistics to show that things are rosy as opposed to the real statistics.
I want to draw the minister's attention to a poster issued by the Aviation Safety Programs of Transport Canada that hangs in aircraft hangars and offices throughout this country. It says: "If you think safety is too costly, try an accident".
Given this new information, about which it would appear he did not know, concerning the number of commercial accidents and the increase of 34 per cent since 1984, would he now reconsider his lack of action in terms of additional safety inspectors, whether it is the 10 mentioned today or the 70 vacancies that are out there in the industry, and do something today to give a concrete indication that he is going to make sure that airlines are safe in this country?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I think the person to give the best testimony on that is the person who has just completed the two years of investigation and tabled his report a couple of weeks ago.
Interviewed this morning on CBC Newsworld, Justice Moshansky said: "I agree that the Canadian skies are safe". We have one of the safest aviation systems in the world. However, that is not to say that it is perfect. It must also be remembered that this investigation was regarding an accident at a particular point in time. Certainly some positive steps have been taken by the department to correct a lot of the deficiencies which we discovered during the inquiry and so has the carrier.
I repeat again, we have put in place an implementation team of 20 persons who will look into the 191 recommendations of the report.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Oral Questions
The government is currently considering a proposal to replace air traffic controllers with flight service specialists in smaller airports, such as Charlottetown. Pilots and air traffic controllers have condemned the government's proposal for safety reasons.
In light of yesterday's condemning report on the Dryden air accident, will the minister commit today to maintaining air traffic controllers at smaller airports? Will he stop cost cutting at the expense of air safety?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, one of our main responsibilities as the government of this country is to be fiscally responsible without putting in jeopardy the safety of the people who are flying. It is for this reason that we are spending over $1.5 billion in transforming our safety system to automation. At the same time, we are consulting the aviation industry at the present time as to what we should do with a number of FSS and control towers. The consultations are not completed and when they are we will then make decisions.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, the minister's denials of a problem are quite shocking when the report on the Dryden crash contains a litany of repeated warnings that there were simply not enough people to ensure air safety.
My colleague for Hamilton West raised one of those warnings in the House in 1990 with this report on the government's budget that said the result would be cutbacks in training, enforcement, inspections and increased risks to the travelling public. The minister at that time said: "We will never compromise safety".
Will the minister admit today that safety has been compromised? Will he tell Canadians specifically what he is going to do to restore travelling safety?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, all the Ministers of Transport since this government has been in power have indicated that we will never compromise on safety. We have never compromised on safety.
We already have our response to the Dryden commission.
I mentioned yesterday that we had already started implementing 49 per cent of those recommendations. We have put in place a team of 20 people to look into it. Judge Moshansky himself said again this morning: "I agree that the Canadian skies are safe. We have one of the safest aviation systems in the world".

Oral Questions FISHERIES


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries.
As the minister knows, this coming Sunday evening 100 fishermen will sail on six trawlers toward the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Once there, they will claim custodial management of these waters for Canada in protest against the rape and pillage of the groundfish stocks by the European community. They will place markers to this effect.
Would the minister tell the House what support he intends for this historic expedition?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, the expedition that the hon. member refers to is one that is privately organized by the industry and the fishermen's union of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. I have already indicated my support for the concept of this expedition, which is to be peaceful and non-violent.
I do not intend to go out with them, because I do not think they would appreciate a politician attempting to horn in on this genuine demonstration which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going forward with on Sunday.
They have my full support. We intend to have fishery patrol boats in the area carrying out their normal duties but ready in case any incident occurs where their aid or assistance might be needed. My office will be doing all it can to help the cause.
In addition, we are providing briefings for all the journalists who are assembling there from Europe and elsewhere. This is one of the documents that we are sending out: The Fragile Fishery, Sustainable Development of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery.
The Prime Minister himself is going to lead a delegation to Rio de Janeiro in June for the UNCED conference, particularly to put forward and gain support for our resolution and-


An hon. member:: Why don't you go out with them?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think we should go on. I am sure the hon. minister will be able to add further information on the supplemental.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question in response to the minister's answer. He did say that he supported this, as he was quoted in The Evening Telegram. In fact a week ago, on March 20, the headlines read: "Protest on High Seas gets Cros-bie's Blessing".
From what the minister said he certainly does support this, but he also knows there is risk involved so I would like a little more moral support. I would like more support than ministerial blessing.
Could I specifically ask the minister if he would ensure that there is a destroyer escort or a government patrol vessel in direct support of this very delicate undertaking?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is a delicate undertaking. I can assure the hon. gentleman that my support is equally delicate.
There are no plans to have any Canadian naval vessels in the area, because we do not believe there are going to be any hostilities. This is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration carried out by responsible people, not by certain other demagogues who have appeared on the scene in recent months, discharged from the provincial cabinet and now looking for a cause to ride back to power on.


An hon. member:: John Efford has done a lot for fisheries.


John Carnell Crosbie: John Efford is a demagogue attempting to ride to power on the backs of the Newfoundland fishermen.
I am supporting this cause. It is a private initiative. They have every right to demonstrate on the high seas just as people demonstrate outside the House of Commons. There is a risk demonstrating outside the House of Commons. There is a risk demonstrating everywhere. But in a free and democratic country that is a risk we gladly assume. I am not changing my

opinion about Mr. Efford's attempts at demagoguery and his attempts to seize the cause.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think we should go on. The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is to whomever is answering on behalf of the minister of energy.
Recently a delegation of B.C. New Democrat MPs visited the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state, which is home to some 63 per cent of all the high-level nuclear waste produced by the U.S. Millions of litres of lethal radioactive waste are stored in 177 underground tanks at Hanford, and 24 of these tanks contain unstable chemical complexes which are in a potentially explosive situation.
Would the minister confirm that although the probability is small an explosion of one or more of these tanks would lead to a catastrophic event releasing large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere?
Would the minister also explain what emergency responses and measures Canada has taken to protect the neighbouring Canadian public should such an event take place?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I am sure all members of this House share the concern that Canada be spared the kind of tragedy that did befall the people of the Soviet Union and has emanated from nuclear disasters in other parts of the world.
As well, the minister of energy in this government is vigilant to take every precaution to ensure the wellbeing of Canadians. I understand he will be taking a delegation or considering looking into the question of any risk arising from the Hanford nuclear station.
I think I should point out as the hon. member himself has indicated that although the risk may be very small we must take every necessary precaution, recognizing that the world increasingly relies on nuclear power and Canada has the finest nuclear power
Oral Questions
production capacity through our CANDU system of any nation in the world.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, in 1957 an explosion in similar storage tanks in Kyshtym in the Soviet Union spread radioactive contaminants some 200 kilometres downwind. The British Columbia border is only 250 kilometres from Hanford as the wind blows.
Would the minister confirm whether or not this government supports the recent comments of Canada's chief of environmental radiation hazards that Canadian officials really do not have a handle on what is going on at Hanford?
Will he also confirm that Canada and the United States, as confirmed in our discussions with U.S. officials, do not at this time have a co-ordinated emergency response plan put into place to protect the Canadian public should such a catastrophic event occur at Hanford?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I certainly would not confirm any of the kind of alarmist statements and scenarios that the hon. member is raising in this House in attempting to raise his political profile in British Columbia. This is not responsible.
When the hon. minister of energy returns to the House he will of course address the concerns raised by the hon. member. But I would once again suggest that he stop this fear-mongering and deal responsibly with the questions of energy policy and the necessary energy resources that this country relies upon.


LEBANON
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame -de -Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
Yesterday the Department of External Affairs issued a travel directive advising Canadians not to travel to Lebanon due to extreme danger in that country. The directive says, and I quote: "There is ongoing incidents of violence and threat of kidnapping. In these circumstances visitors expose themselves to serious harm".

March 27, 1992
Oral Questions
In these circumstances why is the minister still deporting refugee claimants to Lebanon? Why is there no moratorium on deportations to that country?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, moratoriums encourage non-bona fide claimants who know they will not face removal when refused. Processing these claims wastes resources and delays processing of genuine claimants.
We have decided that we are removing people who are not in need of Canada's protection, but we do it on a case-by-case review. Every consideration is given to every individual case to avoid sending them to a situation where they could be in jeopardy.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, does the Minister of Employment and Immigration speak to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? He is deporting people who live in south Lebanon where there is still a war going on. The Canadian embassy is closed in Lebanon. It is still closed due to security reasons.
Yesterday the minister advised Canadians not to visit that country because of threats of violence and kidnapping. Will the minister explain why he is deporting refugees to Lebanon when the Secretary of State for External Affairs says it is too dangerous for people to visit that country?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I understand that for a Liberal it is hard to make the distinction between a Canadian citizen and a citizen of another country who comes to Canada and has to be removed. I know that the hon. member cannot make the distinction, but I invite him to consider it.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The economic study released yesterday by the Montreal Board of Trade calculated that between June and December 1991 we were losing 1,000 jobs in Canada each day, thanks in large measure to the free trade agreement.
Rather than feuding with the NDP premier of Ontario and engaging in a public relations campaign aimed at
damage control, when will this government come to grips with the failures of this economic agenda which is ravaging Canadian jobs in record numbers?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I find it rather interesting that the Liberal Party would ask a question like that. Back in 1981 and 1982 when jobs were being lost because of a recession they did not have the free trade agreement to blame. Now we have a free trade agreement in place and because of the recession period we have gone through they are blaming the whole recession on the free trade agreement. It is utter nonsense and the hon. member knows that. He should not be making such outlandish statements.
This government has brought in a responsible budget which cuts taxes, which cuts spending, and which cuts the deficit. In fact it is designed to get people back to work in this country.
Some of the provincial governments are bringing in budgets that unfortunately are taking from their taxpayers the tax cuts the federal government made. That is unfortunate because I think those are required at this time to get the economy going again.
The hon. member stands up here day after day and blames the free trade agreement when in fact he knows that that has nothing to do with it.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, it is not a Liberal Party report. It is a report of the Board of Trade of Montreal that was based on interviews with Canadian businessmen and businesswomen in this country.
The report also added that since 1989 some 400,000 jobs were lost in the Canadian manufacturing sector and another 200,000 Canadians were laid off in both the retail and wholesale areas of our economy.
How can the government possibly contemplate aggravating this already dismal record by moving head-first into the Mexican round of trade talks without first rectifying the economic pain that is being felt by Canadians at this moment as a result of the first trade round, namely the free trade agreement?


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, as the Minister for International Trade said in the House just the other day, NAFTA talks about 1 per cent of our total trade.
March 27, 1992

It is unusual that we get so upset talking about a trade agreement with Mexico. In terms of the free trade agreement with the United States, I wonder why they do not talk about Canadian Thermos Inc., Polymer International, Keeprite that went to Brantford, Hughes Aircraft in Midland, or Freightliner in London.
I have a whole series of good news items specifically as a result of the free trade agreement. All they have are the bad news items day after day after day.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, Max Yalden has decried an underpowered and expendable human rights act.
The government has stonewalled the sexual orientation amendment, eliminated a court challenge, shelved the race relations institute and has been the target itself of racism complaints at NRC, Health and Welfare and CIDA. It has fired many of those who have complained about racism. It has compromised pay equity. CIDA is being sued for discrimination and this government refuses to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will now put his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: This government along with the Liberal Party has refused-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member please put his question now or I will go to somebody else.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: My question for the Minister of Justice on behalf of the government-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Answering on behalf of the government.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am listening to the question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: If the hon. members would acknowledge that they should shut up so I can be heard, I will ask the question.
Privilege


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that he can be heard. The hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount.


CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON CULTURAL ENTERPRISES
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, I will put my question to the person who is answering for the President of the Treasury Board. The president of the Canadian Institute for Research on Cultural Enterprises said that his institute must provide the government with a return on its investment in cultural enterprises. Tb do so, the institute is abusing its power to take over the technology of a small company that it subsidized. It cut off funds to this company, forcing it to lay off its staff. It tried to seize this company's goods.
Does the minister support the actions of the institute or will he promise to end the wrongful pressure exercised by this monster which the government has created?


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I do not know of the specific example, but I will certainly take notice of the question and get back to the hon. member.


PRIVILEGE
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, earlier in Question Period the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development answering a question on behalf of the Minister of the Environment suggested that the comments I had made were in fact alarmist over-reactions.
I just wanted to set the record straight, Madam Speaker. The comments that I made were reiterations, public comments, from the chief of Canada's environmental radiation hazards branch. They were not my comments. They were also comments by officials at the Hanford nuclear reservation itself.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should know that this is not a question of privilege. It is not even

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
a point of order. It is a question of debate, and I am sure there will be another venue where the hon. member will be able to put his point across to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I move that the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House on Friday, February 14, 1992, be concurred in.
It certainly is a pleasure for me to present and speak to this particular committee report. It has been an honour to take part in the debate and discussions relating to the experimental guidelines governing the broadcasting of committee meetings. That was a result of Standing Order 119.1(2).
I just want to quote a few things from the report because I think they are very important for all members here and certainly for the public.
On the one hand, there is the desire for openness of democratic political institutions and freedom of the press.
We can all understand and recognize that.
On the other hand, there are serious concerns of parliamentary privilege and the effects of broadcasting on parliamentary institutions.
There are many strong arguments in favour of the broadcasting of committee proceedings. A great deal of important work is done by members in committees and the public should have an opportunity to see this-The broadcasting of the proceedings of committees would provide a more balanced view of the parliamentary process and would enhance the public's perception and appreciation of the work of Parliament and parliamentarians.
The risk is that the collegiality of committees could be destroyed and replaced by a more partisan and adversarial approach by all parties.
That is something we do not want to happen.
The public has a right to know what is going on in Parliament but it is important to remember that it is a legislative body rather than a television program.
The committee's task was to establish guidelines for broadcasting that would preserve the collegial and informal atmosphere of committee meetings, thus providing a more balanced view of the parliamentary process.
We studied a couple of reports that have been very important and very instrumental in bringing this final report together. Watching the House at Work, the Cook report, provided a lot of background information and impetus to this report.
The other one was The Role and Importance of Committees, the 1985 report of the McGrath committee because that certainly changed the role of committees. It changed the importance of committees in my view. We have taken those two reports, combined them with the views, the information we heard from many, many witnesses.
Of particular importance was the information we received in the provincial legislatures of Ontario and Quebec. They took us through their process and helped us with it. We understood it and certainly, it allowed us to make decisions. In some cases it changed our views and opinions of the particular process.
It was necessary to distinguish two aspects of broadcasting. First, there is recording whereby we have gavel to gavel coverage of the committee meeting. Second, there is reporting, that is, allowing the electronic media access to committee meetings to coverage of the proceedings for recording purposes.
The committee, in its wisdom, decided upon a phasing-in approach to broadcasting, first to allow the media to record the sound or audio feed of all public committee meetings. The technology for this is already in place. This can be used by print and radio journalists very easily and television journalists could use it together with a picture of the person speaking.
We would also like to see the audio of all committee proceedings broadcast, either through OASIS or by closed-circuit FM radio. This would enable members and their staff and the media to monitor committee meetings.
Two problems presented themselves with the next phase of broadcasting. We wanted to make sure that the House was going to have the responsibility of recording and distributing tape proceedings, but those costs would be astronomical. In addition, there are just too many committee meetings to have all of them broadcast on the parliamentary channel.
The committee recommends one committee room would be set up on a non-permanent basis using existing or rented equipment at a minimum cost. The proceedings would be recorded gavel to gavel and broadcast live on OASIS and on a delayed basis on the parliamentary channel.
March 27, 1992

The recording of proceedings would be undertaken by or on behalf of the House and under direct control and supervision of the House personnel.
Given the multitude of committee meetings per day, a decision-making process must be put in place to determine which committee will be broadcast. We believe the decision should be made by the House leaders and if the House leaders are unable to agree the matter could be referred to the management committee.
We expect that a system will be devised whereby the committees and their chairmen will indicate their desire to have particular proceedings broadcast. The House leaders, of course, would take that into account, as well as public interest and fairness and reflecting the views of the different members.
We believe the issue of broadcasting committees will need to be reviewed after six months, as well as having a system set up to review complaints.
That is the essence of the report. I would just like to make one final comment if I may, and that is concerning the co-operation of the members on the committee. I want to particularly comment to the members from Saint-Leonard, Kingston and the Islands and particularly the member from Saint-Denis, who is here but is not listening to me at the present time.


Mr. Prud'homme:: I am paying very close attention.


