1992-12-11

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The news last night and this morning indicated that the hon. member for Lotbiniere has been convicted of misuse of funds of the House of Commons. Members of the House obviously have refrained from making any comments until the final resolution had taken place.
We have learned of the conviction and now the House must decide. Normally the member would have resigned and maybe that has already taken place. Perhaps I could seek some information from the government side.
It is the tradition of this House always to discipline its members in addition to the discipline meted out by the
courts.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you give some guidance regarding the consideration of taking action on this case. If there is a particular course of action to be taken I would be prepared of course to move the appropriate motion.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kamloops and I have roughly an equivalent formation in the law and he would know as I do that this is a matter which may still be before the courts.
He made reference to the wisdom of the House in letting court processes be carried through to their conclusion. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, for your
guidance, that was a prudent course at the time. In the circumstances, it remains a prudent course.
It would be well for all of us to respect the difference between the political functions that occur here which always require some restraint and the functions of the courts.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend from the New Democratic Party has made an intervention. I wish the record to show that in the adjudication announced by the courts the sentencing will not take place until the new year.
There may be appeals. There could be questions of law which would thereafter be examined in a higher court. Mr. Speaker, I am not attempting to advise you on all the aspects of law, but I do not believe at this time it would be the most appropriate thing to do in view of what the courts have before them.
I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the interventions made by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and me.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to my hon. friends this was not intended to mean that we should act in haste.
This was the first opportunity we have had since learning the news. I felt that we should at least seek some clarification as to what the course may be.
Having heard these interventions in terms of the recognition of the right of appeal, we await some advice from you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has raised a matter which of course is of importance to this House. The right hon. minister has responded on the government side and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
The matter raised is the announcement of the conviction of a member of Parliament for certain offences.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
There is a convention which I expect would be followed. It is that the court will inform the Chair officially of what has transpired. I do not anticipate receiving that this morning or maybe not even for some days.
The other matter referred to is the question of an appeal. I am not in a position, nor I suppose are hon. colleagues, to know whether an appeal would be taken. I think we should look carefully at that.
Again, we do not know what is likely to transpire at the sentencing or what arguments may be used by the defence at that time, all of which would affect whatever action this place might ultimately take.
We had a matter like this some years ago. Hon. members will remember that I took the matter under advisement to consider my position and to consider what was appropriate under the circumstances. As it turned out, the matter was resolved without the necessity of the Chair having to make any ruling at all.
However, the hon. member for Kamloops has, as he said, brought this matter to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. If I understood him correctly, he is not suggesting that the House should take any sudden action today, but when it is appropriate under all the circumstances.
I will take the application of the hon. member under advisement. As soon as I am in a position to advise the House further I shall do so.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved:: WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and
House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.


SCHEDULE
[Stage Direction]
1.	The Constitution Act, 1982 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 16 thereof, the following section:
"16.1 (1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.
(2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed."
2.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of proclamation (New Brunswick).
He said: Madame Speaker, in the parliamentary life of any politician, there are moments that have special significance and remain engraved on our hearts for a long time. Today is one of those moments.
From the time of our earliest forebears and during the relentless efforts of past generations to carve out a place in this difficult landscape, to create a safe home for their language and culture, our country-which is more than a mere territory-has been a crucible in which was forged a historic reconciliation of two languages and cultures.
[Stage Direction]
We are witnesses today to the culmination of a long historical development which is also the beginning of a new journey for the English and French linguistic communities of New Brunswick and indeed of Canada. Today is one of those history-making moments for New Brunswick's two official language communities.
The constitutional resolution we are proposing to pass today will entrench in Canada's Constitution the main provisions of an act recognizing the two official linguistic communities in New Brunswick.
This constitutional amendment recognizes the principle of equal status, equal rights and equal privileges for these two language communities. In particular, it recognizes the right to the separate educational and cultural institutions that are necessary for their protection and promotion.
December 11, 1992
[Stage Direction]
It also reaffirms the role of New Brunswick's legislature and government to protect and promote the status, rights and privileges of these language communities.
The constitutional amendment proposed by the New Brunswick legislative assembly is the fruit of a number of years of constant effort by governments and the people of this province.
[Stage Direction]
It is the direct consequence of the enactment of the act recognizing the two official linguistic communities in New Brunswick, better know as Bill 88 or the Equality Act, which was passed under the Hatfield government in July 1981.
Bill 88 is much more than a mere legal provision. For New Brunswick's Acadian community, Bill 88 was intended to respond to the legitimate aspirations of Acadian men and women as expressed at the Convention d'orientation nationale des Acadiens, held in 1979 in Edmundston, the principal town in my riding.
I participated in that convention, and the spirit that inspired it bore witness to the courage and determination to equip the Acadian community with the tools it needed for its cultural, linguistic and economic development. Important steps had already been taken at that time.
Former Premier Robichaud, now a senator, had embarked on major reforms, particularly the Official Languages Act and the equal opportunities for all programs. Under the leadership of his successor, Premier Hatfield, and his minister, Jean Maurice Simard, also a senator now, several further reforms were implemented, such as duality in the Department of Education, community centres, schools and so forth.
[Stage Direction]
In the same vein as its predecessors who were the pioneers. Premier McKenna's government supported these reforms and committed itself, with the leaders of the Progressive Conservative and the New Democratic opposition parties to entrenching this recognition of equality in the Canadian Constitution. This was at-
Govemment Orders
tempted in amendments to the Meech Lake accord of June 9, 1990 and in the Charlottetown agreement.
It should be made clear that at no time during this period and these negotiations did the province of New Brunswick, the provincial governments or the federal government waiver from the purpose of entrenching these principles.
[Stage Direction]
I wish to refer especially to the efforts and indefatigable support of the Prime Minister, without whom passage of the resolution today would be far from certain. All official language minorities can count on the Prime Minister as a staunch friend, and I want to thank him personnaly on behalf of all New Brunswickers for his constant support and leadership on this issue.
[Stage Direction]
For New Brunswick's anglophone community Bill 88 and the entrenchment of its main provisions in Canada's Constitution means a number of things.
First, it confirms almost inalienably the road that the two communities have taken together for many years now, the progress they have made together and the future they want to build together as partners, not opponents.
It testifies to an irreversible social maturity that wants to develop a common existence and pass on to future generations of New Brunswickers their desire to continue this social and economic experiment.
This resolution enables anglophone communities which are in a minority situation in some areas to take control of their own cultural and linguistic development in the field of education and other government services.
In a community like Madawaska-Victoria, my riding, the main town, Edmonston, a small community of 12,000 people, has a population of only 4 per cent of anglophones. Because of the spirit in New Brunswick and because of that duality, these people have separate school boards in my home town, district 33. Therefore, this constitutional measure testifies to New Brunswick's generous and creative vision of Canada's future.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
This province is a microcosm of the Canadian federal reality. On our home ground, by working devotedly, making compromises and above all respecting the reality of others, we have succeeded in creating a climate of understanding that is conducive to fruitful and satisfactory linguistic arrangements.
As you know, the constitutional amendment we are debating today had a proper place in the Charlottetown agreement. When the referendum was held, more than 60 per cent of my compatriots voted in favour of the constitutional agreement laid before them.
In other words, not only did they support the constitutional amendment that particularly affected them, but they were still sufficiently generous to accept the other compromises that would have put us on the road to greater national solidarity and consequently greater prosperity.
However that may be, the possibility of such a bilateral constitutional resolution is provided for in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
[Stage Direction]
New Brunswick has always been a haven for our two linguistic communities. Many Acadian men and women found refuge there after the deportation in 1755. It was there that the Loyalists, fleeing the United States, established a home following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
Today this tradition of hospitality to strangers is still very strong among us. New citizens come from all over the world with the goal of building here, with us, a bright future for themselves and their descendants.
[Stage Direction]
This constitutional amendment will strengthen this social fabric and give it a permanent foundation. It is also a splendid and significant step forward for the men and women in New Brunswick involved in a continuing search for harmony based on self-confidence and openness to others.
[Stage Direction]
I fervently hope that this example of respect for differences, of tolerance toward cultural diversity and of receptiveness to others spreads throughout Canada. Despite the difficulties that have sometimes marred the
development of our national identity, the truth is that we have more things in common to celebrate than we have differences to define.
[Stage Direction]
A historic moment such as we are experiencing today, at the beginning of this holiday season when we celebrate men and women of good will, can only strengthen us in our sincere desire to extend the productive lessons of New Brunswick's experience to Canada.
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I am very proud to get up today in this House to support the motion. It is not every day that I agree with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but I am delighted to get up today to support his motion.

As you all know, becoming the member for Beausejour was probably one of the finest moments of my political career.

To get up today and to speak on this motion gives me great pleasure. The minister referred to an historic moment and it is, indeed, a big one.
It is Canada at its best. This is the generosity, the tolerance, the diversity that has made this country what it is. This is what we are enshrining in the Constitution for New Brunswick.

Going around that riding in the past two years, I realized that a third of my constituents were Englishspeaking and two-thirds were French-speaking. They all live together, but they have their own schools. They share a common life but are separate at the same time.

When you are in Sackville, Dorchester, Cape Tormen-tine, Port Elgin, you have people who came from the United States to Canada. They were Loyalists who wanted to remain part of what they believed in. In those days it was the British Empire. They did not want to join the American revolution.
December 11, 1992



Then you go to the other side, to Cap-Pele, Shediac, Buctouche and you see these French speaking people, these Acadians, who were deported and came back, but who kept the French language and culture in absolutely incredible conditions. They are proud of their Frenchness, they are proud of speaking French and very proud of being New Brunswickers; nothing will stop them from remaining French speaking. They are very proud to be Canadian.
If that spirit prevailed in the country from coast to coast, I think it would be the best example that Canada could give to the whole world. When we see the problems in the world today, where people kill one another because of cultural or language differences and you go to New Brunswick or to my riding, the smallest English speaking communities have their school commission, the French speaking community has its school commissions and they live and work together for the economic progress of that community; this is Canada at its best.
Today, as I speak in this House as the member for Beausejour, I am pleased to support this motion, because in the history of New Brunswick and especially of the French community in New Brunswick, they have taken their destiny in hand, with this unfailing perseverance and determination.
The minister talked about Senator Robichaud, who decided to shake New Brunswick's cage, so to speak, by proposing to make the two language communities equal. Later Richard Hatfield took up the torch and today Premier Frank McKenna is continuing to advance the cause.

For me it is a great day. It is an example that we can be together and at the same time be different in Canada. I have my colleagues with me. The member for Moncton and the other members live that by the day. They are all elected, every one of them, by francophones and anglophones. They manage to keep them happy.
That is the way I would like this country to work. It is not the Charlottetown accord or anything else. This is a commitment of these two communities that was done a long time ago. When we amended the Constitution in 1982, we made provisions so that some amendments could be made to the Constitution in a bilateral way between the provincial and the federal governments.
Government Orders
That is exactly why it is there. There are some elements in the Constitution that affect only one province. It will not be unique to New Brunswick. For example, in Newfoundland they have the duality of the school system based on religion. This does not exist in other provinces. The same thing exists in Quebec. It is not the case in Ontario and other provinces. We need to have that flexibility in the Constitution. It is being used for a very noble purpose today.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is a great example of understanding, generosity, tolerance and diversity.

Since I will unfortunately not be a candidate in the riding of Beausejour at the next election, I am happy to take the opportunity given me today to support the government's proposal and ensure that the Canadian Constitution will fully protect New Brunswick's French speaking community. This is a great day. I am pleased to support this motion and I take the opportunity to thank the people of Beausejour who have been so generous to me and my wife these last two years during which I represented them.