John Cole: It was very interesting to have one of the more senior members of this House with very strong views sitting on this committee. He approached this committee with open-mindedness and co-operation. He, along with myself and many others, have changed our views from the start of the process which resulted in a report that I think we can all be very proud of.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I am just delighted to be able to participate in this debate this afternoon. I know many of my colleagues will want to participate as well as the afternoon progresses.
At the outset, I want to congratulate a number of my colleagues, including the hon. member who has just spoken, on the report which he has filed with this House.
Routine Proceedings
I congratulate my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, my colleague from Saint-Leonard and, of course, my very distinguished colleague from Saint-Denis who is a veteran of this House and has been a veteran of that particular committee and the subject matter for quite some time. I want to pay tribute to him and to all of those individuals who have worked so hard in trying to arrive at a solution to what we believed was a problem.
I believe my colleague from Kingston and the Islands will, later on in the debate, clearly spell out what the goals and the objectives were and how there has been a substantial watering down of the undertakings that we thought we had.
Nevertheless, there is some agreement. I do not speak for other political parties or members of other political parties, but I would hope that there would be a spirit of co-operation where we could have some unanimous support for this particular initiative, to provide audio feed by the House of Commons for all public committee meetings. That in itself will be helpful to our deliberations and helpful to those who are interested in the subject matter that we deal with.
Members will therefore be able to keep abreast of committee hearings from their own offices, whether they be in the Confederation building, Wellington building, Centre Block, West Block, East Block or indeed any other block that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader wishes to have some of his members. I know there are some of his members that perhaps he would like to have in places, some might even say cell blocks, but who knows.
It has been our position because of the importance of committees and how they have increased over the years that the broadcasting of committee meetings is quite important. I would like to give a couple of examples if I may.
Sometime ago in a previous Parliament, I had the honour of being the critic for consumer and corporate affairs where we debated quite vigorously the contents of a bill commonly referred to as Bill C-21. My hon. colleague may be apprised of that subject matter. It was with regard to the generic and pharmaceutical industries in this country.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
We have testimony from ordinary Canadians to academics, to labour representatives, to specialists involved in that field. It would have been a wonderful exchange for Canadians to see in a public forum, on a broadcast network, the kinds of comments and interventions which were being made on the subject matter.
I have to be very candid. Not all the witnesses to which I have referred were supportive of the position I was putting forward at the committee. The government members did have a number of interveners who came before the committee and concluded that the government was on the right track. Notwithstanding the differences of opinion between the opposing sides, I underline the significance for Canadians to see members of Parliament at work on important subject matter.
The second point I wish to bring to the attention of the House is that all too often young Canadians as well as those who view our proceedings have the impression that the only thing members of Parliament do is from time to time ask questions during Question Period when they are given the opportunity.


An hon. member:: When the caucus chairman is not asking questions.


David Charles Dingwall: When that opportunity presents itself, as capable as my colleague here to the left, who has had numerous questions on the floor of the House of Commons, going back many years-


An hon. member:: Not as many as I should.


David Charles Dingwall: They would think that all of the duties of my colleague to the left would be to ask questions. Everywhere I go, and I know my colleague to the left probably hears these stories as well, people are always asking me: "Mr. Nunziata, when are you going to ask some more questions?"


John V. Nunziata: Because the House leader plays favourites.


David Charles Dingwall: They do that. I think that this report will assist Curly Moe and Curly Day in being exposed to other subject matters than the venue of Question Period.
It must be realized that Canadians think that all we do is Question Period. They are not given the opportunity to see us in committee on important subject matters. I made reference, for instance, to Bill C-21, the pharmaceutical act. I make reference to a bill which has passed this House and is in the Upper Chamber, Bill C-13, the Environmental Assessment Act.
Of course, one of the most important committees in this House is the one for which my colleague is the lead critic as the employment critic. He is on employment equity. That subject matter should be aired not only on Question Period, as the hon. member has done so many times, but should be given an opportunity in committee in order that we hear the different views on the subject matter as well as hearing from ordinary Canadians who have a particular interest in the subject matter we are debating.
That is fundamental to the way in which we proceed with the legislative agenda of the government because it is their right to pursue that kind of agenda.
On this particular report for which I have paid tribute to my colleague for Saint-Denis, I do not know if he was listening earlier, I wish to reiterate the significant contribution he has made to developing this report.
We are hoping to set up a permanent room to be used by a committee which will broadcast its hearings in order to provide better coverage and access to information by the media and by the public. There is a lot of media in this country other than the national networks that would be interested in some of the subject matter. I made references to national concerns. There are regional concerns which have a particular bearing on the economy and on the important social programs which affect different regions of this country. I make reference to small craft harbours which would be an item which would be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. That would be of significant importance to those of us who come from the Atlantic region.
I make reference to things which pertain to the oilseeds industry in this country which would come under the auspices of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I am sure there would be individuals both from western Canada and Ontario who would want to be seized of that particular subject matter in order to be better informed on the issue and also to make members of Parliament accountable.

I have heard time and time again in this Chamber and privately, if I may, Madam Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader always talks about the fundamental issue of accountability. Accountability is important, but I think Canadians should see and hear and receive our spoken word, which would subsequently be reported in Hansard. They should receive all of this information so that they will have an opportunity to say their member of Parliament is either accountable to what we believe to be important or not accountable.
I would hope that this will proceed and will get the support of all members of this House. I know that a number of my colleagues, and in their absence, Madam Speaker, I want you to know that my colleagues from Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, Halifax, Cardigan, Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North all wanted to participate today in this particular debate in order that they may put their concerns on the record.
In point of fact just yesterday my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood and I had extended conversation with regard to the subject matter of broadcasting of committee meetings. In fact, my colleague brought to my attention some very pertinent information I was not aware of at the time and I know later on in our deliberations we will want to hear from the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood who will make a stirring address on the floor of the House of Commons.
I wish to close my brief remarks unless there is unanimous consent for me to continue.


An hon. member:: Filibuster.


David Charles Dingwall: No, I would not filibuster. That is not my intention. But I want the parliamentary secretary to know that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands will clearly spell out that although this is a compromise of the different views, it is certainly not the standard that we thought the government wished to pursue. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands will give a chapter and verse, detailed, t's crossed, i's dotted, precise information on that point.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank you and I want to thank all of those members, including the hon. member opposite who led off this debate on this report, for their interventions. I hope that this kind of co-operation, notwithstanding it was a compromise, can continue and that it will be unanimous. I say that without speaking to other individuals in this Chamber. I think
Routine Proceedings
it quite important that we proceed in an orderly fashion.


Mr. Cooper:: Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken the House leader for the Official Opposition asked if there would be unanimous consent for him to extend his remarks.
I want to indicate to him that I think that may not be a bad idea. We are looking at possibly concurring in the 23rd, 24th, 27th, 22nd, and 28th reports. Maybe what we could do is debate them all together and then we would be more than happy to have him take some more time to do that if that is what the House would be willing to do.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, there are two issues here. The first issue is unanimous support for me to continue with my speech on report No. 23. I do not think there is agreement.
The second issue is to take in other reports and to weave them in under the auspices of report No. 23.1 wish that I could co-operate with the hon. member because it is a reasonable suggestion. I have to inform the Chair and the hon. member that my colleagues wish to speak to certain reports, not to others and as a result, I cannot give unanimous consent at this time.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a few questions.
We do not often have the chance to ask our esteemed House leader questions in the House of Commons, so I would like to take this opportunity to ask him a question or two about report No. 23.
We have here a report of the House management committee which is a committee that consists of senior representatives of all three political parties. I agree with my friend and colleague that we ought to have more openness as far as committees are concerned, and the public ought to have an opportunity to listen in on the work of committees and to see the work of other committees.
I would like to ask the hon. House leader of the Official Opposition whether he and his colleagues, perhaps the member for Saint-Denis and others can indicate, are prepared to have the affairs of the House management committee opened up and broadcast so that other Canadians and MPs can listen in or see what the elite members of the House of Commons, the senior members, the important MPs in this House are discussing in order for there to be more credibility to the whole process.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I am not used to responding to questions of a substantive nature.
I want to say to my hon. colleague that he does make a worthy and important positive suggestion. I want to clarify the premise of his question. All members of this House are distinguished. All members of this House have certain responsibilities, however, the only difference is that some may be around a little bit longer than others.
I would find nothing inherently wrong with the proceeding of the deliberations under the House management committee having the opportunity to be broadcast on the network. Members would answer to the general public and Canadians would understand some of the items and issues that they are discussing. They could be brought home.
In response to his very positive suggestion, I think that is something that hon. members, including my colleagues from Saint-Leonard, Kingston and the Islands and Saint-Denis, would want to take under due consideration. Perhaps when deliberations of the House management committee resume, it might be able to raise that and perhaps report back to the hon. member as to whether or not the positive suggestion that he makes can be accommodated by the House management committee.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I just want to intervene to put a quick question to my hon. friend who has given a good speech on this particular report.
It is one that does have an awful lot of support on all sides of the House. As chairman, I want to thank his members who have worked so hard on the committee report, the members of the New Democratic Party and certainly the members on my own side who have done that.
I just listened to the last exchange, and I want to raise one particular point for the hon. member to comment on. It seems to me I heard the member for York South-Weston indicate that he thought that perhaps the management committee should adopt a more open style. I am paraphrasing and using my own words, but I want to put to the House leader of the Official Opposition as to whether he is aware that since the committee
was changed and has become the management committee, now virtually all of its meetings are held in public. We have opened up that process including our most recent review of the estimates of the House of Commons. Our idea is to accomplish exactly what the hon. member for York South-Weston has asked us to consider, to let Canadians see what we, as members of Parliament, are trying to address in terms of the administration of our own affairs.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his kind intervention and to remind him that yes, I was fully aware that the deliberations of the house management committee were more public than they ever have been in the past.
I think the point my colleague from York South- Weston was attempting to make is that yes, be public but perhaps our deliberations could be broadcast, whether it is on the CBC network or the CTV or the parliamentary channel.
I think that was the intent of his question, withstanding the fact that our deliberations are public and are open. I want to give credit where credit is due.
The chairman of that committee deserves a certain degree of credit. I also want to give due credit to the hon. member for Saint-Denis and the hon. member for Saint-Leonard and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who I believe, if one was to review the Hansard of the deliberations and the minutes of the meeting, were very supportive and initiated the concept of more openness. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to carry this openness even further in other deliberations that we have on the floor of the House.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the wise comments made in this House by the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. He has mentioned the importance of broadcasting our committee deliberations.
I want to remind him and all hon. members of the important work of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations on which committee, of course, I have the honour and privilege to serve.
March 27, 1992

Madam Speaker, as you will know because of your vast knowledge of parliamentary matters, that committee deals with a tremendous number of government departments and agencies, everything from Canada Post, which has so mismanaged the postal affairs of this nation, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the National Capital Commission, the Department of Supply and Services, the Department of Public Works and a number of other agencies.
I want to ask my colleague if he agrees with me that it would be important for Canadians to have the opportunity to see the important work this committee is doing. In addition, I want to raise at this point the matter of the special committee dealing with Bill C-43, the conflict of interest rules. That is a very important committee as well. It deals with the integrity of government. I am sure that Canadians would want to have the opportunity to see this committee as well.
I invite my colleague to respond as to whether he thinks, as I do, that it would be very important for Canadians to avail themselves of the opportunity to see the work done by those two parliamentary committees and others of course.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.
I do not think there is any doubt in my mind or in the minds of Canadians that it would be very advantageous to have senior officials of Canada Post come before a committee to give testimony, not only on the operations of Canada Post but also on the public policy they have been carrying out for the last number of years.
It would be even more interesting to have the president come before the committee and explain on television, so that Canadians could see, the kind of salary this individual receives as well as the kind of bonus this individual receives.
In other words, you lay off workers and you get a big bonus. You shut down post offices, you get a bonus. I think Canadians would like to see the facial expression of that particular president of Canada Post, as well as government members who sit in that committee supporting the closure of rural post offices, the supporting of the substantial bonuses which have been given to Canada Post. You know, some of these bonuses exceed what any
Routine Proceedings
individual would deem to be fair, reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, when there are Canadians who are lined up at food banks across this country.
I say to my colleague that I agree most heartily that that particular committee which he has made reference to is important. It does important work. It is important to have officials of Canada Post and other organizations come before the respective committees and give testimony in front of the members. It ought to be broadcast so that we can all see that there will be no doubt in terms of the quality of the questions that the opposition members raise, in terms of the support that government members give willingly to the large bonuses and the closing down of rural post offices and the dislocation of jobs, the disruption of communities, et cetera.
I think Canadians would like to see that and I want to thank my hon. colleague for raising that important matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to join in the debate on this issue this afternoon.
It seems to me that this is a fairly straightforward issue, the matter of broadcasting some committee hearings of the House of Commons.
We support this rather enthusiastically, Madam Speaker, and I want to indicate why. As members of the New Democratic Party, we have had a chance to participate in the discussions.
The one sense that Canadians have generally is a feeling of powerlessness, the fact that there is very little that they can do about a government that is relatively arrogant in almost all policy areas.
I must say that at times all of us as members of Parliament experience a similar feeling, that in spite of the excellent efforts one makes, the government often tends to ignore the proposals, the suggestions, the recommendations, the alternatives and proceeds merrily on its way.
I suppose for the public it is not always clear and Canadians looking in on the operations of the House of Commons, listening to our debate, Question Period and the comments that are made here, get a distorted view of what actually happens in the Parliament of Canada.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I think that some of the best moments of people working together in the best interests of the country, of people setting aside their partisan differences in an effort to generate policy recommendations, takes place in committees.
If the people of Canada had an opportunity from time to time to look in at the work that committees do, whether it is on forestry or agriculture or foreign policy or trade policy or tax policy, they would see that when members of Parliament sit down together, with the odd exception, there is a genuine willingness to co-operate and work together in the best interests of developing good policy.
The problem is not the work by parliamentarians, but when those recommendations or proposals go to the government essentially they are often ignored. They are simply left on some shelf to gather dust while the government goes merrily on its way in its sort of "Father knows best" approach to government.
I think that by setting aside one of our committee rooms so that the proceedings can be televised, it would allow people in the comfort of their living rooms, rec rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, wherever they watch television, to actually have a chance to watch the proceedings of a committee at work.
It would serve a number of purposes. First of all, it would on occasion indicate that members of Parliament can work together co-operatively, as I indicated earlier.
Second, and perhaps most important in my judgment, is that often when we deal with controversial pieces of legislation or develop policies in a certain area, we bring in witnesses. Those witnesses tend to be people or groups with expertise in aspects of the legislation or the policy being debated, and they often provide excellent input into the decision-making.
It would be useful for the people of Canada to see from time to time when, for example, we are dealing with cuts to health care or cuts to post-secondary education, witness after witness pointing out why the government should abandon its course of cutting and destroying medicare, or why the government should abandon its course of turning its back on post-secondary education and retraining programs. When we hear witness after witness, expert after expert, point out in very detailed terms why the government should change its course and to know that the government will ignore those recommendations, will ignore what is often the
unanimous recommendation of the committee, I think it would be useful. It would remind Canadians just how out of touch or how arrogant the government has become.
For those reasons, it makes a good deal of sense. While all of the committees obviously cannot be televised-I see that as being rather chaotic when you consider the number of special committees or standing committees that might be sitting at any one time-I think it would be appropriate, at least on this experimental basis for the House leaders to attempt to determine which committees are dealing with subject matter that would be of most interest to Canadian viewers generally, in terms of understanding the inner workings of Parliament.
The fact there is a recommendation that all committees which are sitting would at least be available to others through an audio outlet is another step in the right direction. The more we can open up this place, the more we can expose how the Parliament of Canada actually works, other than simply the floor of the House of Commons, would be a useful step forward.
As we struggle to give more jurisdiction and more responsibility to the committees working on behalf of Parliament, if the people of Canada could look in on those proceedings, I think that members of Parliament would continue not only their generally good work, but the government would feel more inclined to follow the advice and to adopt the recommendations that the committee reports inevitably come up with.
I simply want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that I appreciate the hard work that has been done by all of the members, including of course the representatives of the New Democratic Party and that when the time comes to support this committee report we will be voting in the affirmative.
[Translation\