All these places, Cape Tormentine, Sackville, Dorchester, Memramcook up to Richibucto, are the best of Canada.
Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I support this motion.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst:
That the question be now put.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to say a few words on behalf of my party in support of the motion before the House today to amend the Constitution of Canada.
It is really a very rare day indeed in this country when we actually amend the Constitution of Canada. We have spent many hours and many years talking about constitutional reform, but today we are actually amending the Constitution and making this country a better place not just for the people in New Brunswick, but a better place for all of us regardless of where we live.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
I am very proud, on behalf of my party, to say that we support the amendment of the Constitution to enshrine in our constitutional law the equality of the linguistic communities of the anglophones and francophones in the province of New Brunswick.
I do that for two reasons. First of all, the process here is the right process and, second, because of the substance of what we are doing today in terms of New Brunswick. In terms of process, this amendment has come through a long and very open process in the province of New Brunswick.
I can remember years ago speaking with New Brunswick people about the process in that province toward the fight for linguistic equality of the two communities. Away back in July 1981 the New Brunswick legislature passed a law guaranteeing the equality of the two official language communities in that province. In 1982, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we had section 16 that guarantees the equality of the French and English languages in the province of New Brunswick, making it the only officially bilingual province in this country.
We can go on to 1989 and 1992 when two legislative committees in New Brunswick recommended further constitutional change after extensive public hearings in the province of New Brunswick.

This process has been going on for many years. Right here in this House, the language situation in the province of New Brunswick has already been studied.
I very well remember Mr. McKenna two years ago during the Meech Lake crisis. We also had a committee, chaired by the Minister of the Environment and the same proposal was in the Charest report. In June 1990, we also had a resolution in this House to change the Canadian Constitution for New Brunswick. The motion was already before the House then, but unfortunately it was not presented to the members.
I also remember the Beaudoin-Dobbie report very well. It was supported by every political party in Canada. We also supported the proposal on New Brunswick in the Beaudoin-Dobbie report. Later, we had the Charlottetown accord. Despite the result of the referendum on that accord, the Charlottetown proposal received very strong support in New Brunswick, both from anglophones and from francophones. If I remember correctly, over 60 per cent of the people in New Brunswick supported the Charlottetown agreement. Again, the New Brunswick proposal was included in this agreement, Madam Speaker. It was supported by the people, by the provincial government members and by the members from the three major parties represented in this House.
On Friday, December 4, the resolution was introduced and adopted by the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly in Fredericton. It was supported by the McKenna Liberal Party, by the Conservative Party as well as by the hon. member and leader of the other party at the Legislative Assembly, Elizabeth Weir.
I would like to say a few words about Mr. Hatfield. He was the premier of that province for many years and he fought hard for linguistic equality in New Brunswick. He has accomplished many positive things for the Acadians as well as for the other people of the province.
I can also remember another former premier, Mr. Robichaud, a Liberal premier, who has done exactly the same thing for New Brunswick. The other party has always been quite small in that province, but nonetheless present, as exemplified by Elizabeth Weir last week, at the Legislative Assembly.

For all kinds of reasons of process what we are doing today is the right thing. This has been studied by people in New Brunswick, by committees in that province and by federal committees for the last number of years. It has been before the House previously. It was part of the companion resolution of Mr. McKenna back in 1990. It was part of the Charest report and part of the Beaudoin-Dobbie report. It was supported by all political parties as the right and proper thing to do.
Last Friday the legislature passed it, supported by the three national parties in the province of New Brunswick. They have now asked the federal Parliament, the Senate and the House of Commons, to pass the resolution as
December 11, 1992

required under section 43 of our Constitution Act to make this an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.
The process has been open, consultative and supported by the people and the legislature of the province of New Brunswick. Of course the resolution applies only to the province of New Brunswick.
The second point I would like to make on why we should be supporting this today is its substance. It is right and just to make sure we have equality between the two linguistic communities in that province. It is an act of generosity, an act of tolerance, an act that reflects our history that we have in this country as a whole two linguistic communities.
New Brunswick is really a microcosm of Canada. One-third of New Brunswickers are francophones and about two-thirds are anglophones. In order for the community to survive and thrive, the equality of those two communities should be enshrined in our Constitution. Our party has always supported minority language rights, openness, generosity and tolerance when it comes to the two languages in this country. I am very proud to be supporting this amendment to the Constitution of Canada on behalf of our party.
I want to conclude by briefly making a couple of more points. The first is that we are doing this in the proper way. In 1981 we had about four or five ways agreed upon at that time on how to amend our Constitution. One way was through unanimous consent for about five different items. The major way was with the support of two-thirds of the provinces, with 50 per cent of the population residing in the province and with the support of Parliament. That was the bulk of the amendments to our Constitution. That was the bulk of Charlottetown.
The third way was a bilateral way where the amendment affects one or more provinces but not all provinces. It had to be passed by the legislatures of those provinces and by the Parliament of Canada, under section 43 of the Constitution of Canada. It is interesting that section 43(b) also refers directly to language issues. It states: "Any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or French language within a province".
What we are doing here is precisely what is called for in terms of the Constitution of Canada as patriated by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Government Orders
That leads me to my last two points. There is a concern by some people that maybe what we are doing here is introducing something new called collective rights. I just want to say that line of thinking is absolutely wrong. We already have in our Constitution many times references to collective rights of people, linguistic rights in terms of the French language and English language all across this country. We have in section 16 of the Constitution the listing of those rights. We also have in section 23 guarantees for official language minorities. Be they English in Quebec for education or the francophones outside Quebec for education, those are collective rights. They are already in the Constitution of Canada.
In addition to linguistic rights and educational rights, we have rights for the aboriginal people that are already part of the Constitution of this country. In addition to that we have rights in Canada for people who come from many different multicultural and multiracial backgrounds. I suppose we could even say that under section 36 we have certain economic obligations of the federal government to provide equalization and regional development plans to help poor provinces, and again that helps collectivities in the poorer parts of the country.
Any challenge to what we are doing today is a very shallow challenge. It reflects people who go back to the 19th century and think the only rights that are important are individual rights. That is a very reactionary thing of the past and something we should be turning down as Canadians. This is a very positive, progressive amendment to the Constitution. It is in sync with what we have done before. It is an extension of what we have done before.
The last point I want to make before I sit down is that I do sometimes worry about the future of this country. I want to say at this time I know that the minister himself worries about the future of this country. The Minister Responsible for the Constitutional Affairs has done many months of very fine work in trying to build a national consensus. It is not just the minister; indeed many people in this House and many of the provincial political leaders across the country have worked hard. That consensus did not achieve fruition. We saw the results of the October 26 referendum.

Government Orders
Despite that, despite the fact that I sometimes worry about the future of this country, I think that within Canada and all regions of this country there is a great feeling that we must keep this country together. There is a great feeling that we must find ways of reforming our institutions, making this institution more meaningful, binding our country together and expressing that tolerance and that generosity to keep the country together as we move on to the 21st century.
I am optimistic about the future of Canada. I think this country is going to work. The gesture of today is a very concrete step in making this country better not only for the Acadian minority, not only for New Brunswick, but for all Canadians regardless of where we may live.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before moving on I should officially put to the House the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition a bit earlier. Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst), moved:
That the question be now put.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie -Bathurst):: Madam Speaker, it is with great emotion and pride that I participate in this historic debate on a motion authorizing an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1982 in order to enshrine: (1) that the English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion fo those communities; (2) that the role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to above is affirmed.
The two official language communities of New Brunswick have shown great understanding and generosity, and it is this spirit of liberality and magnanimity that allows us today to enshrine in our Constitution this principle of equality which is so important for our people's harmonious development.
For the Acadian community in my province, the recognition of these rights is the result of a very long struggle. A century ago, the Acadian people gave themselves a few emblems to rally around such as a flag, an
anthem and a national day. From these symbolic actions emerged a defensive nationalism, whose first priority is to preserve their language, culture and religion. Eventually they established ways to develop their economy, such as the Acadian co-operative movement, to ensure that the survivors of Grand-Pre would continue to survive.
Rapid progress was made when Louis Robichaud was elected as the first Acadian premier of New Brunswick in 1960. The University of Moncton was founded in 1963 and the Official Languages Act was proclaimed in 1969.
The equal opportunities program launched by Mr. Robichaud in the sixties has been essential to Acadians achieving recognition of the equal status they now enjoy with their English speaking neighbours.
Two figures who followed in the footsteps of Mr. Robichaud also deserve our recognition and gratitude, and I am referring to the late Richard Hatfield, who became premier in 1970, and the present premier, the Hon. Frank McKenna, who on Friday, December 4, led the legislature of my province in passing a resolution that recognizes the equal status of both official language communities of New Brunswick.
I want to thank my colleagues in the New Brunswick legislature whose co-operation made it possible for us to take part in this important event in Acadian history and in the history of New Brunswick and Canada. The support shown for Premier McKenna's resolution by the leader of the Conservative Party of New Brunswick, Dennis Cochrane, and by the members of his caucus, and the support of the leader of the New Democratic Party, Ms. Elizabeth Weir, is tangible proof that friendship and understanding between two official language communities are possible in this country.
I want to thank the Government of Canada, led by Prime Minister and seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria and Minister of Employment and Immigration for what they did today.
It is a great privilege to witness this historic day with the Leader of the Opposition who sponsored the enshrinement in the Constitution of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and who represents a large number of Acadians as the member for Beausejour in my province. A coincidence, I would say, that proves that luck is always on the side of those who persevere.
December 11, 1992

On this day, as we witness the end of a long struggle for harmony and the enhancement of both official language communities of New Brunswick, it is also appropriate to mention the many people who worked so hard, often without public recognition, that we might experience this historic moment.
I am thinking of Father Clement Cormier, Martin Legere, Raymond Gionet, Dr. Marcel Sormany, Dr. Alexandre Savoie, Antonine Maillet, Hedard Robi-chaud, Blanche Bourgeois, the nuns who worked with such dedication in Acadia, Gilbert Finn, Marie-Esther Robichaud, Michel Doucet, Michel Bastarache and many others who worked without respite for equal status for New Brunswick's Acadians.
Madam Speaker, need I add that these pioneers and passionate defenders of the cause acted in the best Acadian tradition by avoiding confrontation and fruitless debate, preferring instead the route of dialogue and compromise.

The English speaking majority in New Brunswick is made up of Canadians whose origins can be traced to many lands: Ireland, Scotland, India, England, Germany, Italy, Pakistan, the United States. The list is very long.
1 want to say today to my colleagues in this place that what makes so many of them so very special is that they share a tradition of generosity of spirit and a commitment to fairness and equity that makes me extremely proud to be a New Brunswicker.