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I found it very interesting and I see that the New Democratic Party supports this report. This afternoon, I will have an opportunity to speak, but in this period for questions and comments, I just want to tell my colleague that often here in the House we are tempted in the heat of debate during Oral Question Period to say, in asking a question, "In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I direct my question to such and such a minister." It often
March 27, 1992

happens that tempers flare in the heat of debate and someone might say that a certain member is not present. However, it does not necessarily mean that the member who is not in the House is not doing his work, for he might very well not be in the House, for example now when we are debating this motion, but attending a meeting, sitting on a committee or looking after other parliamentary responsibilities.
So I would like to know his opinion on this subject. Will this report allow people through television or radio to have a better idea of the work done by committees? Many committees sit at the same time as the House during the week. Such a report would make the work done by MPs better known, as well as the important role of parliamentary, standing, legislative or even special committees. Could I have my colleague's comments on that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a good issue. I think that right now is a good example. Anybody who might be watching these proceedings and listening to me at this moment would get the impression that there are not very many people here working.
Well, that is partly true, they are not in their seats here working. I can assure the House that all of the individuals who would normally be sitting in the seats around mine are at work.
As my hon. friend has indicated, televising some of the committee work and providing audio feeds from all of the committees would introduce Canadians generally to the fact that members of Parliament do much more than simply appear and speak in the House of Commons.
I suspect that for most of us this is one of our smaller tasks. We probably spend the least amount of our time doing this.
Last year there were over 1,000 committee meetings of the Parliament of Canada. Those were all of the standing committees, special joint committees, and so on. There were over 1,000 meetings involving over 2,000 hours of work by members of the House of Commons.
Routine Proceedings
As a member of Parliament who has been here for a few years and has had the opportunity to participate in a number of committees over those years, I could say that most of that work was very productive and very positive. Whether it was in the areas of agriculture, forestry, recreation, or taxation, it was time very well spent.
In response to the question from my hon. colleague, I do think that televising some of the committee proceedings and providing audio sourcing for all of the committees will certainly help the public's understanding of the kind of work being done here other than what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Kamloops, as House leader for his party, has taken an active role in the discussions leading to the report that has come before the House. He was not a member of the House management committee that produced the report but I know that he actively encouraged the members of his party who were serving on that committee.
My question to him is whether he agrees with the report in what it does not say. Perhaps this is an odd way to put a question. However I think that, perhaps like me, he expected that the rules relating to the televising of committee proceedings in this House would be liberalized considerably.
This report goes some way to achieving that goal by setting up a single room from which the proceedings of any committee could be televised, if it was in that room. However, it does not permit indiscriminate televising of other committees nor does it permit committees to make their own decisions as to whether they will be televised unless they are able to arrange accommodation in the single room.
He knows as well as I do that at any one time there could be five or six committees of this House sitting. Clearly it will be difficult, particularly when most committee meetings take place Tuesdays, Wednesday afternoons, and Thursdays. When that is the case it will be difficult to squeeze very many committees into this room in the course of a day. There will be some limit.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Does the hon. member think that in accepting and putting forward this proposal the government has really honoured the commitment to allow for televising of committees that it made when rule changes were made in the spring of last year?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague from Kingston and the Islands I certainly did encourage our colleagues on the committee-the hon. members for Oshawa, Thunder Bay-Atikokan, and others who participated-to support this. They did an excellent job in coming up with a unanimous report in terms of recommendations.
The point he raises is most appropriate. There was a willingness of members of the House to open up the system completely, to say that we have excellent standing committees doing work that ought to be made public, that the people of Canada ought to be made aware of, particularly when the government members simply ignore the reality, when they ignore the recommendations and opinions of people who understand some of these issues certainly better than we do.
There was a recommendation that we open up the committees, that we televise them or allow television cameras in, allow the media to come in and film the proceedings and tell the people of Canada what is going on.
The government chose not to do that and has come up with this rather laundered version of that feeling.
I suspect that in this business you sometimes simply inch forward. Having one committee room televised so that people can see the proceedings and the news media can take advantage of those proceedings on a regular basis will enable the government to see the advantage of opening up this process.
It does indicate a reneging on the part of the government in terms of our original position. It indicates that it was not prepared to open up the House of Commons as we would have liked to have seen it done. However it is a small step forward and perhaps we should at least be thankful for that.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to make it clear here that just
because committees can sit in this committee room equipped with television does not mean that the public will have access. The public will have access only if the news media decides to broadcast any part of it.
Some people might be confused in thinking that certain committees will be televised live to television sets right across the country. However, in effect, and this is what the House leader for the New Democratic Party confirmed, the opportunity would simply be there for television stations-


An hon. member:: It will be live.


John V. Nunziata: The member indicates that it will be live. What channel will be used? Perhaps I can put a series of questions to the hon. House leader. First, can he confirm that the proceedings of any committees sitting in that particular room will be broadcast live across the country?


An hon. member:: No.


John V. Nunziata: Can he also indicate the channel? Will it be the parliamentary channel or a separate channel? I would also like to ask the hon. member what the cost of all this is? Who will bear the cost of financing the implementation of the recommendations in the 23rd report of the House management committee? Surely, before the committee was in a position to make this recommendation it would have considered the entire cost of implementing the recommendations.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately there is no time left for the hon. member for Kamloops to answer. Maybe he could do it in one minute or less.


Nelson Andrew Riis: May I make another suggestion, Madam Speaker? I appreciate that my time has run out but I think the questions raised by my hon. colleague are questions that will be on a lot of people's minds and are appropriate.
I personally was not a member of the committee. Therefore, I wonder if we could seek unanimous consent to have those questions directed to my hon. colleague who introduced this report for his response. I would need unanimous consent to have these questions directed to my colleague.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion. Is there consent?
March 27, 1992

Routine Proceedings


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Then the hon. member may answer.


John Cole: Madam Speaker, this is the way the committee operates, we kind of stretch things on occasion.
I did not hear the first part of the member's question. However, I would like to talk a little bit about the cost, the controls and some of the projections we have received from staff with regard to how this would be handled in terms of cost. There are two or three options to be decided by the management committee as to how it would be done. It can be done on a temporary basis for six months with a capital cost of approximately $35,000. It would cost about $130 to project it.
There are a number of options for televising in one particular room. In one particular case, it can be done for about $125,000. The costs to operate that are more substantive because the equipment is not as sophisticated. We could go to another more sophisticated system and that would reduce the operating costs by about one-quarter. The more expensive system has a pay-back in terms of operating costs. Those are decisions that would have to be made at that time.
As for the radio broadcast, that would be done with existing equipment. There would be very little if any cost, except perhaps some mini-radio or whatever in member's offices to pick up a speaker system or something. It may even be possible to do it over the present television system.
The other thing which I think the member asked concerned-he will have to correct me if I am wrong- when the meetings would be telecast. The point was that Parliament would come first. The House of Commons would come first.
If the House was not sitting, for instance, and a committee meeting was going on then the committee would go live on the parliamentary channel. The committee could be delayed maybe three or four hours and played after the House finished sitting on the parliamentary channel. There is a lot of space on the parliamentary channel that is not being used. The purpose was to use that space on the parliamentary channel that is not
presently being used on a slight delay when the House is sitting.
If it is played later the date and time of the meeting would be displayed on the screen at all times so that the public watching it would recognize that it was taped two or three days ago. There is a lot of time on that channel. There are the weekends and times like that. Meetings that took place during the week could be broadcast the following weekend. That may help to answer his question, although I did not hear the beginning of the member's question.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate. I am still a member of the House management committee and this committee is operating as usual, with sub-committees. But we want to stress, for the benefit of the people who are watching us or listening to us, the importance of the task we have set out to do with the mandate we were given, which is to look into the broadcasting of all proceedings of the House. At every committee meeting I attended, we heard interesting evidence from several witnesses. I will refer to that in my speech.
First of all, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that it was not just in recent months that the House management committee started looking into the matter of broadcasting. It has been a subject of discussion for years in committee. Besides, my colleague from Saint-Denis participated in the discussions and did an excellent job at that.
Before the advent of radio and television, we had and we still have what we call Hansard. I think that ever since the proceedings of the House started to be televised, the challenge has been to produce an electronic Hansard. I think that, as was mentioned earlier, other reports along the same lines were produced and we took them into consideration. We have also considered the evidence from several witnesses, namely those representing the media and the press gallery people. They have requested that all proceedings of standing committees, legislative committees or special committees of the House be completely open. We had to reach a compromise vis-avis this request. Madam Speaker, there is also the issue of costs that must be taken into account and our listeners must think about that. Of course, we would like all proceedings to be public, for we have nothing to hide,

Routine Proceedings
but this implies a cost in order to ensure that everybody gets the same information.
We had to take all those factors into account to come up with a report such as today's which, of course, is not perfect because it will not enable us to meet all the requests. But given our resources and the present situation in the country, I believe that we have struck a balance with this report. Once it will be implemented, we will certainly find flaws that we will be able to correct and we will also be able to improve on it. I hope that with time all our proceedings, particularly at the committees, will be broadcast, as is already the case here in the House of Commons.
I would also like to explain to those who listen to us, because we are talking to all our listeners, that the objective of this report is to inform Canadians and to keep them aware of all the activities of their members and of the Government of Canada. The idea is to make sure that Canadians are well informed, and there is no doubt that this costs money. Let us take the House of Commons. Right now, there are not very many of us in the House. But this is not to say that the members that are not here are not doing anything or are on vacation. They sit on committees, they attend meetings or they work in their offices. Our job does not only involve being here in the House and taking part in debates. There are other places where debates take place.
So it would now be appropriate to tell Canadians about the committees that exist. We often talk about committees, but I believe that we should name them and explain how they work. Their work is important. I will not go back and explain how they used to work, but right now our committees are divided into envelopes. For instance, the human resources sector includes among others, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, on which eight members sit, five representing the government, two representing the Official Opposition and one representing the New Democratic Party. There is also the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons; the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship; the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women; and the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
For each sector, there are also two legislative committees. Those are standing committees that can call ministers and that discuss the activities of departments. However, we have set up these legislative committees specifically to study bills after second reading to speed up the work of the House.
The other sector that I would like to tell you about is the natural resources envelope. That sector includes the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, the Standing Committee on Environment, the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, as well as two legislative committees.
There is also the economics envelope which includes the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, the Standing Committee on Finance-obviously this economics envelope must include the committee, on finance-the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development. There is also the transport committee, which is also very important, as well as two legislative committees.
Finally, there is the departmental envelope which includes the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations-


Don Boudria: A very good committee.


Alfonso Gagliano: My colleague does an exceptional job. There is, of course, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, the Standing Committee on Official Languages, as well as two legislative committees.
As you can see, we have many committees meeting from Monday to Friday while this House is sitting. Some even start earlier than the House at times. The Canadian people are not aware of the important work accomplished by these committees. I should point out that most of the time witnesses of national stature are invited. National groups come and testify before them to give members of both sides of this House very important suggestions on how to manage the country, how to look to the future, how Canada can become a more prosperous country on the cutting edge. And only members of this House and a few reporters- from the print media-are allowed to attend the meetings and take notes. On the other hand, the electronic media, such as radio and television, are not allowed in, except perhaps just before the meeting is called to order to get some footage for the evening news.
Regarding the committee report before us, there is no doubt that the members of this House, as every-

body else, would like complete coverage of committee proceedings so that people can get all the information they need. There is, however, a financial problem, a problem with the costs involved, but also with knowing which committee should take precedence over which, when, and so on. That is why we have concluded that the best thing would be to have a room, either here in Center Block, or in another building on Parliament Hill, equipped for the broadcasting of committee proceedings. It would then be up to this House, to the three parties, to our House leaders to get together, as we are doing now, and discuss the matter and come to a decision. A number of important things have happened over the past few years, including the repatriation of the Constitution, the Al-Mashat incident, and the GST. It is easy to recognize the great significance of an issue or a policy change such as those. Therefore, an agreement could easily be reached as to which committee should meet in a room equipped for the broadcasting of its proceedings. There will always be a committee whose proceedings will be broadcast.
Another step forward. Unfortunately, my various duties as Whip have prevented me-because I never want to be too far from the House-from travelling as extensively as some other members of the committee who have visited the Ontario Legislature to see how things are done there. It appears that there were some things to learn from that legislature, some innovative ideas. Committee members spent an entire day there and had a very nice welcome. The operation of the system was explained to them and they talked with members of the Ontario Legislature to determine whether some elements could apply here.
Another group of members visited the Quebec National Assembly also to check what kind of innovations could apply in this House.
These two visits were significant enough to allow the committee to draw conclusions and prepare the report being debated today, which has met with approval from all three political parties. I imagine that pretty soon we will be able to implement this new system.
As I was saying, part of the problem was solved by having one room permanently equipped for television broadcasting. For the other committees we decided to use the system they have at the Quebec National Assembly. I do not know whether the legislature in
Routine Proceedings
Toronto has the same system, but in Quebec City they have an audio system which provides a feed from all committee meetings. This feed is available to members in their offices, where they can listen to committee proceedings and there will also be a feed to the press gallery.
So we have made some progress. Once the report is adopted, we will have a room that is permanently equipped for broadcasting committee proceedings. However, it will be up to the House to decide whether broadcasting will be gavel to gavel, while all other committees will be able to provide an audio feed of their proceedings and debates.
I think perhaps it was not understood that the main objective was to televise the sittings of House committees, but I think we have made some very important progress. Once the report is adopted, we will be able broadcast major committee proceedings.
At the present time, all Canadians watch the debates of the House, including Oral Question Period, but very few people except for members, their assistants and a few journalists are aware of the important issues being discussed in more than 20 standing committees, in addition to the legislative committees. With this system, people will not only be able to listen to exchanges between members but also to testimony by experts and important groups in Canada which appear before those committees and provide further material for discussion, to help us improve our laws and improve the well-being of our young people, our children and grandchildren, so they can look toward to a decent future in this country.
Consequently, the committee first recommends that the audio feed provided by the House of Commons of public committee meetings be able to be recorded. The committee also recommends that the audio feed of all public committee meetings be made available to members of Parliament, their staffs and the Parliamentary Press Gallery on Parliament Hill, and be used for broadcasting purposes. So if the press wishes to do so, it can use the audio tape for its news reports.
Here are some more recommendations, and there are quite a few. The committee recommends that the House of Commons should initially equip one committee room for broadcasting, and the proceedings of all committees meeting in this room should be taped in full, made available to the media, and broadcast as part of the parliamentary channel.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I think that my colleague from York South-Weston just asked on which channel. I think that it will be on the parliamentary channel. So everything will always be broadcast on the parliamentary channel. Of course journalists will be able to use it for their news reports.
The fifth recommendation is as follows: the date of the committee meeting must appear on the screen at all times in legible print.
Here is the sixth recommendation: the decision as to which committees shall meet in this room will be made by the House leaders, or, if they are unable to agree, by the Standing Committee on House Management.
We know that according to tradition, our House leaders meet regularly to discuss and that they often reach consensus. So the House leaders will make the decision. If there is no agreement, the Standing Committee on House Management will decide which committee can sit in the room equipped for broadcasting.
The seventh recommendation is: all committees of the House of Commons, including standing, legislative and special committees, would be entitled to meet in the specially equipped room to have their meetings broadcast, provided that priority shall be given to those committees that do not have a special order from the House permitting any meeting or series of meetings to be broadcast.
Next, the eighth recommendation is as follows: the committee recommends that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended to provide as follows: "108.(3) The mandate of the Standing Committee on (a) House Management shall include, in addition to the duties set forth in Standing Order 104, and among other matters: (v) the review of and report on the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees".
I think that is very important, because it is something being added to the mandate of the standing committee of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I agree with everything that he said in terms of making sure our committees are reported on the same conditions as the House of Commons. What I do not understand is why they only want to have one committee room.
I share the view of the hon. member that probably the best work in this House of Commons is done in committee. One of the reasons why it is the best is that many expert witnesses from all over the country, sometimes from all over the world, appear before committees. Their testimony sometimes forms the basis of policy that is developed in this country.
If we only cover one committee, or have the capability of only covering one committee, I think we are going to end up creating two or three classes of legislative work. The camera equipment is obviously going to be a large capital cost in the beginning. Once we get over that hurdle it would not be that difficult to get another channel just to do committee work. Televising committee meetings is great training. It is great experience for people.
I ask my colleague who is an entrepreneur: why are we going at this thing in half measure? Why are we creating a situation where all of a sudden the only committee that is going to be televised is the finance committee because everyone wants to be on the finance committee? Then all of a sudden we have created two tiers of committees. When we were conducting the GST hearings in the finance committee there was a line-up. Everybody wanted to appear and everybody wanted to sit on the finance committee and they could not find anybody to do the other committees.
For example, yesterday we had a committee meeting on tourism and we could barely get a quorum. We had some of the best witnesses on tourism from all over the country; they were experts in their field. Even though tourism is an important issue we can bet our bottom dollar if in the next room over the finance committee was being televised that is where everyone would want to be.
March 27, 1992

My colleague is described by our House leader as one of those elite members of the management board. I ask him: Why do we not bite the bullet right now? If we are going to do this-and I am sure we will get unanimous support for this idea-let us not do it in half measure. Let us do all committees all of the time and let us get another parliamentary channel.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his questions and comments.
I said in my speech that the objective was to create an electronic Hansard for everything that is being done around this place. Unfortunately there are two considerations. First, this place does not move as fast as my hon. colleague and myself would like it to move. What we accomplished in this report is a step in the right direction.
Second, there is a major capital cost involved. It is not just to install cameras and some wires. I listed all the committees that we have. Aside from all the legislative and special committees, there are over 20 permanent committees sitting from Monday to Friday. People might think we have a lot of large rooms here, but according to the experts we were told that it would require major capital cost allowances for renovations. If we look at all the rooms that we have, most of our committee rooms do not have enough space. We have to remodel these rooms before we can install equipment.
We have to act fast. This thing was started years and years ago. We have had enough study. We have to start somewhere. We were told that if we wanted to start right away at least one room could be accommodated. We have at least one room where we do not have to do any alternations. We do not have to knock walls down, remove floors and so on. We just have to install some cameras and we have the cameras. Perhaps we will have to buy a couple of new ones, which is not a major expenditure. We could start right away. So that is what we went for.
We have something that is just the beginning. We hope that gradually over today and next week this report will be implemented. The management committee now has the mandate to supervise this new thing. If it is good and it needs some improvement, we will make it. In the meantime we will look to find other means, other rooms and other equipment, as much as we can.
Routine Proceedings
We know we are living in a very tight economic situation. As soon as we can move, we will definitely add more committee rooms which will be televised. I encourage my colleague to keep pushing members of the management committee like myself so that we can have more committee rooms equipped with television cameras like the first one we will be creating very soon.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the remarks and particularly the questions and comments- these last few moments regarding an indication and a willingness to televise the proceedings of this House and its committees as much as possible. I am just wondering if the hon. member can give me an assurance that we will be able to complete all those reports this afternoon which will allow us to do just that, to open up the process for private members, the cameras, and so on.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, who is also chairman of the House management committee, for his collaboration. We had a lot of meetings and he was very patient during them. He knows very well that it took almost a year before we arrived at this report. I am sure he would agree with me that we had a lot of time in the committee to hear witnesses, to ask questions and to get answers. But I am sure he would like to give an opportunity to all members who want to ask questions this afternoon. I think, if he is patient enough, he might get the report before the end of the day. That is the only commitment I can make so far.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion today to adopt the 23rd report of the broadcasting of committee meetings.
First of all let me say to the House that perhaps I will not take all of my 20 minutes to make these remarks but, then again, at the urging of some of my colleagues one never knows.
I should explain to members across the way the position of my colleagues in the Liberal Party and I on this issue. That is very important. Because of the importance of the committees, as the member for Saint-Leonard has said, it is very crucial that the broadcasting of committees take place.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I am pleased to say to the parliamentary secretary that I for one will definitely vote in favour of that motion when the time comes. I also want him to know that I agree with the decision of the management committee to review the experimental guidelines that will be in the report after a six-month trial period.
I had the opportunity in a previous incarnation, shall we say, to sit in the Ontario legislature where it was permitted-


John V. Nunziata: An excellent member you were.


Don Boudria: I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the very distinguished and learned member for York South-Weston for his complimentary words.
In the days when I was in the Ontario legislature a form of televising of committees was permitted. However it was not a particularly good way of doing it. At that time camera crews were allowed to walk into the room physically, cameras on their shoulders and someone else carrying the extended boom microphone. They would walk around the table between members, cameras on their shoulders, sometimes taking pictures of documents which a member might have been looking at.
I was not too crazy about that system, Mr. Speaker, as you can pretty well understand. If you were reading correspondence from Mrs. Smith explaining a particular constituency problem, you literally had to hide your papers when a camera was carried into the room.
I understand that system has been done away with now. Of course we are not going to do anything like that here. We have to respect the privacy not of the member-that is secondary-but of the information that members might have with them. We do carry around constituency cases, issues that we refer to for the purposes of making speeches, addressing committees, and so on. Frankly I do not think it is proper that the briefing notes we might have, or even personal correspondence or issues involving an individual Canadian, could be viewed via a particular report.
In addition, the committee rooms in the legislature would allow sound recording equipment everywhere.
Some members might be tempted to say: "What is wrong with that?" Here is what is wrong with it.
A reporter would walk into the room with a little cassette recorder, plunk it down in front of you in the committee room or between two MPs, perhaps even two MPs who did not have the floor at that particular time. You could not even whisper to your colleague beside you to ask his or her advice on the situation that you might be discussing because there was a dumb tape recorder between the two of you. Obviously again, not appropriate.
I do not object to allowing reporters to plug their microphones into the broadcast system of the committee. I do not object to that. It does not make any difference. It is all on the record anyway. Nor do I object, on an experimental basis, at some point in the future designating an area in one of our committee rooms, perhaps by having a stand of sorts.
If a camera crew wants to come in, they can film to their heart's content, providing they are on that particular podium where they have to be in order to take camera shots of the room. They should not disrupt witnesses, walk between people in the room, take pictures of documents on a table and so on. You can see how ridiculous a situation can get, and it was pretty far out at that particular time in the Ontario legislature.
I understand they have cleaned up that particular act and you can understand why they would want to. Basically, what we are advocating here is, hopefully, going to pass in the fullness of time once all my colleagues have had an opportunity to speak on this particular issue. What is proposed is to have one room in which there would be the televising of committees.
Some members say that that will only permit one committee to be televised. Not so, because obviously the same committee does not meet 12 hours a day. Committee meetings usually last about an hour and a half, some sit for two hours. For instance, if the finance committee wants to meet in that particular room from 9.30 a.m. to 11 a.m., it might do so. From 11 a.m. until 1 p.m., a second committee might use it and, after Question Period, another committee might meet from 3.30 p.m. to
March 27, 1992

5 p.m. in that particular room. Then perhaps, there might be another committee in the evening.
The point I am making is just because there is one room, it does not mean that only one committee meeting per day can be televised. Indeed, it could very well be, if the demand is there, that four or five different committees per day could be broadcast on television.
This is certainly a good start. I totally agree with the member for York South-Weston because he very astutely-he is always very astute, of course-pointed out earlier today that we should be conscious of the cost of doing this. That is, indeed, quite appropriate to bring up at this time.
By having just one room and utilizing it with greater frequency, I think it is a good marriage of the principle that we want Canadians to see many parliamentary committees on television, if that is what they want or if the media wants to obtain footage and so on of the proceedings of those committees. At the same time, we have to have due regard for the taxpayers and not develop something which will be too costly and that we cannot afford.
I congratulate the member for York South-Weston who brought up that point a little earlier this day. Indeed, he was quite correct as he usually is.

We are discussing the 23rd report of this committee. It might be good to review together the various recommendations made by this committee.
So here they are. The first recommendation is to allow the recording of the audio feed provided by the House of Commons for public committee meetings. I was just talking about that. It allows a journalist to connect his tape recorder to the committee sound system. Frankly, this is not a major development and it is easy to do. I definitely have the impression that media people cheated a little from time to time, that is, that they taped committee meetings before, even if it was not officially permitted.
I sometimes found it interesting to hear on the radio testimony given to a parliamentary committee which had been recorded while the committee was in session. Obviously this reporter or whoever it was had taped it
Routine Proceedings
without first getting permission. It must be said that the rule was perhaps a little out of date. So I see it as updating our rules.
Now I come to the second recommendation: that the audio feed of all public committee meetings be made available to members of Parliament, their staffs and the Parliamentary Press Gallery. I must say that this system exists or at least existed at Queen's Park as early as 1981; that is, you could tune in and find out what was going on in the various committee rooms. It involved a device, a loud speaker really, that was installed in the MPPs' offices. You just had to turn the dial and you could hear what was going on in committee rooms 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. When it was an important issue for the member in question, he could immediately go there and speak.
Some will say that this might lower attendance at committees, but I would say that the opposite will occur, because parliamentarians will be inclined to go to the committee room when important issues are being dealt with, which happens very often.
The committee also recommended that the House of Commons should initially equip one committee room for broadcasting. There is no need to repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, because I would not want to waste the House's time and bore you, so I will make my remarks very brief. I already gave my opinion on that.
Another point is that the recording of the committee proceedings will be undertaken by or on behalf of the House of Commons, and under the direct control and supervision of House personnel. I think that is also a good idea, but I would be inclined to go even further; that is, I would allow journalists to broadcast committee meetings in other rooms, provided that the cameras were set up in places prescribed in advance. I talked about that as well a little earlier. In any case, this is not dealt with in the report, but we might look into it in future.
The fifth recommendation is that the date of the committee meeting must appear on the screen at all times in legible print. The reason for that is important. Since the House of Commons channel will be used, it might be impossible to broadcast the committee live. So Canadians who are watching it on television will want to know whether it is a live broadcast or a tape from a day or two before. I think it is important to have that information on the screen.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Next, the sixth recommendation is that the decision as to which committees shall meet in this room will be made by the House leaders. That is a very good recommendation and I think an important point should be raised here. Despite what some people might think from time to time, parliamentarians are not always arguing strenuously. In general, there is good cooperation among the various parties in the House. For example, as you know, Mr. Speaker, most bills are passed in Parliament without a recorded division but by a simple oral vote. The opposition does not challenge everything, whatever people may think. When asking students in my riding whether they think the government introduces all the legislation and the opposition always votes against the government, the answer is always yes. Well that is not the case. In fact, the vast majority of bills are adopted by all sides of the House. Motions are adopted by unanimous consent practically every day by this Parliament, sometimes several times a day. This is something people are not generally aware of, and I think we should make this clear.
It will be up to the three House leaders to decide which committees will be broadcast from the new room specially equipped for this kind of activity. Incidentally, I do not know whether the room has already been chosen. I see the hon. member for Saint-Denis, who is an expert on the subject, and I hope it will be Room 237C, a very nice room on Parliament Hill which lends itself to this kind of thing and should be used more often.
I also wish to inform the hon. member for Saint-Denis, considering his expertise, that I think Room 237C could also be used by the media to broadcast their comments on the budget, for instance. I saw the scene in front of the House of Commons on budget day. There was an atrocious tangle of cables and wires of every description. People were crowded against each other. There were strangers all over the place, even in the entrance to the House of Commons. It was not a pretty sight. We should move whatever is done outside the House on budget day, or when we have other important speeches such as the Speech from the Throne, to Room 237C, which is a very nice room and will now be equipped for the TV cameras.
This was for the information of the hon. member for Saint-Denis. I know he is busy taking notes.
Finally, the committee's seventh recommendation is that all committees of the House of Commons, including standing, legislative and special committees, would be entitled to meet in the specially equipped room to have their meetings broadcast, provided that priority shall be given to those committees that do not have a special order from the House permitting any meeting or series of meetings to be broadcast, I think that is self-explanatory, because the room is used even when committee proceedings do not have to be broadcast on television.
This was a very brief explanation of the subject of today's debate, but I think it is important to know to what extent the motion is supported by members of this House. Today, several members spoke out in favour of this initiative, and I hope that other members, including my very distinguished colleague from York South- Weston, will find time to rise in the House before the end of the day and express their support for this motion.
I know that since this morning, the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas has been gearing up for a major speech on the subject. I hope there will be enough time to accommodate everyone who wishes to speak. If there is not enough time, perhaps we could continue this debate next week on Monday, Tbesday, Wednesday or Thursday. There are several days on which we could discuss these issues, and perhaps we could take a few more days and continue this important debate.
I am sure that many other members will also want to comment on this.
With this, I will conclude my brief comments on that subject. I will, of course, reiterate my support for this initiative and congratulate all the members of the Standing Committee on House Management for the excellent work they did in relation with report number 23.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell with great interest.
March 27, 1992

Routine Proceedings
I was particularly interested in his comments about televising certain committees. I certainly agree with that. The Canadian public wants the government to be more open. A good way to do that is to broadcast or televise certain committee deliberations. I say certain because there is a class factor here. We do have to think of the cost because this is the taxpayer's money. It would be great if we could televise the deliberations of all committees. I do not feel that is a practical thing to do because of the money involved.
As we all know in this House, committees do important work. Over the past number of years we have seen that committee work has become more important. As members of Parliament, we spend a great deal of time in those committees. If Canadians could watch the deliberations of these committees, they would have a greater understanding and knowledge of the issues and legislation that is before the House of Commons.
One committee I have the privilege to serve on is the conflict of interest legislative committee, an all-party committee made up of senators and members from the House of Commons. We meet every Tuesday and Thursday morning while the House is in session. We hope to have a report to the House by the end of June.
That committee is time-consuming but it is important. This whole topic of conflict of interest is one that is extremely important to the Canadian public. As you know, presently we do not have any legislation. We operate under a code that was brought in by the present Prime Minister.


An hon. member:: That is a joke.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Clearly, that code is inadequate. We need legislation. We need strict legislation but it has to be legislation that is workable and reasonable. As I said, I feel that the public would find the deliberations of that particular committee extremely interesting and important.


An hon. member:: Absolutely.


Catherine S. Callbeck: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is also a member of that committee. I would like to ask that member if he feels that the public would benefit a great deal by being able to watch the proceedings of the conflict of interest committee.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I want to congratulate her for the fine work
she is doing on that committee. I am sure that her constituents would be very, very impressed were they given the opportunity to see the work that is being done by that member and others on that committee.
More important is the fact that we have listened to very interesting witnesses. For example, yesterday we had the Chief Electoral Officer for Canada before our committee. He answered questions for two hours in a very forthright manner. He was an excellent witness before our committee. We had the Assistant Deputy Registrar General for Canada. We had the Administrator of the Conflict of Interest Rules for the province of Ontario, le jurisconsulte du Quebec and other witnesses like that.


An hon. member:: Judge Parker.


Don Boudria: Justice Parker. You remember Justice Parker, Mr. Speaker, of the Parker commission of inquiry into the activities of Mr. Sinclair Stevens. I am sure everyone remembers that. Perhaps I can refresh the memory of members as to that issue. On second thought, maybe I should not. I will leave it at that. We had Mitchell Sharp and very, very many other such witnesses. They gave very good recommendations, not always identical but that is the job of our committee, to sift through all of that and arrive at legislation that will be workable yet tough.
My colleague brings a very good point. It has to be workable. There is no point in bringing a set of rules that is going to be breached by everyone. Of course you could argue it is not just the rules that have to be changed; it is the mindset of some people who are supposed to be living by rules and seemingly have some difficulty in doing so. That is a matter to be discussed some other time. The point my colleague was making is excellent. Canadians could see what we are doing in that committee. It is important work. They could view the witnesses, the advice they gave us. Of course they would feel, I am sure, that we are trying to repair some of that damage to our institution that has happened over recent years and trying to clean up what has happened. That is perhaps the very first committee that should be televised with the new rules we are discussing today and will be adopting very, very soon, as soon as all of our colleagues have finished making their excellent comments in regard to the motion that is at hand.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my friend and colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, for his very kind words. Needless to say, I ought to reciprocate and comment on his distinguished service over the last eight years, both in the House and at committee. The member speaks with considerable experience, having not only represented his constituents of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell with such distinction for the last eight years, but also having represented them at Queen's Park. He knows of what he speaks. He has participated very actively behind the scenes in order to ensure that somehow we help regain some of the lost respect for this institution. No doubt the member agrees that this will assist in some small way.
I am concerned, however, that this committee report does not go far enough. I know the member commented about it. Certainly the government has to take responsibility for not going as far as we would like this report to go. It seems to me that even with the adoption of this particular report, much of the work done by hon. members at committee will go unreported and unnoticed because only one committee can be televised at a time. The House leaders, as I understand, will have to determine which of the committees is deserving of support in order to occupy the room where the television cameras will be.
Yesterday I was at a committee. It was an employment sub-committee meeting. One of my colleagues had presented a private member's motion to amend the Employment Act in order to create some fairness to the act. It seems to me that the House leaders would not agree that that particular committee ought to be televised because it is not an issue of so-called national importance. Yet it is an issue that will affect a great number of Canadians.
Can the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell respond to the fact that the government has not gone all the way in terms of the media. I know he responded in his submissions as to the reasons why the media should be allowed to go into any of the committee rooms, but would he not agree that there could be some ground rules established where the media would be restricted from going beyond a certain point in a committee room so that their cameras could enter a committee room but not go beyond say the last 10-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I regret the hon. member will not have time.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to participate in this debate this afternoon. As has been indicated by many of the previous speakers, many of my colleagues, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the hon. member for Saint-Leonard, I was a member of the management committee that came up with this report.
I want to say that this report in my view represents a very significant compromise on the part of the members of the committee who were very concerned that the government live up to the undertakings and obligations that it assumed when it changed the rules of this House almost a year ago.
I was privy to the negotiations that led to those rule changes. I am sure Your Honour recalls very well that the government introduced a resolution to make significant changes to the Standing Orders of this House, which motion was debated and then forced through. I believe closure was applied to the motion.
My friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell perhaps remembers but I think closure was applied on that motion and the government had to use almost force of arms to get these changes through the House because it would not negotiate to a conclusion on the proposed changes.