This day will remain engraved forever in the collective memory of Acadians as the conclusion of one of the longest battles ever fought by a Canadian minority, determined to contribute in a positive way to the development of its province and its country.
This is a solemn moment, and all those who helped write this chapter in our history deserve our admiration, gratitude and respect. In concluding, I want to say this is a great day for Acadia, and I hope that the example set by New Brunswick's two official language minorities will be followed by others across Canada.
Christmas has come early this year for Acadians, and speaking on behalf of my colleagues-the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, the hon. member for Monc-
Govemment Orders
ton, the hon. member for Miramichi-and all New Brunswickers, I can assure you we are very grateful.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out the big effort of the members from New Brunswick in this House who agreed to table and sponsor this motion today. As members of the Bloc Quebecois, we are extremely pleased to endorse this motion. However, I would like to make some comments.
We did not have a chance to examine it more closely and I wonder whether the Meech Lake accord would pass as quickly if it came back to the House today. The Meech Lake accord let Quebec return to the Canadian Constitution upright and not on its knees. I wonder if the other Canadian provinces would have the courage New Brunswick has in recognizing duality and the founding peoples. I take Ontario for example. It is making slow progress, but should follow New Brunswick's example. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the other provinces should imitate Quebec, for all purposes. But no, that was not done. Furthermore, it was confirmed in the massive rejection of the Charlottetown accord throughout Canada. Not only Quebec voted against the Charlottetown accord, but many other provinces of Canada, like British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia; the Toronto region voted yes, but when the outlying regions are included, 50 per cent of Ontarians voted against the Charlottetown accord.
We will support this motion because the Bloc Quebecois would not want to prevent Canada from developing as Canadians want. At the same time, we are showing this House again today that Quebec is being prevented from developing as it wants.
Just a few weeks ago, when the House returned, the minister who tabled this motion, supported by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, told us, in answer to a request from the Bloc Quebecois to transfer occupational training to Quebec, that the Government of Quebec's requests could not be granted because the people had voted against the Charlottetown accord. Today these same ministers are tabling this motion and asking the House to agree to pass it on first, second and third reading in the same day, which we will do.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
In conclusion, I say that this country, Canada, divided as it might be, is never divided because of Quebec. We in Quebec want the rest of Canada to develop as Canadians want, as long as they let Quebec develop as the people of Quebec want and agree to that.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, February 1, 1993.


Mr. Plamondon:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We are prepared to give our consent. If there is unanimous consent, we are prepared to vote immediately, since all three parties are in favour.


Charles Joseph Clark: If the hon. member wants to reconsider his objection, we are willing to have the question put again, and we are in favour of having a vote immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, we wanted a vote in the House, but we are willing to have the vote held
immediately. If a vote is held, we in the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, when he requested a vote at this time, the hon. member overlooked the fact that unless there is unanimous consent, the House never proceeds with a vote on Fridays. The division is always deferred, unless there is unanimous consent.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, when the Chair read the motion that the question be now put, to my colleagues who are in favour of the motion, it simply means that we will have an opportunity to vote on the question which is before us.
I am happy to see that my colleague who has spoken on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with that.
If the Chair were to ask if the motion could go forward, I think it would find a disposition in the House for that unless there were five members who would then stand up and oppose that particular motion. If those members would understand, we could proceed with the vote which I think all members would like to have forthwith.


Mr. Nowlan:: Madam Speaker, the situation we are in is that the Chair has already called the vote. Five members have stood to put the vote, and the Chair stated that according to the rules of Friday it would be deferred.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, it always requires some interpretation of the rules of the House.
My understanding, based upon what I have seen here, is that five members rose, two of whom may not have clearly understood all of the consequences of their rising at that time. As I understood the interventions that were made by the Bloc Quebecois members of the House, it was an indication to the Chair that they would like to have reconsidered the vote that they had cast which had caused this matter not to proceed.
If there are only three members opposed, then the matter can proceed. If there are five, it cannot. My understanding is that the Bloc members wanted to proceed and therefore the only opposition would come from the Independents and the Reform members. I would ask the Chair to put that question again since there has been a clear indication that there had been
December 11, 1992

some voting without a full understanding of the consequences.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are now at eleven o'clock and the House should proceed to Statements Pursuant to S. O. 31.
I understand what the hon. minister is saying and what other members have also suggested. However I will need unanimous consent to come back. What I suggest is that not only the Chair but each and every member takes it under advisement until after Question Period when, if unanimous consent is given, I would be delighted to put the question again.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, yesterday was Human Rights Day and I was therefore pleased that the Minister of Justice tabled legislation to amend the Human Rights Act and that this discussion is now in the public domain.
I was most disappointed, however, that the legislation failed to explicitly define what constituted a family relationship. I am also disappointed that it did not state categorically that spousal benefits were exclusively available to heterosexual families.
I am also troubled that the legislation merely added sexual discrimination to the long list of personal attributes which we do not discriminate against rather than state quite plainly that we do not discriminate against people based on their personal attributes, whatever those attributes may be.
In short, the legislation lacks definition where it needs it and it has too much definition where it does not. I call upon the Minister of Justice to review these amendments to ensure that they do two things. First, they effectively protect all Canadians from discrimination and, second, they strengthen, define and support Canadian families whose existence is the very foundation of our country and the basis for its continued existence.


HOCKEY CANADA
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, Hockey Canada has been involved in international hockey for 20 years. NHL players donate their services.
I have asked several ministers repeatedly for the complete books and records of Hockey Canada: revenues, expenses, tax receipts, sponsorships, rink board advertising, et cetera.
The U.S. government through the FBI has been gathering this information on Hockey Canada for three years. Why is the Government of Canada not interested in satisfying the NHL players who were involved in these tournaments and who want to see the records?
I believe taking three years to react on the Hockey Canada file is too long.


QUEEN ELIZABETH II
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of myself, my family, members of this House and the people of Canada I wish to convey to our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, our warmest best wishes for the holiday season and above all for a most happy, healthy and peaceful 1993.
The past year, the 40th year of the Queen's reign, has been an exceedingly trying and stressful one for her, but through it all she has continued to personify and to demonstrate the finest qualities of the human spirit, qualities which are best demonstrated at times of adversity.
As each of us has our own personal problems and difficulties, times of trouble bring us together. It is at times like this that we can truly appreciate what the Queen symbolizes to us and how exceedingly well she fulfils her role and her responsibilities.
Our thoughts and our prayers are with her. God save the Queen.