An hon. member:: Shame on the government.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It was a shame. I think there were genuine efforts made at agreement but the government was so bent on certain changes and so unwilling to continue discussions for an extended period that it ultimately came up with its own resolution and rammed a bunch of forced changes through the House.
Of course, many of these changes are being undone. In fact, one of the other motions that the parliamentary secretary wanted to debate this afternoon, which he is going to have to postpone for a while, made changes to the legislative committees. I well recall the discussion in the negotiations when we told him that these were unworkable, but he insisted that the government wanted to proceed with that any way they would work. He was going to make them work. He was going to force the
March 27, 1992

Routine Proceedings
House to change and accommodate itself to the new rules that he was proposing.
Of course, we all know now it did not work. The members of his own party have rebelled against the changes and so we are now going back to the previous arrangements and that will probably get passed some other time.
In the meantime, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has called this particular motion for concurrence in this report dealing with television in committees. I want to say that in the course of the changes that he rammed through the House a year ago, there was a negotiated change made with respect to committees. In fact, there were a whole lot of changes with respect to committees.
One of the things that I insisted on in the negotiations as a price for agreement on some of the changes to the committees was the televising of committees. The television was to be allowed at the discretion of the committee itself. The agreement was embodied in a change to Standing Order 119(1). I would like to read to the House the terms of the Standing Order which we agreed to and which the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader specifically agreed to as part of those negotiations and which Standing Order change was incorporated in the government motion that proposed those changes to the House. Standing Order 119.1(2) states:
The Standing Committee on House Management shall establish, by report to the House of Commons, experimental guidelines governing the broadcasting of committee meetings. After concurrence by the House in such a report, any committee may permit the presence of the electronic media at its meetings, subject to the said guidelines.
It is perfectly clear. The purpose of the new Standing Order was to allow the house management committee to draft a set of guidelines by committees which, on adoption by the House, allowed any committee to make a decision to allow the electronic media into its meetings subject to the guidelines.
This report falls far short of that undertaking given by the parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader on behalf of his boss, the government House leader. In fact, this report is a complete change from the provisions of that Standing Order. That Standing Order, in effect, is being left as a meaningless piece of English.
It was a firm commitment made by this government in the course of the negotiations as a price for our agreement to certain other changes to the Standing Orders and then rammed through this House and is now being reneged upon after the House has passed an order adopting the agreement. That is what this is. It is a breach of undertaking, it is a breach of obligation and it is a flagrant abuse of trust.
I say that the report that we are left to deal with today, while it has its strengths, is not what the Standing Orders called for. It is not what the government promised as a price for our concurrence to some of the more odious rule changes that it adopted.
Of course, we ended up having to fight the rule changes in their entirety because they were not in accordance with the agreement, but that particular one was. That agreement was obtained because of the request put forward by me, on behalf of our party. I believe it was fully concurred in by the hon. member for Kamloops who was involved in those negotiations on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
I regret that the government cannot live up to an undertaking. I think it is a shocking way to proceed and I am very sorry that has happened.
Having said that, what has the government proposed in exchange? I wish the chairman of the committee had come on these committee meetings to Toronto and to Quebec City, but the chairman saw fit to do neither. As a result, I suggest he has got himself into trouble with this report.
Had he come he might have seen how systems have worked in these other two legislatures. In Toronto they had a system similar to that described in this report. There is a single room established for committee hearings that are to be televised. Committees apply for leave to sit in that committee room where the proceedings will be televised. As long as there is no conflict they may go and use the room. If two or more committees apply to sit in the room at the same time there is a decision-making

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
mechanism to decide which committee will go and sit in the room.
Essentially that is what we have here. The difference is that there are far more standing committees in this House than there are in the Ontario Legislature. There is a far greater regional diversity of interest in this House than there is in the Ontario Legislature and for that reason, there will be greater demands for the use of the single room.
In addition, adoption of this report does nothing to ensure that the room will in fact be made available. That requires the expenditure of public funds. The funds will have to be found by the Board of Internal Economy, set aside, made available, the work completed, the room established, the television costs, costs of preparing the televised proceedings will have to be borne by the House, and so on. It is a major financial commitment amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Unfortunately, it is by no means clear that this particular development will occur between now and the end of 1992 or indeed before the end of this Parliament.
In other words, adoption of this report may do nothing to further the televising of committees. It may be that it is simply an exercise in futility. I am optimistic it would not be, but I have no reason to believe that the government, complaining as it does about the high cost of Parliament, will loosen the purse strings for the purposes of this report.
I am wondering if we have some undertaking for what it may be worth, from the government House leader with respect to the funding of this proposal. We have heard nothing from him so far and certainly his parliamentary secretary is unable to give any undertaking. I suggest it would not be worth much either based on the previous undertakings we have had from him in respect of these rule changes.
The other aspect of this report that is of interest to the House and to members is the one that allows for radio broadcast of the committee proceedings.
It now appears that when a committee sits, its proceedings which are currently recorded and placed on tape will now be made available by a radio system throughout this building, in fact throughout all the parliamentary precincts.
In other words, a member who is unable to be present at a committee meeting would be able to tune into the
proceedings of the committee on radio. That may not tell him exactly who it is that is speaking at all times, although I understand there is some kind of announcement that comes on that so-and-so has the floor. But at least the proceedings will be relatively intelligible to members of the House and their staffs who are able to listen, and of course to the media who through their various tapping sources in the building, legitimate tapping sources I want to say, will be able to record those proceedings and then use them for subsequent broadcast.
In other words, all committees will have radio coverage but none will have TV coverage, at least until such time as the special committee room is established.
Why we would favour one of the electronic media over the other is a mystery to me. I have had no explanation from the hon. member for York Simcoe in his speech as to why radio would be favoured over television. But that apparently is the aim of this report, to give the broadcast media different rights. Audio feed will be available, visual feed will not be available, except from the one room whenever it happens to be established.
I suppose we can be thankful for small mercies. I suspect that the opening up of the committees to radio is of some assistance and certainly will be helpful for news broadcasters and the radio media.
It is also possible that an imaginative television crew taking videos as they do of a committee about to start its meeting could play the sound of the committee over the photographs of the members sitting around the table, and thereby make at least some semblance of sense out of what it cannot otherwise do. But I fear that the approach is one that is sadly lacking.
I am sorry that we have only been able to go this far. But, as indicated by the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, we in this party are prepared to support the changes as far as they go. But I think the chairman of our committee knows full well my profound regret at the failure to live up to the commitments made that I outlined earlier in my speech.
The arrangement that is here for meetings and which was referred to by my very learned colleague from York South-Weston whereby the House leaders may make a decision in respect of the committees that may meet, in the special room, I suggest is one that needs to be dealt with.
March 27, 1992

The arrangement intended by the committee is quite clear. If a committee of which he is a member applies to sit in the room and no other committee is sitting at that time, his committee will sit in the room and will be televised.
It is a decision of his own committee to decide to go there. If his committee applies to sit in the room at, say ten o'clock next Tuesday morning and no other committee is sitting at ten o'clock next Tuesday morning, then no doubt his committee will sit in the room at ten o'clock next Tuesday morning.
That is just the way it will operate. It is intended to go to the House leaders only when the committees do not agree. It is intended that way, but I agree the wording is not the way it should be and that is cause for concern. For instance, if two committees apply at ten o'clock, the chairmen would be expected to get together and resolve the matter.
They would have a discussion. One would say: "We can move our meeting to 11.30 a.m. to accommodate you. Let's do it that way. The slot is open at 11.30 a.m." That is what would happen. If the committee chairmen are unable to agree, they would apply to the House leaders, and if agreement could not be obtained there, then there would be a decision made in the management committee.
Clearly, with its majority on that committee, the government would control the management committee decision. That is the last resort. The idea is it would be settled elsewhere.
I agree that the wording of the committee recommendation leaves the decision in the hands of the House leaders. But it was not intended that the decision, as I understood it and as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader can clarify in his remarks, as to which committees sit be made by them. It was only in the event of a dispute that the decision was to be made by them. Perhaps that was his intention all along.
It was clear that all committees could sit there, but in addition, any committee could apply to have all its
Routine Proceedings
proceedings or part of its proceedings televised. It could obtain that consent by order of the House.
For example, if he, as a member of the employment and immigration committee, and his committee were to undertake a study of the ruinous effects of Bill C-21 on unemployment insurance in Canada, which I suggest it do, it might apply to the House for an order seeking the televising of its proceedings in respect of that undertaking.
So all committee meetings dealing with the ruinous effects of Bill C-21 which the government introduced a couple of years ago and forced through this House, if the committee undertook that kind of hearing, then obviously he could apply through the committee structure to the House for an order for the televising of those proceedings.
I think that much is clear. That is still permitted both under the Standing Orders of the House, of course, and under the committee recommendations. There is no problem with that arrangement.
The special room deals only with those committees that seek to be televised for only one or two of their meetings because many committees, of course, will not want to be televised.
I should say in fairness that the experience in the Ontario Legislature is that the room is in fact not used all the time. After an initial flurry of interest, many committees have decided against proceeding with the televising of most of their proceedings. Accordingly, the room is not used 24 hours a day or anything like that. It is not used even 12 hours a day. The use has dwindled off. There is some interest, but it is not overwhelming on the part of all committees. I strongly suspect that the experience in this Chamber would be similar to that.
While we have profound regrets about what this report does not contain, we are prepared to support what is here. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to add a few words to the debate on this important subject.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member can clarify in terms of whether the proceedings of committees that participate in what he refers to as the special room will go live to the nation.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
We heard earlier, for example, that that is not exactly the case. If the House is sitting, the proceedings of this House will take precedence and the proceedings of a committee will, for the most part, take place later on when the House adjourns or when the House is not sitting.
Can he confirm that? Perhaps the member can also confirm what the cost will be to the taxpayers of Canada to implement this particular report of the House management committee. Earlier, the government member on the committee was unable to indicate the exact cost.
It seems that what the committee is asking for is approval in principle. The details of the implementation of this particular report really have not worked out. I am wondering whether this report might be somewhat premature in that the technical details have not been worked out.
While he is on his feet can the hon. member comment on the response of the parliamentary press gallery. Did it make submissions to the House management committee on this particular issue? If so, can he share with the House what those submissions were?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his series of questions. I hope I can answer them in the time I have available to me.
First, with respect to the time of broadcast which I think was his first question, it is anticipated that committee proceedings recorded while the House is sitting would not be broadcast at the same time.
I think he would agree that this House in its deliberations ought to be the primary focus of the parliamentary channel. It ought to be what is broadcast first and foremost. To the extent that committees sit while the House is sitting, which is the bulk of committee hearings, they could not be broadcast at the same time as the House is sitting. They would be recorded and played at a later time. The question is whether they would be played later in the evening or on weekends, or played in the weeks when Parliament is not sitting.
There is a series of options. The play back could obviously take place on more than one occasion. I suspect that it might be worthwhile from an editorial point of view to lump committee proceedings together so
that on a particular day we would play a series of meetings of the finance committee or the employment and immigration committee, rather than one meeting of one committee, then one of another, and one of yet another. This would allow the public to see some line of questioning and work carried on in the committees over a period of time.
The proceedings of this House are rebroadcast after the day's proceedings have ended. That has been a veiy popular move with the people who watch the parliamentary channel, of which there are many in Canada, perhaps surprisingly. I hear constant comments in favour of the repeat performance. Members of the public who watch often do so in the evening, particularly in the western provinces where the broadcast occurs relatively early in the day. It provides an opportunity for people to see Parliament which they otherwise would not have without taping the proceedings.
Time of broadcast is going to be a tough question. In fact, in my view it underscores the need for a thorough review of the parliamentary channel to see if some arrangement cannot be made for wrap-around programming which would include those committee broadcasts which are recorded during the day.
The trick will be to find a time for broadcasting that accommodates all hon. members given the wide geographic range of the country and the various time zones, which will obviously impact on that decision.
Second, he asked about cost. Cost analysis was in fact available to the committee. He will have to pardon me because I do not have much of a head for figures. I know it is a significant cost. There is certain camera equipment that will have to be acquired. Certain rooms on the Hill are now wired for this purpose and the wiring costs will be fairly minimal. All the rooms are now wired for sound and the sound part of the recommendation, which is the installation of radios in members' offices, is a peanut item. It will cost about $100,000 in total for the acquisition of the radios and their installation.


John V. Nunziata: So it is not on TV?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Not on TV. That is just the radio part. Remember that committees will only be broadcast on the radio unless they are in the special room.


John V. Nunziata: Isn't the sound going through TV?
March 27, 1992


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I believe the sound will go through TV but some kind of adapter has to be purchased which will sit on top of the television to make it possible for the member to move from one channel to another to pick up the sound from the different rooms.
That piece of equipment has to be purchased for all the offices on the Hill. It is a one-time cost once purchased and installed and it is all available. It is relatively inexpensive equipment but there are so many to purchase.
As I recall the cost of that is around $100,000, but my head for figures is not a good one. I urge the hon. member to check the committee proceedings if he has doubts about it.
The cost of setting up the room is another matter. The cameras have to be purchased for that room. There will have to be some structural adjustments made to the room so that we benefit from the fact that it is being televised. The current layout of committee seating in a square will probably have to be changed somewhat to make it easier to do television work in the room. It is thought that the cameras should be in fixed positions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has another questioner.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: There are so many questioners left. I will do my best to answer them. I think I have the time. I will try to get to the hon. member in a minute.


An hon. member:: There may not be time.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Maybe not, but I am doing my best.
The third was the question of the press gallery and its views on this.


John V. Nunziata: Did it appear before the committee?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes, I can say to the hon. member for York South-Weston that the press gallery did appear before the committee. It did make submissions. It pressed for televising committees in an open way, as appeared to have been recommended and required by the Standing Order change forced through the House last May or June. It expected to have television access to committees. This does not meet the requests of that group. It does allow for televising of some committees. I
Routine Proceedings
am sure that will please the members who came, but it does not go as far as anticipated.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to put a question forward to my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Maybe we could have unanimous consent instead of debate.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I put the question to my colleague from Montreal earlier. It concerns that portion of this recommendation that would suggest that we only televise some of these committee meetings. That continues the process which goes on around here under which there is almost a two-tier system. If you are part of the tactical operations team that prepares for Question Period every day then obviously you tend to get a regular slot on Question Period. If you are not part of that tactical team then-


John V. Nunziata: The elite.


Dennis Joseph Mills: My colleague from York South-Weston calls it the elite.


John V. Nunziata: The different ones.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Some people say "the ins and the outs". At any rate, you can go for as long as a year. I have had a grand total of two questions in Question Period during the last year in the House. As a result I receive many phone calls from my constituents asking: "Why do you never get to ask questions? You are never there. Do you not do any work in Ottawa? Where are you coming from?" I have to try to explain.
I do not explain that there are the "ins and the outs" because they would never believe that. I do explain that there are other things going on here in Ottawa, such as committee work and other exercises, just as important to advancing the debate in general. Of course, there are these debates in the afternoons and evenings. In other words, there are a lot of activities going on in this parliamentary system that have nothing to do with Question Period.
My friend from Ottawa South and I were on Doug Fisher's Sunday afternoon show about two months ago and he asked us what things we would change. If there is one thing I could change around here I would eliminate the televising of Question Period. I think that Question Period gives the people of Canada the wrong impression about the kind of work that goes on in this Parliament of Canada.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Granted, today's debate is not an exciting one for the people of Canada. It is a process debate more than anything. When we are using the full Chamber I would much rather be talking about something related to the economy and getting people back to work. However every now and again we have a process debate about changing the structure of this place, so we ask Canadians to bear with us today. Obviously when there is such deep economic pain going on out there it is tough for people to understand why we are spending this much time on this bill.
If we are going to really reform this House of Commons we cannot just televise some of those committee meetings because once again we are going to have a two-tier system. It is sort of like the star system. My colleague from York South-Weston and I talk about this all the time. People organize events for the stars. The bottom line in this Chamber is that we are all equal. It does not matter whether you are on the finance committee, culture and communications, or environment, all that work is just as important as the next committee. To have a situation in which we are only going to have one committee being televised does not make sense to me.
The argument I heard earlier was that we only have one room around here to take television and we are going to have to make renovations. My goodness, each of us has a caucus room that is large enough for television. There is the railway committee room. There are more rooms around here that could hold television. This idea of not having the rooms is not accurate.
If we do advance with this motion-and I understand most parties are onside with it-I would ask for an amendment that we do not set up the two-tier or the three-tier system and that we cover all the committees. As I mentioned earlier today, tourism is the biggest job creator in this country. We had a committee meeting yesterday and we could barely get a quorum. We had eight tourism experts there from all over the country. This is another thing that Canadians do not realize. These committee meetings are not just MPs talking to each other and debating aspects of bills. Some of the best and brightest minds, not only in our country but in the world, come and give testimony at these committee meetings.
I do not know how the House would differentiate. Are we going to have the finance committee televised but
decide that the environment is not important? Would you want to be the member of Parliament who voted against televising what we discuss in the environment committee? I would not. Would you want to be the member of Parliament who voted against televising something that happened in culture and communications?
We have the rooms. We have the talent here. There are a few TV cameras and we already have the sound systems set up. If we are going to do this, let us do it correctly. Somebody will say that we do not have the time on the parliamentary channel. Most Canadians would never accept that. We can easily get another channel, that is an easy thing to do.
However, there is another factor. Look at all the repeat time on the parliamentary channel. Half the time it is music and the agenda for the following week. On the weekend there are 48 hours of nice background music on a continuous loop.
There are a number of us in this House who have requested the use of the parliamentary channel during the repeat portion of the day for the week of the 5th to 12th to televise the young hockey tournament at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto. We did get the consent of all members of the House, and we hope the CRTC will accommodate us. If Canadians could see something more productive happen on that parliamentary channel, rather than just watching the credits roll or the agenda of the following week, plus the nice music, I do not think Canadians would object to that. In fact, I think they would probably appreciate us using our brains and not being so apathetic about leaving that rotation of music and menu going.
I am all for this but I am not for the half measure. People today are really a lot smarter than we sometimes give them credit for. By putting those committees on television, not only are we going to show up on time, we are going to have our questions prepared and the committees are going to become more important than Question Period.
Right now Question Period is what drives the national journalists of this country. Now there will be real, honest thinking going on by the press gallery of this country. Right now, as most people know, the press gallery comes in and basically tries to get that 10-second clip, that 20-second clip from that little sparring match that goes
March 27, 1992

on in Question Period which has absolutely nothing to do with the reality and the substance and the depth of the debate that goes on in all these various committees.
By putting television in all these committees, there probably will be a lot more work for the journalists. Then the people of Canada will be able to judge for themselves whether or not the journalistic interpretation is accurate. Right now it is all blind faith with the national media. Quite frankly, from where I sit, what I see in this House and what I see in committee very rarely represents what I read in the newspapers or the clip I will see on national television. So often they are taking things out of context.
It is going to make for a much better debate and be much more challenging. It is going to make our work a lot rougher and tougher because our preparation is going to have to be a lot better.
I do not support the half measure of this motion. I support the idea of opening up all these committees and televising them. I really think if it is going to set up a system where it is only select committees that are being televised, then I think it is going to hurt the cause more than help it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood for making his submission. He has probably saved the House some time because I will not have to repeat all the things that he said. I find myself often agreeing with what he is saying.
It seems to me at times that we in this House live in the dark ages. It is time we started to conduct our business in a more open fashion.
Later today we will be considering another report of the committee that will allow television cameras to pan what is happening in the House. For example, if that report were to carry, we would be able to see representatives of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party negotiating some type of deal here in terms of whether or not this report-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is such a thing as relevancy. If the hon. member wants to ask a question of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, I will allow it. Otherwise, I will go to debate. The hon. member for York South-Weston.
Routine Proceedings


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, let me put this question to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. In terms of opening up Parliament so that the public can know what is going on here, would the member not agree that we should leave it up to the parliamentary press gallery to determine what to broadcast from the happenings on the Hill, that all proceedings should be open both to radio and television, and we should let the profitable media outlets in this country determine which committees they want to cover?
It seems to me that they would, if allowed, pool their resources and have television cameras in each of the committee rooms. Then they would decide which proceedings they want to use in their nightly newscasts. As well, the parliamentary channel can use the single feed that goes into each of the committee rooms. Someone would have to make the decision on what feed to use whenever the House is not sitting and all the dead time is on the parliamentary channel to make sure that that information goes to the parliamentary channel. So would the member agree that that is what should happen?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I must say to my colleague, the member for York South-Weston, that I agree with him totally. That is a brilliant idea. I never thought of that. In other words, what he is saying is that we would not have to purchase the cameras and we would just let Global, CBC, CTV, MTV, whichever it is, set up its own camera system and just exchange, the same way it is done when sharing the Olympics.
My goodness, that is a brilliant idea and, quite frankly, there is absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. Why would we not do something like that? The physical space is here. If all of sudden we wanted to televise something in the railway committee room we could do it. I know that the cameras come into our caucus rooms from time to time so the physical plant is there and it is ready to go. I think the member for York South-Weston is right on. In that way we are actually not interfering in any way with free enterprise. They can cut their own deal among themselves. All we are saying is that they are free to cover the hearings, which they are able to do as print journalists anyway.


John V. Nunziata: You seem surprised, Mr. Speaker, that there might be some members of Parliament who might be interested in debating this matter.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, I am not
surprised, except the hon. member has been on questions and comments all the time and I figured he wanted another question or comment.


John V. Nunziata: As you may know, Mr. Speaker, we are paid a handsome salary around here and I am simply earning my keep today by participating in the debate on this particular recommendation.
I am sure my constituents are not really familiar with the House management committee. What we are debating is report No. 23 of the House management committee. What is the House management committee, one might ask?
The House management committee-and it is becoming more open as time progresses-consists of certain members of Parliament from each of the political parties. It is the committee that, up until recently, was very secretive. The members of that committee decide how to run this place. They decide on such matters as the parliamentary restaurant, shoe shine facilities, framing, all the expenditures associated with the operation of the House of Commons.


An hon. member:: Haircuts too.


John V. Nunziata: Haircuts as well. As you know, Mr. Speaker, you and I do not often use the parliamentary barber. It is really not a necessity for us. But yes, the committee decides the price of haircuts, shaves and everything else in the rooms downstairs.
This committee is generally made up of senior members of each of the caucuses. For example, the member for Saint-Denis is a member of that committee. He is the dean of the House of Commons. The member for Kingston and the Islands is a member of the committee, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and the assistant parliamentary whoever he is on the other side of the House. These are part of the A team in the House of Commons. The member for Broadview-Greenwood referred to them as the elite. They are a group of people who have some authority around here.
There are others in this House-the member for Broadview-Greenwood and myself-who are not part of that inner circle of individuals. Yes, we are part of the B team, and the member from Chambly is also part of the B team on the New Democratic Party side.
Now and again we have the opportunity to consider some of the decisions made by the House management committee. One of the decisions made by that committee is presented in report No. 23 entitled: Broadcasting of Committee Meetings.
As the day has progressed, we have been dealing only with report No. 23, but we also have a series of other reports, report No. 22, report No. 24 and report No. 27. The members' representatives from the House management committee have been meeting behind the curtain, at times on this side of the House and a few moments ago on the other side of the House. They are trying to work out some type of deal to ensure that some of these reports are carried and others are not. So there is some negotiating going on behind the scenes and of course the people who are watching are not aware of the negotiations that are going on.
They ought to know how Parliament operates because when negotiating goes on behind the scenes, it breeds- if I can say it, Mr. Speaker-contempt or suspicion about what is going on. In this House management committee the elite from each of the three major political parties-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member and I thought he might appreciate if I brought those negotiations on to the floor where people can see. We have offered on this side to give concurrence to all of these reports that are, in fact, an all-party unanimous agreement from that particular committee. Will he get together with his members and support it?


Don Boudria: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to be negotiating in public is not a point of order. After all, I could describe the position of his own House leader on some of these motions, and so on but I will not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think that we should just carry on with debate. The hon. member for York South-Weston has the floor.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps the members on the House management committee can go have a cup of coffee and continue their negotiations.
March 27, 1992


An hon. member:: We'll miss your speech.


John V. Nunziata: You can listen to my speech on the TV behind the curtains.
But let us get serious for a moment. The whole purpose behind report No. 23 is to open up parliamentary committees in order to give the public greater access to committees. The way to do it, in my respectful submission, is to go all the way, open up committee proceedings both to radio and to television.
Right now any member of the public can come to Parliament Hill and take part in any of the committee meetings that take place. They can attend committee hearings, the committee hearings are open.
Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of Canadians do not have access to Parliament Hill because they do not happen to live in the Ottawa area and they have to rely on television and the news media in order to obtain information about what goes on in Parliament.
If the goal is to open up Parliament, to show Canadians exactly what happens on Parliament Hill, we ought to give access to all committees. But the House management committee is saying that it is going to give access to those who can hear, we are going to give radio or audio access to all the committees, which is a good move, an excellent move and everyone can hear what is going on. But, for some reason, the House management committee does not want to allow Canadians to see what is going on at committees.
As I stand here, there is a rule of the House of Commons that says that the person who is operating that camera can only shoot me from the waist up. It is a very tight shot. You cannot see very much this way or very much that way. The public does not know what is going on in this House of Commons. The public does not know how many people are sitting here in the House of Commons. These are very restrictive rules in terms of what can happen and what type of image can be seen on television.
The person operating the camera cannot take a wideangled shot of the House to see what is going on in the House because the House management committee has decided that is not appropriate. It only wants the public to see a certain amount of what goes on in the House of Commons. You have to ask yourself why. I suppose there are arguments on both sides. One thing I do not agree with is restricting people from seeing what goes on at
Routine Proceedings
committees. I do not understand why the House management committee is refusing to allow the media access to committees, allowing cameras. For example, they may make the argument that it might be chaotic, that if each of the television stations wants access to the committee rooms, you might have 10 to 15 cameras. That is nonsense because at the end of Question Period every day, out in the lobby of the House of Commons, there are two stationary cameras.
All the news media pool their resources. There is a stationary microphone, one camera, one on the opposition side, another on the government side. Individuals can be interviewed in front of those cameras and in front of those microphones. The video is available to all the television stations because there is a single feed. The member for Broadview-Greenwood referred to the Olympics where you do not have 50 million television cameras taking a video of each of the events. There is a pooling of resources and any television station that wants to use the images can use them.
The point I am making is let us leave it up to the members of the parliamentary press gallery so they can pool their resources. They are profit-making organizations. They would love nothing better than to be able to televise committees. Leave it up to them. In each of the committee rooms they would establish stationary cameras, two or three in each committee room, with a microphone. They could feed off the audio. In that way, any television station would have the opportunity to use the video from each of the committee hearings in order to facilitate the dissemination of what goes on here on Parliament Hill.
As the member for Broadview-Greenwood indicated in his submissions a few moments ago, members of the public have a distorted sense of what goes on here on Parliament Hill. The only thing they see when they are flipping through their channels is a single member of Parliament standing up. Sometimes if it is an important speech, the seats behind the member of Parliament will be occupied to give the impression that the House is full, when in effect the House is not full.
They see Question Period on the nightly news. They see people in a very partisan way. They see members of the opposition asking questions of the government, both sides being very partisan. What is absent from the information that goes out to the public is what goes on at committees, all the fine work that is being done on a daily basis at committee.

March 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings
As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and others have indicated, it is not only members of Parliament who participate at committees. We have very distinguished Canadians who appear before various committees. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out that the Chief Electoral Officer, just to give an example, was present at the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons looking into the conflict of interest piece of legislation. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I are members of that committee. Over the course of the last months, we have met every Tuesday and Thursday morning for two or three hours hearing witnesses. We have had a lot of excellent witnesses before committee. The news media has not had access to that committee. If the proceedings of that committee were televised and that information shared with Canadians, Canadians could listen to officers of Parliament and other Canadians who come to committee to give evidence.
I urge the House management committee to reconsider its position on report No. 23. Rather than restricting it to a single room, whether it be the railway committee room or the reading room, it ought to open up the entire committee process to the parliamentaiy press gallery. It ought to let it bear the cost and it will bear the cost because that is part of its responsibility. Its mandate is to disseminate information from Parliament Hill.
If you allow committees to be open, they will fill the void. They will be there. Taxpayers will be spared considerable expense because it will be the national news media that will pay the cost of installing the pool cameras in each of the committee rooms.
Then, the House of Commons can use that feed, the video, to fill in the gaps on the parliamentary channel which is on every television set in the country that has cable TV. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that when you return to your riding in Edmonton you may be watching TV on a weekend and you may be flicking through the channels. When you hit the parliamentary channel, you get this soft music and these words that continually appear on the channel.
Would you not rather see the member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell questioning some important witness at an important committee than dead time? When you do
not see anything on the parliamentary channel, Canadians are not benefiting. They are not being educated as to what goes on here on Parliament Hill.
The House could use the feed from committee to fill in that parliamentary channel continuously, 24 hours a day. People may not want to watch, they do not have to watch, but at least the opportunity would be there on a 24-hour basis for the information and activity that goes on in committee to be disseminated to Canadians.
Those are my submissions. I hope that the distinguished members of the House management committee, the chosen ones, the fortunate ones, those on the A team, the elite of the House of Commons, will reconsider the report, go back to the bargaining table and open up Parliament to the public.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, some of us are accused of being the chosen ones. So be it. Someone has to do the job. We were assigned to do a job.
I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for chairing the members and management committee. I want to pay homage to the hon. member for York-Sim-coe who has been very patient, especially with this 23rd report.
I would like to have answered in detail the comments of my esteemed colleague from Toronto, but call on him to realize that the progress toward what he has mentioned with passion, and with knowledge most likely is an immense step. It is a good step in the right direction, this 23rd report.
I am committed publicly. I wish to pass this report today, this one and a couple of others if we can get enough agreement. I was under that impression and I would like to say it openly. We worked very long on this report that the House of Commons and our colleagues gave us the mandate for on April 1, 1991.
My colleague must realize that we spent a lot of money on this report. I have no anger toward his comments. I listened to his comments. We have had witnesses who came to the committee and made the points that my hon. colleague just did. Therefore, we offer the best now. I ask him to let this bill go. Why? Because he will be surprised at the immense difficulty that we will encounter just to start having a full room.

Yesterday we were talking about the budget of the House of Commons. You cannot have it both ways, spending on one side, saying we want everything to be done, and then at the same time being accused across the country of spending too much money.
It is the best report. My colleague would like that report because you cannot ask every committee first. The cost would be astronomical, as we say in the report. We are on our way to what the hon. member has said in his rather strong criticism of the report.
I wish he would believe me when I say this is honest work by a committee that went to Toronto and to Quebec City to see how it was done there. The immediate instantaneous radio that you will get in your office may not have been well expressed or well explained, but all press will know instantaneously what is going on in every committee. This is an immense step forward. Once the doors are opened to that step, all the other steps will follow. I know that.
If we delay, and we have been delaying too long, the television debate, we will not know how it works, but as soon as you get something there is no backing off. That is why I played a very conservative role on the committee. I wanted to make sure that what we do is right. Once we agree to do something because we are convinced it is right, I get up and defend what is right.
Therefore, the immediate total audio in every office in Parliament, every office of ministers, members, staff, and of the press, is an immense step forward at very little cost. We have to explain to Canadians that we are not going to go on a rampage of expenses.
Therefore, step number one is radio. My colleague from York-Simcoe worked very hard on that. He put the paper together, arranged for witnesses, and it is a success. I share in his success because I was part of it. I am proud to say yes, it is a great step.
We will have a committee room all set. The member would like to have had this room because the Al-Mashat affair would have been televised. You know that. It is a step forward for the most exciting committees that will be televised. Once we have one we will see what it costs.
Routine Proceedings
I call on his financial judgment. Let us see what it costs and how much more it will cost in the future.
We may disagree on the second, third, fourth and fifth reports, but we have to show progress. Your colleagues have worked for a year, hours on end. There has been discussion and witnesses. We must listen to everything that has been said because it was our mandate. We did it.