December 11, 1992


S. O. 31 FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Madam Speaker, the emergency response program of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced a couple of weeks ago, was certainly a step in the right direction. It will ease the financial situation for many people, but it excludes some people who really ought to have been included.
For example, seven fishermen at Lord's Cove will not qualify despite their long attachment with the fishery running from 12 years to as much as 46 years. At Rose Blanche, long-time fishermen do not qualify. At Red Harbour, Burnt Islands, Point May, many communities, many fishermen in my riding, many plant workers are also unfairly left out.
There is no argument that the program does what it sets out to do. It eases the pain. I applaud the minister for that, but he must now realize that some people who ought to have been included have unfairly been falling through the cracks.
I invite the minister-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, last night the Prime Minister, in an address to Harvard University, indicated that Canada had 1 per cent of the world's population and yet provided 10 per cent of the world's peacekeeping efforts. I support Canada's role in peacekeeping for in many ways keeping peace abroad is similar to keeping peace in our own country.
However many constituents are concerned with our level of involvement. This comes at a time when our debt seems to be in a critical situation thereby stifling our ability to deal with many of our own problems.
Canadians are unaware of the participation of other countries in what should be a shared role. Many of my constituents are asking Canada to reconsider the extent of our involvement in international peacekeeping and be guided by the principle that charity begins at home.


RURAL DIGNITY
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, next Monday marks the sixth anniversary of the founding of Rural Dignity.
In the last six years its members have fought tirelessly on behalf of rural Canada. Rural Dignity has helped to draw attention to the issues affecting rural Canada. Whether it has been the closure of rural post offices, the loss of VIA Rail services or cuts to health care in rural areas, Rural Dignity has been there. Equally important has been Rural Dignity's ability to make people aware of the seriousness of the problems facing rural Canada.
Today most Canadians and even some politicians realize that if we do not act soon many of our rural communities will not survive. Increasingly people in rural communities across Canada have made it clear that they are not going to let their communities be shut down without a fight.
Today the people of St. Clement, Quebec, are occupying their post office to prevent Canada Post from shutting it down. In my own constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre the people of Shamrock are working to force Canada Post to respect the wishes of the community and keep the post office open.
The renewed determination of Canadians in rural areas who fight for the survival of rural Canada is due in no small part to the work of Rural Dignity.


NUCLEAR POWER
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, ever since coming to Ottawa I have pressed the case for nuclear development in New Brunswick because of two equally compelling considerations.
First, the existing Point Lepreau nuclear reactor is rated as one of the best operating units in the entire world and New Brunswick's nuclear management capability is highly regarded as the right environment for carrying out the construction of the Candu III prototype.
Second, the future potential for modular construction and sale of Candu III units world-wide offers New Brunswick an unprecedented economic horizon that would be difficult to match in any other way.
December 11. 1992

Unfortunately the provincial government in New Brunswick has apparently not been satisfied during negotiations that acceptable costs and guarantee provisions have been forthcoming and has been unwilling to consummate an agreement with AECL and the federal government.
Without question, in my view, New Brunswick is now on the verge of missing a compelling opportunity. I call on my colleagues in both the federal and provincial governments to make extraordinary efforts to salvage these nuclear power negotiations between them.


INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, yesterday was International Human Rights Day. It draws attention to an issue which has become fundamental to world peace.
As well, yesterday at the United Nations General Assembly our minister in charge of development assistance presented the commemorative resolution marking recognition of 1993 as the International Year of Indigenous Peoples.
Citizens of the world know-certainly the Government of Canada must know-that Canada will be known internationally by its actions, not its rhetoric.
CIDA's current development assistance decisions in Colombia are one current example of government wrong-headed human rights and indigenous policy. A recent successful CUSO linked project benefiting indigenous people in Colombia has just been denied third phase funding on the basis of budget cuts. The project risks failure from midstream abandonment by CIDA.
On the other hand, with no consultation with thousands of indigenous peoples in the Choco rain forest area of Colombia, CIDA is involved in supporting development of a megaproject which will destroy the indigenous peoples' lifestyle and habitat.
The Canadian government must improve its indigenous-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mount Royal.


MINORITY RIGHTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I note after long awaited consideration from Quebec that Bill 178 maybe changed. After four years of keeping our English speaking face from being seen on streets and signs, Bill 101 will be reviewed.
Social justice and fair play were always on the minds of the Quebec people. I am glad the politicians plan to listen and act, respecting anglophones as part of Quebec's rich heritage and in the interest of an open and democratic society.
Let there be respect for the bilingual contract of Canada, the spirit of choice. Let anglophone schools enrol immigrant students from English speaking countries in their excellent bilingual immersion programs. Let municipalities continue to reflect their bicultural history. Let tourism reflect our two great cultures on our roads and in our resorts.
I call not for a softening but for a repeal of Bill 178 and for significant revisions to Bill 101, not as a gesture of goodwill but a statement that Canada's respect for minority rights and minority language rights has not been extinguished under Bill 178. For like the hanoukka lamp of old, the festival of-


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


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch - Stouff-ville):: Madam Speaker, I was speaking to Bryan Cousi-neau, York Regional Police Chief yesterday. He said that changes to the Young Offenders Act, specifically with respect to age limits, is a priority. He explained that youths of 16 and 17 years who commit crimes know exactly what they are doing and should be punished more severely. Right now these young people commit dangerous crimes, armed with weapons, and they walk away with incredibly lenient sentences.

The federal government must introduce changes to the Young Offenders Act so that these young people will be tried in adult court and will be dealt some harsh penalties for their criminal activities.
We need to support our police officers and make sure we are doing everything we can to help them do their jobs more effectively.


INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, last April I urged the Canadian government to support at the United Nations sixth committee a proposal for an international criminal court.
I said at the time that it was an idea whose time had come. I am pleased to report to the House today that the government has indeed actively supported such a court. I would like to congratulate the minister of external affairs.
Last week, some 130 experts in this field, including 12 parliamentarians from all across the world, members of Parliamentarians for Global Action, attended the UN sponsored conference in Siracusa, Italy.
That conference urged as a first step to such an international criminal court the establishment by the UN or the CSCE in Europe of an ad hoc tribunal to try allegations of genocide and war crimes in Yugoslavia.
Last night the Prime Minister urged the UN to be more than just peacekeepers but to become peacemakers in Yugoslavia. I urge his government to promote this new proposal actively as a first step to bringing-


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


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, we are presently discussing the North American free trade agreement and its effect on Canadian trade and its workers.
I want to discuss trade that is already occurring. This week a firm in my riding announced the contract for the sale of prefabricated homes to Mexico. This contract will in its entirety create employment for some 340 Canadian people over 30 months. It will use existing industrial space and does not require new technology.
What it does require is recognition of the emerging purchasing power of Mexico, recognition of the material that must be used and the ingenuity to design a structure that can be packaged and shipped to Mexico at a competitive price.
In this case Festival Developments Group Limited has done all of these. The startling size of this contract makes it special. The total sale of 27,500 units will create a $179 million export to Mexico with opportunities to expand it.
Canadian skill and Canadian ingenuity can compete in Mexico and around the world.


LANGUAGE EQUALITY IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, we New Brunswickers are very proud of the support for the motion on language equality in New Brunswick.
I listened with interest to what my leader, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and my colleague from Acadie-Bathurst said and I fully agree with them.

The population in my riding is comprised of both French and English people who have been living together in harmony since the time of settlement.
Today's motion simply recognizes something that these people have known for hundreds of years, that both linguistic communities are equal.

The support for this motion is a message and a challenge to the rest of Canada. I urge Canada to unite in a lasting way and accept the challenge. Such unity would be a model throughout the world.
I am proud to have had an opportunity to participate and support this motion.
December 11, 1992

[English \


CHEMAINUS
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, this fall I attended the 10th anniversary of the Chemainus' Festival of Murals. Chemainus notes with amusement Welland's attempt to claim the title Mural City of Canada. While I congratulate Welland on the attempt, I feel I must point out a few facts.
Chemainus is recognized internationally as the Mural Capital of the World. The town and its citizens combine history, culture and the arts to save what could have become a ghost town.
Chemainus, like so many small communities, was a single industry town dependent on forestry. When the economy slowed and the industry began to change, Chemainus suffered.
This was a town that would not die. Instead, through the inspiration of Karl Schultz and others and the hard work of many, Chemainus was born again. Now, after 10 years, 32 murals and thousands of visitors, Chemainus is known as the little town that did.
Its Festival of Murals Society has gone on to help other communities start mural projects of their own in Steubenville, Ohio; Bowenshire, Queensland, Australia; and Welland, the mural capital of Ontario.


ROUGE RIVER VALLEY
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, four and a half years ago the Minister of the Environment committed to support the establishment of a park to preserve the Rouge River Valley lands in Scarborough.
The government at that time pledged $10 million to the park initiative. Since then the provincial government has decided to establish the park and a multipartite advisory committee has recommended that the land base of the park be 20,000 acres in Scarborough and Markham.
This park proposal will create Canada's largest urban parkland to protect the natural environment and wildlife including 55 species of fish, 200 species of birds, 28 species of mammals, 700 species of plants, wetlands and forests.
Oral Questions
The provincial government will make a critical decision next week on the future of the park proposal. We ask the government to renew its commitment to the Rouge Valley, participate in the planning and management of the park and commit surplus federal lands in the area to land swaps to build the necessary park land base.


CHILDREN
Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Madam Speaker, one year ago Canada said its children are important by ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since ratification this government has taken concrete steps to honour its commitment to children and their families.
In May 1992 Canada introduced its action plan for children and announced the child development initiative, a group of long-term programs to address the conditions of risk that threaten the well-being and development of one Canadian child in five.
In addition, the new child tax benefit to begin in January 1993 represents an increase of $2.1 billion in federal government support for children and families over the next five years.
Children are our most precious resource. These initiatives demonstrate the Government of Canada's resolve in meeting its obligation to children and their families.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, since it is the last sitting day, I would like to wish you and everybody in the House of Commons a very Merry Christmas and happy holidays.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. We read in the press that Senator Lowell Murray, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, confirmed yesterday that the Prime Minister is about to make ten Senate appointments. He said: "We want to be more at ease to pass controversial legislation like Bill C-91 and NAFTA".

Oral Questions
Everybody remembers that in 1984, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, when he was Prime Minister, made some appointments in the fifth year of his mandate. At that time, the present Prime Minister said that the Prime Minister had an option and it was not normal to do something like that in the fifth year of the mandate.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister why it would be moral in 1992 to do something like that when it was absolutely immoral according to the Prime Minister in 1984. Why would the Prime Minister do today that which he used as an instrument to win the election in 1984?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, many of the appointments having to do with the contents of the referendum were held in abeyance until such time as the decision on the referendum was held. Therefore, there is a backlog of appointments in a number of areas.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows the outcome of the referendum which involved very substantial changes to the structure and the composition of the Senate. Of course, with that having been rejected by the people of Canada, the institutional structures of the House of Commons and the Senate remain the same.
There is not only an obligation but also a responsibility for the Prime Minister to fulfil his duties commensurate with the Constitution and the traditions of the past.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, that is exactly my point. Now we are in the fifth year of the mandate and that was the big argument made by the Prime Minister in 1984. I do not question the legality or the constitutionality. I am talking about the morality of doing such a thing.
The Prime Minister was so offended in 1984 and a lot of people claim that is what made the difference in the election. I want to know from the Acting Prime Minister what makes it moral in 1992 when it was absolutely immoral in 1984?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a
difference between filling the Senate on the eve of an election versus an election that may be held anywhere from six to ten months down the road.
If we want to talk about democratic morality we could not get a better example than the Leader of the Opposition going into a constituency and hand-picking his favourite candidate to represent the Liberal Party in the next election. That is quite an example of political morality.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I had
the backing of 90 per cent of the members who were delegates.