We did an honest job, some very good work, and we can tell the House that the time has come for that bill to be passed. I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you ask the House's consent to pass that bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a couple of minutes left.
I am wondering if members would be prepared to give consent to the 24th report which deals with Private Members' Business, the 27th report which deals also with Private Members' Business, the number of items increased, and the 28th report which would allow for legislative committees.
Otherwise I think it is really embarrassing to see what is happening in the House in terms of the management committee's work that has been done on this.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made very good progress today. We have had a lively debate on this report and I suggest we call it three o'clock.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say I have tried since this morning. Shame on you, the hon. member. Who is it addressed to? Shame on us. It is not a point of order. It is certainly a question of privilege. Some members want to have everything the same day and others want nothing. To me, it is the most important step that has come forward.
I know the ability of the parliamentary secretary. He can put it back again with a little more negotiation. I know he has commitment. We are not here under any minister's rules.

March 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
If the member would have said what he has just said, I would have found it extremely difficult to resist the temptation of taking my full 20 minutes. He noticed that I did not take my 20 minutes.
Now that he has one bill, at least the most important one, he is trying to cast all kinds of shadows on my colleagues. I defend my colleagues. I say to him, Mr. Speaker, that if he would have said what he just said to us earlier, he would not have had any progress today. He should learn to be patient and with patience he would get everything he wants.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Sergio Marchi: That this House condemns the government for abandoning
Canada's transportation industry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow a very vibrant and dynamic debate led by members on this side of the House with respect to the total abdication of this government vis-a-vis transportation policy.
I had the occasion while I was my party's transport critic to put this motion before the House of Commons. Certainly the fact that the motion is on for debate today is very timely with respect to a number of decisions and events that have happened in the last number of weeks, and in fact the last number of days when we take a look at the very important inquiry into the crash of that Dryden Air Ontario flight.
I say abdication because the government has a great vacuum with respect to any policy program as it concerns the transportation industry. We have seen in recent times this government basically gut VIA Rail.
Ever since trucking was deregulated on January 1, 1988, we have seen Canadian truckers literally off the road with respect to trying to conduct a viable business and continue in the industry facing American competition. Some 1,400 Canadian trucking companies have gone bankrupt.
Yet on shipping, where we can compete the best, the Americans continue to have their Jones Act which protects the U.S. shipping industry.
When the government was talking about harmonizing transportation policies in the secret document that was released by the Toronto Star regarding the North American free trade talks with Mexico and the United States, it talked about harmonizing rail, it talked about harmonizing road transport as well as bus companies. But nowhere did it talk about taking down the barriers of shipping vis-a-vis the Americans where in fact we can compete quite nicely.
This government seems to be promoting all the wrong different types of interests as far as Canadian aspirations are concerned.
I would like to dedicate the better part of the few minutes I have to the whole question of air policy. It seems in terms of the timing of a number of events without being disrespectful to the other transport industries, certainly the air side has been increasingly in the public eye.
What do we have on the air side? We have a government that ideologically has been married for some years to this whole policy and regime of deregulation. It started talking about it in 1985. As a result, airlines began to prepare for a policy of deregulation that came in during the 1988-89 period.
This government looks to deregulation as the Messiah for all the ills of the airline industry. Yet, promise after promise after expectation after expectation with respect to purporting a number of commitments, we have seen those commitments melt like snowballs in the month of July.
One of the things this government talked about before introducing deregulation was the question that it would increase competition across the country with respect to some of the smaller more regional airlines.
What do we have as we debate this particular motion on this Friday afternoon? Essentially, we now have a duopoly when there were a number of regional air carriers that were starting to be viable, such as City Express. In the city of Toronto we have seen a virtual disappearance of many of those smaller regional air carriers gobbled up by Air Canada and Canadian.
March 27, 1992

Under a policy of deregulation that was sold to this Parliament and to Canadians as one way of increasing competition and making the industry more dynamic and offering a better price to the travelling public, it has gone in the opposite direction. Not only do we have a duopoly that has dictated in the last little while, but we are also now entering into a situation where even the duopoly is in very serious waters, if I may use a wrong word to describe the air side of things. It is a situation where there is increased speculation that perhaps there may be a merger, or if they are to survive we will have to have infusion of foreign capital to make both Air Canada and Canadian viable. If we measure the deregulation policy by competition, it is a large failure.
The government also promised with respect to the competition aspect, to increase jobs for Canadians in this very key and important sector of Canada's economy. Yet in the last two years alone there have been almost 5,000 job losses and layoffs in the air industry.
If we talk about amalgamation of Canadian and Air Canada, whichever way it is cut, we are looking at between 10,000 and 15,000 unavoidable job losses.
Air travel is on the increase and airplanes and airports are here to stay. The government also sold this policy of deregulation by promising cheaper air fares to the travelling public. Yet with the exception of advanced bookings, the cost of airline tickets has increased beyond the rate of inflation in the last number of years.
I fail to see where deregulation, as promised by this government on very specific planks has, in fact, paid the kind of dividends this government was committed to and Canadians were expecting.
Then we talk about open skies, that is to say a free trade regime in the air. The two countries, Canada and the United States, are currently engaged in negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement that have not been revisited for some time. I believe they ought to be.
I am not saying that agreements are made once and never looked at, never modified or never updated. Obviously, there are great advantages for Canadian communities and airports to also revisit that with a view to trying to have more direct links between some Canadian cities and American centres and hubs without
Private Members' Business
going through major hurdles in different airports, both in our country and in the United States. Obviously that will impact in terms of who comes to your cities, what conventions can be organized and the attractiveness of one's accessibility in one's market. I am not saying we should put our heads in the sand and pretend we should not update or modernize that bilateral air agreement.
What causes great consternation to myself, my party and to a great number of Canadians is this government's inability to indicate that the bottom line for these negotiations is to say no categorically and clearly to that word cabotage.
Cabotage is essentially a fancy way of saying that American air carriers would be allowed to come freely into Canadian cities and airports and touch base along the Canadian route as they see fit.
Right now it is regulated. For example, American carriers do not have the free ability to bring passengers to Toronto, pick them up, drop them off in Montreal, pick up additional passengers in Montreal and go back to the United States. It is a strictly regulated regime.
One of the reasons it has been regulated has been in part to protect the viability of our Canadian airline industry. The economies of scale being what they are and looking at the giant American carriers, if we were to simply have unfettered access between our two countries, it would only be a matter of time before we would not have a Canadian industry as we know it.
Canadians do care about our air industry. I believe that yes, they are worried and interested and concerned about air fare costs and the whole question of safety and the matter of convenience. But they are also concerned about having a Canadian air carrier. Canadians do place some degree of difference on whether the emblem on that airplane tail is a Canadian flag or an American flag.
I happen to believe that Canadians still care enough to have Canadian air carriers transporting them from one place to another. I also believe that Canadians feel the service we have been getting on Canadian carriers is certainly no less than that offered on American carriers, if not better.

March 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
What we have attempted to do, both in the Liberal caucus and in the Standing Committee on Transport where I had the honour to serve and now I have been replaced, certainly quite ably, by my colleague from Ottawa South-


Iain Francis Angus: Nobody can replace you.


Sergio Marchi: Big shoes to replace, I agree, but nonetheless the member for Ottawa South has very big and able feet.


John Paul Manley: Give me a break.


Sergio Marchi: The fact of the matter is at the transport committee there was a unanimous report. Government members, Liberal members and New Democratic members signed a report that clearly called on the minister and the government in negotiations with the Americans not to give in to cabotage.
Thus far whether it is because of a negotiating tactic or whether it is because of ideology, that promise has not been given privately or publicly. We have talked about it in the House of Commons in debates and in Question Period. But the government categorically has still not given an assurance to Canadians that cabotage will neither be on nor under the table.
It comes at an interesting time as well, because if we are talking about negotiations with the Americans in respect to our bilateral air agreement, we also cannot divorce that from the feelings that Canadians bring to the table with respect to the last deal Canadians negotiated with their American friends namely, the free trade agreement.
We now live with a free trade agreement that has caused a great deal of unease, a great deal of frustration and a great deal of justified legitimate fear among Canadians who have experienced more rather than less aggravation as a result of that agreement. We also live in a time that the government of the day is contemplating a North American free trade alignment. Therefore, we cannot divorce these agreements and what they have brought with respect to our economic livelihood from the feelings that Canadians have about the negotiations on a very important part of our economy as we know it.
So I think caution is a key word for the government of the day. It would reassure Canadians if this government was prepared to admit that it was not going to sign on the dotted line if any form of cabotage was going to be part of that agreement. At the very least, Canadians deserve
to know what the bottom line is before going into any negotiations.
Another point that is viewed with some degree of consternation by the air industry is the flagship airport of the country which is in my city: Pearson airport. On the local front, we in York West and the communities surrounding the airport have had to put up with a great degree of abuse. I also see the member of Parliament for Bramalea-Gore-Malton who has made repeated representations to his government and to the Minister of Transport on issue of noise control.
The southern part of York West, virtually half the riding, is very much in the path both for take-offs and landings. We have asked the government repeatedly for a system. While it is not going to solve the problem entirely, as I said previously, it would help alleviate it. These communities are not being irresponsible to the point where they wish to close the airport down. They do not live in a fantasy world that thinks that aeroplanes are going to be taken over by the horse and buggy again. What this community in the south end of my riding is asking is that there be an alternative to the current system.
One of those alternatives would be to have a better balance of alternative runway use. There seems to be a predominant use of one particular runway that is closer to the terminal, that is preferred by the airlines and by the air traffic controllers because it saves time, fuel, money and is very convenient for the passengers. Because of that one runway, the landings and the take-offs are all over one particular community and that is grossly unfair and unjustified.
This community has been asking the last number of years for a fairer balance of distribution, that is to say to share the pain, to share the noise pollution, to share the noise that one has to live with. It is no laughing matter. In certain parts of my riding during the summer when people like to enjoy their backyards or invite the neighbours over for a barbeque it is literally impossible to do over a peak period because of the aeroplanes coming and going. Window panes rattle. People are awakened in the middle of the night. There are no curfews to speak of. This is all in the name of emergency landings. Not for one moment do I want to suggest, and I do not believe any other member of Parliament wants to suggest, that emergency cases should not be allowed to land, but when it is always the rule rather than the exception then I
March 27, 1992

think we are stretching the whole definition of emergency.
So there are large problems with respect to the local area. There is also the problem that when people complain their complaints go nowhere.
We have been advocating on this side of the House, as has the community, that a noise ombudsman of some sort be appointed. It would at least give the people in the riding or the communities surrounding Pearson the pleasure and the satisfaction that their message is getting through rather than talking to some tape machine which causes incredible amounts of frustration.
As well, I have asked the government and the minister to look at a special program, an insulation program that has been advocated by the Denver community surrounding the Denver airport that has worked very well. They have modem, up-to-date noise insulation which takes into account the type of noise pollution in communities surrounding airports. I am hopeful that the minister in due course will respond in a way that brings some degree of relief and satisfaction.
I was going to talk about the whole question of the investigation and the report on the Dryden crash, but I will leave that to my colleague, the transport critic. He will be touching on a number of variables therein.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join my colleague in support of his motion, the motion condemning the government for abandoning Canada's transportation industry.
At the outset I want to suggest that we are really talking generically in terms of government, because the situation we find ourselves in today, quite frankly, was started before the current government took power. The Winnipeg member, still in this House, back in 1983-84,1 believe it was, indicated that Air Canada, then a Crown corporation, and CN, still a Crown corporation, should act as if they were in the private sector and that certainly set the scene for an approach to transportation.
Leading up to the 1984 election, the member from Winnipeg also started the process of deregulation. In
Private Members' Business
fact, in Justice Moshansky's report tabled yesterday, one of the first warnings that came forward in Transport Canada from the front line troops, as the Justice referred to them, was in the spring of 1984, well before this government was successful at the polls later that year. Those front line troops warned that we did not have the resources to deal properly with deregulation, in whatever form.
The last two days we have been seized in this House, and I suspect across the country, with Justice Moshansky's report. Those of us who have been involved in the deregulation fight since 1984, and in the case of my colleague from Regina-Lumsden well before that, see a lot in the report that we warned people about.
When you take away the economic stability that our carriers had-and when I say economic stability I mean that there was some certainty in the routes that they would serve, there was some certainty in the kind of revenue that they would get, and at the same time the consumer had some certainty that the airline could not arbitrarily raise the fees or the ticket prices.
Also the communities that were served knew that there was protection for them as well, that a carrier could not on its own decide what kind of equipment to use to service that community and what kind of frequency to provide flights to that community. In both cases, the consumer and the community through a public process could attempt to block any changes. Obviously the CTC at the time had the responsibility to adjudicate that.
By taking it out of the realm of stability, we did a number of things as a society. We created the climate for cut-throat competition, where the bottom line became the driving force behind the decision-making of the airlines, and the rail and the road.
As we said during the debates on the white paper Freedom to Move and during the debate on the National Transportation Act and the companion pieces of legislation, it was the banker who made those safety decisions. It was not the regulator, it was not the government, it was not necessarily the carrier, it was the banker. The banker would be the one who would really decide whether a new company could be formed, that as long as you were fit, willing and able you would get a licence.

March 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
You did not have to prove public convenience or necessity which was the old rule, as long as you could convince your banker. In theory if you could prove your worthiness, then you could operate a scheduled airline.
Justice Moshansky has told us that really was not the case. In terras of Air Ontario, a merger had just taken place. In effect two airlines became one and they brought in new equipment, in particular the Fokker. They did not have sufficient staff to maintain it and to operate it. They did not have sufficient spare parts.
For awhile they were being trained on simulators by U.S. Air and one other carrier, Pegasus. It was another American carrier. That contract was cancelled. So they were training them in the cockpits of the planes on the ground at night in Winnipeg.
Justice Moshansky points out how inadequate that kind of training was. He points out-these are my words and not his-that we had a company that was not in control of its own operations.
At the same time, we had a regulator that did not have enough resources to do the job. Some of us say it still does not have the resources needed. In fact, I have two press releases that came from the organization that represents the inspectors, the Aircraft Operations Group Association.
The release of today reads as follows:
Civil Aviation Inspectors disappointed with Transport Minister's response to Moshansky Report on Air Ontario tragedy.
"Instead of trying to deflect the blame, Transport Minister Jean Corbeil should take the Moshansky report seriously," says Wayne Foy, national chairman of the Aircraft Operations Group Association. "But we welcome the opportunity to work with the Department to implement recommendations of the report that will ensure the safety of civil aviation in Canada."
"Justice Moshansky's report is the first unbiased examination of the effects of deregulation and the cutbacks made in Transport Canada aviation over the past 10 years. He is right on target with respect to the lack of support, training and resources required by aviation inspectors," Foy says.
"Civil aviation inspectors are dedicated professionals, many of whom are essential to aviation safety. We are frustrated by Transport Canada's failure to provide sufficient staff, to train inspectors and to support our work," Foy says.
"One of the worst problems our inspectors face is that management doesn't listen. They only hear what they want to hear,"
Foy says. "If the Minister's comments yesterday are indicative of his
basic outlook, we could be in for more of the same."
This organization represents some 500 civil aviation inspectors working for both Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board.
These are the people on the ground. These are the front line troops. They know what is happening out there, and they tried to tell their masters that they did not have the resources, that there were not enough of them and that Canada was not able to properly police deregulation.
At the same time in this House and in committee, my colleague, the member for Regina-Lumsden and myself, along with a countless array of witnesses not just from the union side gave testimony. I can remember a witness in Vancouver, an expert brought up from the United States who was very, very familiar with the deregulation experience in the United States, given that happened 10 years before we started ours. Everything he warned us about has happened.
I regret to say that. I do not like coming into this House and saying: "I told you so," because I would rather that things worked well and that the goals that we were aiming for which were lower prices and better service happened. Maybe in a few cases there have been some better services. In some cases there have been lower prices, but overall, I think you will find that there is less service, the cost is greater and it is the Canadian public who is paying for it.
I know I do not have all that much time, but in the few minutes I have left, I want to touch briefly on the future of the Canadian airline industry. We all know that Air Canada, now a wholly-owned private sector company, and Canadian Airlines, which is owned by TWA, are in financial difficulty. One does not have to be an accountant or an economist to understand that. They both are losing money daily.
Canadian Airlines has decided that part of its solution is to link up with American Airlines, not just in terms of an operating agreement, nor just in terms of a reservation agreement, but in terms of an equity position. Air Canada has been working toward an operating agreement with U.S. Air.

In a speech before the Canadian Club of Winnipeg on March 11 of this year the executive vice-president and chief operating officer of Air Canada said as follows:
The bottom line consequence of American Airlines acquiring a
significant influence over Canadian Airlines International, would be
the inevitable end of the Canadian airline industry as we know it.
For our part, we would have little choice but to succumb to a
parallel strategy.
In other words, Air Canada is warning us that if American Airlines buys a chunk of Canadian Airlines it will have no choice but to allow U.S. Air or a similar American company to buy a chunk of Air Canada. Once that happens we might as well kiss a national airline goodbye.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a timely and important debate, and I am pleased to take part in it.
I know members opposite have great concern about the report that came down yesterday. The commission of inquiry released a report yesterday into the tragedy at Dryden. It is one we are all concerned about.
I would like to step through some of the government's response to and position in that regard. First of all, it was an inquiry into a human tragedy. I do not think any of us dismissed that. It was very much a human tragedy.
I want to stress on behalf of the minister that Canada's aviation system is safe. Since 1981-and I think it is important that Canadian people know this-there has been a 35 per cent decrease in accidents. That is significant, because we have to assure Canadian people that the Canadian aviation industry is safe. That statistic in itself indicates that we do have a very high degree of safety in the industry.
Another point I think worth stressing is that the government did not wait for the commission to be created by somebody else. The government created it. It initiated that response. The inquiry is very much independent and is a very critical approach to air safety and the aviation industry.
The first set of recommendations go back to 1989. Knowing that, I think most of us would agree that the department has been responsive and has been responsible to the industry.
Let us go through what has been suggested in the findings. We will go through some of them point by point. It is referring to new audit procedures and is
Private Members' Business
telling us that the department is now inspecting air carriers more often. It started auditing almost immediately after a merger of the start-up and Transport Canada inspectors are assigned to that operation right now. It has also stiffened regulations in many areas.
Again, it did not take long. In November 1990 Transport implemented what it called the clean wing concept in the form of new regulations prohibiting take-offs when there is any contamination whatsoever adhering to the lifting surfaces of an aircraft. It is important to consider that because we know what happened at Dryden and what happened last week in New York at La Guardia. Because of icing problems there was another tragedy in the U.S. That is the type of thing the department is very concerned with and has taken steps as early as 1990 to eliminate. The department has been working with industry on a number of regulations for that new type of safety which I think we all demand.
One point brought out was on the question of inspectors. The question was whether we had enough inspectors at the time and whether we have enough now. I think those are very legitimate questions because the underlying importance is safety. There is a very strong link between the number of inspectors and the safety of our airlines as a whole.
It is important to note that since 1985-86 there has been an increase of 100 inspectors. The most important thing to remember in this whole exercise is that more will be added as we go on. Most of us would like to see more of them on the job now, but it is important to recognize that we need more, that we should have more and that there will be more. However, that number has increased since 1985-86.
Procedures have been streamlined for getting safety audits done systematically and quickly. Even in the internal procedures within the department there has been some very significant changes in recent years. In addition, a new aeronautics code is being developed and will give more authority to aviation inspectors.
The question that comes to mind is: what is enough? Is enough ever enough when it comes to safety in the air? I do not know how much we can do or how far we can go to ensure the highest degree of safety. The answer to the question is probably that enough is never enough. It is constant. We continually have to put resources into the safety of the aviation industry. I do not think Canadian taxpayers are going to object to that.

March 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
The purpose of the debate today is to reinforce that point. At some point the Government of Canada has to step up to the line and say: "Yes, you are absolutely right. Maybe what we have to do is dedicate more financial resources to the problem". The problem is air safety and ensuring that our standards are the absolute highest in the world.
I want to emphasize this afternoon more than anything that the Canadian aviation industry has a high degree of safety. I do not want these figures to be obscured by other figures. There has been a 35 per cent decrease in aviation disasters since 1985-86. I think that is significant. I do not want that figure to be distorted for Canadian people. It is very important. It does not mean we cannot achieve a higher number. I think that is possible. Because of the way the government has been responding and will respond to Justice Moshansky's report, I think we will see that number increase significantly in the next few years.
Most of us can be assured that it is safe when we buy tickets and our families get on aircraft. Ours is the safest in the world. Our records clearly indicate that and I do not want them distorted here today.
The government has responded and is continuing to respond. Some of it has been initiated across the aisle. There have been some very strong words from opposition members. At times they have put the minister in the hot seat. I guess that is the role of a minister and the minister has to respond. I have to say that this minister has responded.
All Canadians can be proud of the industry. We can be very proud about how the ministry has responded to the disaster in Dryden two years ago.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague, the member for York West, for moving this motion.

He was the former transport critic for our party. As his successor, might I say that despite my size 12s I am
having difficulty filling his shoes. It is the first time I have ever had my foot size commented upon in the House of Commons.
Before I take a few moments to comment on the Dryden report which I want to do, I would like to respond very quickly to the comments of the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. On behalf of the New Democratic Party he tried to put the verdict of this report with respect to the combined policies of the Conservative government of deregulation and deficit reduction into the same category as the liberalization process that was introduced by the former Liberal Minister of Transport.
In trying to do so and talking about competition, we will notice that the NDP only uses the word competition in juxtaposition with the word cut-throat. To the NDP competition is always cut-throat. The NDP understands so little about doing business that, as my colleague for Kingston and the Islands pointed out earlier today, we are now referring to the premier of Ontario as Buffalo Bob because he has done more to renew the vital interest of the city of Buffalo, New York than has anyone else in many years. The fact that the NDP does not know the difference between liberalization of air transportation and the deregulation regime that was brought in in 1985 should not surprise any of us.
This leads me to say a few things about the Dryden inquiry and the report made available to us yesterday in the House of Commons by the Minister of Transport. I would like to pick up on some of the remarks of the member for Cumberland-Colchester. He stressed the safety of the Canadian aviation industry. With respect to the questions posed by our party, I think we have entirely endeavoured to deal with the government's response to the report and its performance with respect to these issues over the period of time studied by the commissioner.
I would like to point out that we began our questioning of the government minister on this report by drawing the attention of the House and the people of Canada to the fact that Mr. Justice Moshansky has said that many of the concerns which emerged during his inquiry and are reflected in his report have already started to be dealt with or had been dealt with. He has further said that it is safe to fly in Canada.
March 27, 1992

In raising these concerns I want to make it abundantly clear that we are not in any way suggesting it is unsafe at the present time to fly in Canada. That is not to say there are not a lot of things that can be done to improve the system and to ensure that further Diydens do not occur. That being said, I want to draw attention to the findings Mr. Justice Moshansky made, upon which he based his recommendations. These findings, if this were a court proceeding, would be the findings of fact from which he drew conclusions. They are very important in two ways.
First, he found with respect to the period of time in the mid-1980s when deregulation was coming into effect that, and I am reading from page 913 of his report: "Based on the information before this commission the Aviation Regulation Directorate was not adequately prepared to perform its functions in the latter 1980s. The warning flags raised early in the 1980s and repeatedly thereafter had seemingly negligible effect. The forecasts of safety assurance deficiencies were soundly based and progressively confirmed, yet there was no proper response by the senior management of Transport Canada in the form of urgent planning or action to meet the inevitable challenge".
Another finding: "It was known that significant increases in personnel would be required to meet demand, yet such increases were not authorized, let alone acquired". Finally: "Had the Transport Canada Aviation Regulation Directorate been in a position to discharge all of its responsibilities in an effective and timely manner some of the factors that contributed to the Dryden accident may not have arisen".
Even more devastatingly, in his press conference yesterday Mr. Justice Moshansky said that this disaster, which cost 24 lives, was allowed to happen. Allowed to happen by whom? In part, it was allowed to happen by the regulator, by Transport Canada, and by the Government of Canada.
Why the government? There has been a lot of discussion over the last couple of years about ministerial responsibility, about when ministers should be required to face the music for things that have happened in their departments. There has been an evolution in that doctrine in the time that this government has been in office. It has been repeatedly suggested that if something
Private Members' Business
happens at a lower level then the minister should only take steps to take corrective action and should not be held responsible for it.
In this case, I suggest that the judge in the inquiry has found that the responsibility for the problems that contributed to the Dryden air disaster lies at the top level, at the cabinet level.
Let me read some further findings from Justice Moshansky's report. On page 939 he writes: "The need for increased resources within the Aviation Regulation Directorate to meet the growth and demands expected to be generated by the policy of economic regulatory reform"-that is deregulation-"was predicted and well documented in several reports and studies in the period prior to 1984 and following. The Deputy Minister's internal audit review group in June of 1987 issued a report that stated that the Aviation Regulation Directorate was at that time unable to provide senior Transport Canada management with sufficient assurance that the aviation industry was in compliance with existing safety legislation, regulations and standards".
A further finding is that: "The effect of economic regulatory reform, combined with deficit reduction, created a synergy that in my opinion, based on the evidence before this commission, had an adverse impact on the effective application of safety standards".
Finally, and I think this is the most devastating critique of all, he says that: "It is not my intent to criticize the right of a government to embark on a policy of economic deregulation of the air carrier industry. Nor would I suggest that it is improper to attempt to reduce the size of the national deficit. It is the combined effects of these policies, as they relate to the safety of the public, that causes concern. The policies are not faulted in any way but their application and over-all administration left much to be desired".
These are the measured and carefully phrased words of a justice of the Supreme Court of Alberta. This is not political rhetoric. When we take these out of that context and recognize what this judge is saying, he is saying that the two main major policies which were policies of the cabinet collided in mid-air, the policy of airline deregulation on the one hand and the policy of deficit reduction

March 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
on the other hand. The casualty in that mid-air collision was Canadian passenger safety, and 24 people died in Dryden as a result of that collision.
If this is not a case of gross incompetence and negligence on the part of cabinet ministers, then I do not know what is.


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous member's speech. I thought he started particularly well and in a particularly balanced way which we have come to expect over the years from him. I was surprised, therefore, when he concluded in a way I did not expect he would conclude.
Over my years here, I have seen an evolution of this argument that somehow ministers are responsible for every paper-clip, eveiy flight switch, every wheel blowout and every piece of everything that happens. If a tire blows on a national highway, the Minister of Transport or his brother is personally responsible, judging by the argument of the hon. member.
He started, I thought quite appropriately by quoting the context in which the Hon. Justice's comments were put by the Hon. Justice and then took them out of that context. The context, I repeat to the hon. member, in which the Justice put his own remarks is nobody belittles in any way the consequence of 24 people losing their lives and this was and is a real tragedy. The context in which he puts his own report, remarks and suggestions, I repeat to the hon. member, the vast majority of which are either already implemented or are being examined to see if they can be implemented as quickly as possible, is that we have one of the safest air systems in the world. We continue to do so and he recognizes the incidents of air accidents since 1981 or since the beginning of regulation has not increased significantly. You can argue whether you use the 1981 to 1991 statistics which show them declining or the 1984 to 1987 statistics which show them going up slightly or the 1988 to today's statistics from the Transport Commission which show them going down since 1988.
Within that context, was this a real tragedy? Yes, it was. It is beyond me and beyond this debate which I think is about a larger principle as well and I want to come back to that. That I think was the context of the hon. member's motion, to accuse the government not of
having-as is his right if he chooses-made a mistake with regard to this report or this situation. His motion is about transportation policy in general, as I understand his motion to be, that the government has abrogated its responsibility. I will come back to that. But it is suggested somehow, as has become the Liberal Party's habit, that one should go beyond the tragedy that has happened and say it is the Minister of Transport's fault.
No, that is not what that report says. It does not say the Minister of Transport-generically the Minister of Transport-is responsible for those deaths as the member has implied. I regard that as regrettable the way in which argument has been put by members of the opposition for too many years. I do not always mean just Liberals. That is a decline in the sense of the use of this Chamber to get to better policy when we think we have to personalize everything around here. I hope the member did not mean it, but that is what he said.
I want to come back in the few minutes that are left to the motion of the member for York West. He has made quite a large allegation, that the government has somehow abandoned Canada's transportation industry. It is our view, as you would expect, and it is my view from having watched this, that the government has done a great deal to ensure not only a viable transportation system, but a safe transportation system. Safety has, as you would expect, been the top priority of the Department of Transport and it has taken a number of specific actions which reflect that commitment, not least of which is its ongoing response to the latest report.
In recent years, the government has undertaken the modernization of our air navigation system at an expense of hundreds of millions of dollars. We created the Canadian Transportation Safety Board whose job is to investigate accidents and provide recommendations to prevent future incidents in all modes, I am sure something the hon. member agrees with.
This government has passed the Railway Safety Act and amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. We have also taken steps to introduce legislation on substance abuse in safety sensitive positions in the transport sector. There is a longer list. That is a brief example of the many initiatives taken by this government to protect the safety of Canadians using the transportation system generally in this country.



March 27, 1992

Getting back to the general theme, the large charge that the member makes that this government has abandoned the industry, all Canadians recognize the importance of transportation to an economy like ours. It is the backbone of the way we have to make our living. Everything has to be moved huge distances in a place like Canada, with its large geography and small population.
Each day, 140,000 Canadians travel by one of the public intercity modes: air, bus or rail, and almost 2 million tonnes of freight are moved by rail, truck or water. Canadian producers and shippers operate in a global environment that is shaped by international competition. It is therefore essential for our economic well-being that we create and maintain an efficient, responsive, safe and productive transportation system and that the cost of transportation services are minimized for the users of that system.
Early in its mandate, this government did indeed recognize that a change in the economic regulatory framework in transportation was necessary if the transportation system was to be allowed to grow and to compete to meet the needs of shippers and the travelling public. Many of the regulations in place when we took office had become in fact obstacles to growth, innovation and competitiveness in Canadian transportation. Removing those obstacles while protecting and maintaining the safety for the public of Canada became a priority in our efforts to achieve economic renewal.
As part of this government's efforts to improve Canadian competitiveness, we undertook an extensive consultation process over a two-year period, which included parliamentary study and comment. The result was the introduction of a new economic regulatory regime for Canadian transportation on January 1, 1988.
The National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 established a revised legislative framework for our transportation industry. This framework was based on the principle that competition and market forces are the best means for providing Canadians with efficient transportation at the lowest possible cost.
This legislation did not deregulate safety nor in any way diminish its importance. In fact, it emphasized the importance of safety by introducing it for the first time as
Private Members' Business
a basic principle of our national transportation policy statement.
Economic regulation of the transportation industry was reduced to a minimum or modified in the case of the railways to stimulate competitive conditions to the greatest extent possible. Many of the shackles which prevented our carriers from operating in the most efficient manner have been removed. In this more competitive environment, carriers are able to provide the best possible service at the best price and support economic growth in all sectors of the economy.
These were fundamental changes in our regulatory system, but I categorically deny the charges of the opposition that they were introduced without consideration of the consequences for our transportation industries.
Our government provided for annual reviews by the National Transportation Agency for a four-year period to monitor the effects of these changes. We also provided for a comprehensive review to assess the impact of these changes in the fifth year of operation, this year,
1992.
The introduction of such a comprehensive review process in legislation is unusual. However, the government recognized from the start that the regulatory reforms that were introduced needed to be followed closely. If adjustments proved to be necessary to meet our reform objectives the government was ready to make them.
Despite the focus of the last two days of debate, again not to diminish in any way whatsoever the tragedy that has occurred, it is important to put on the record the kinds of improvements in our air services in Canada that have occurred, since this government took action. Before these regulatory changes were introduced there were controls over entry, exit-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The airlines made money.


John William Bosley: Yes, all airlines in North America made money. It is typical of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that he somehow wants to argue that because Air Canada lost money last year when every U.S. carrier in the last three years has lost on an equity basis more money than both of the Canadian carriers combined that somehow that is a consequence of regulatory reform. It is typical of the intellectual debate of the other side at

March 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
the moment. There were controls over entry, exit, levels of service routes, operating equipment, passenger fares and cargo tariffs. These controls were impediments to efficient operations by existing carriers and new entrants, and to more competitive prices and more varied services for passengers and shippers.
As a result of the changes that were introduced entry into the marketplace in southern Canada has indeed been eased, providing for a more competitive environment. Licences no longer restrict competition by imposing limitations on the type of service to be offered, the routes and points to be served, or the types of equipment to be used.
Regulatory approval is no longer required to establish or lower air fares, except in very specific circumstances. Carriers can now set their fares and utilize the aircraft best suited to the particular markets in which they are operating.
Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are looking at me. I do appreciate that the time has expired.
In closing, I would like to say that in my view it is somehow intellectually dishonest to suggest that introducing competition into the marketplace is not essentially good for the consumers and the industry. As long as we do that while maintaining a safety record as good or better than under the old regime then we can be proud of what we have achieved.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 30, 1992