I shall return to this question.
In 1984, the government was in the third or fourth month of its fifth year. Today this government is in its fifth year and it is getting ready to do exactly what they reproached the government for in 1984.
Will the Acting Prime Minister inform the Prime Minister that Canadians do not want this kind of abuse of power by a government that has absolutely no legitimacy now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is quite interesting to note the hon. member is now backtracking on a spirited defence of his former leader which he took back in 1984.
Let me just assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He says he has the backing of 90 per cent of his members. The Prime Minister has the backing of 100 per cent of his members.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: And they are all going down with him too.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

All the excuses in the world will not cover up the fact that the Prime Minister and this government are desperately clinging to power in the fifth year of a mandate.
Canada has the highest unemployment rate in the industrialized world. We have more jobless Canadians at this point than at any other time in our 125-year history. Food banks are bursting at the seams.
If the Conservative government has done such a great job on the economy why is the jobless situation so absolutely heartbreaking?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member is on this kick of bad-mouthing Canada when the United Nations says we are the best country in the world in which to live.
The hon. member talks about the high level of unemployment and yes, it is too high. We are taking steps to bring it down. I also remind the hon. member that there are 12,252,000 Canadians who are working and there are 1.8 million self-employed Canadians. That too is a record.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am not bad-mouthing Canada. I believe in Canada. I think a new government could give Canada a chance again.

We know that more than a million children are lining up for food and clothing over the Christmas period. We know that unemployed Canadians are being treated savagely by this government.
If your government's policies are so good, why are you not ready to go to the people directly to find out if you have their support in an election?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, she will not have to worry. She will have a chance to go to the people.
We had the same invitations going into the 1988 election. Many members opposite were sorry they badgered us to call the election because when the dust settled they ended up over there and we ended up over here.
Oral Questions
Certainly there are difficulties. The impact of the economic slowdown has had an effect on all Canadians.
I remind the hon. member that federal spending on social programs which really address some of the difficult programs that he referred to has increased. Spending by the federal government between the period 1984-85 and 1991-92 increased from $44.6 billion to $66.8 billion. That was an increase of 5.9 per cent, and that was per year, when program spending was averaging at a growth rate of about 4 per cent on an annual basis.
In terms of the incidence of low income, 1984 to 1990, the 1984 figures had a percentage of 18.1 per cent. In
1990	it was down to 14.6 per cent. It went up a little bit in
1991	to 16 per cent, reflecting again the economic slowdown, but conditions are better today than they were in 1984 when we assumed office.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, this morning young homeless Canadians are forced to live in tents out in front of the Parliament Buildings in the middle of a snowstorm. Some members find humorous the fact that homeless people exist in this country. I know people find this very, very funny. As young children line up at food banks which is their source of food today, 1992 will be remembered as the worst year in government performance since 1981 when the Liberals were on that side of the House.
Remember then there were a million people unemployed and now it is 1.6 million people. There were huge debts and now we have larger debts facing this country.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that the old ways have proven to be a complete disaster? Will he use the next six weeks to rethink his policies and come back with a new initiative to get people back working again?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants government to bury its head in the sand and ignore the realities of the North American and world economic situation. We are going through a period of economic downturn because there is a global slowdown.
As a matter of fact, we are projecting a growth rate of 2.5 per cent for 1993. The combined growth rate anticipated for the European Economic Community is 1 per

December 11, 1992
Oral Questions
cent. The world growth rate is at 1 per cent. Canada has been affected by that.
We are taking steps as outlined in the economic statement last week to invest in people, business and infrastructure and to encourage more trade. We are a trading country. Naturally our performance in trade is very important. We are investing in productivity enhancement, but most important we are investing in skills upgrading and retraining.
That is the focus, because the focus of the changing economy compels us to adapt to those changes and that is precisely what we are doing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance can use all the figures he wants. The reality is that unemployment in Canada is remaining at unprecedented rates. The predictions are that it is not going to change for the next couple of years.
As a matter of fact, the manufacturing index this morning indicates that Canadian manufacturers are losing market share domestically as well as on world markets at a higher rate than most other industrialized countries. The situation is worsening.
As he and the Prime Minister and their colleagues do a lot of walking in the snow during the next six weeks contemplating their employment futures, they should give some consideration to the plight of the unemployed in this country.
Will he consider the tens of thousands, yea millions, of people concerned about the future in terms of their own employment and change his policies?
If he refuses to do that, will he do the right thing and urge the Prime Minister to call an election so we can change this government and get a government in that will actually change course and put people back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I can only take it that the hon. member is suggesting we follow the same kind of policies as the New Democratic Party is following in the province of Ontario. That is an anti-business attitude which has driven business out of this country into the United States and has disrupted orderly growth and orderly transition. That is not the course of action we intend to follow.


THE SENATE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. It is about jobs, namely the 10 vacancies in the Senate.
During the referendum campaign the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the Prime Minister, most people of this Elouse and indeed the people of this country found the present unelected Senate to be absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.
In light of that, and I know the Prime Minister has the constitutional right to appoint senators-I do not want that for an answer-I wonder if the minister would suggest to the Prime Minister that there be a moratorium on the appointment of all senators until either we reform the other place, the Senate, or if we cannot reform the Senate, then abolish it; in other words, no more senators until it is reformed or abolished.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I think that such a recommendation would be quite inappropriate. We had proposals for change. They were considered. They were extensive. They were rejected. We must now make do with the Senate that is in place.
We cannot allow the referendum result which stopped one attempt at reform to also stop the business of Canada, which could be the result if we simply allowed the atrophy of one of the two institutions established by the Constitution of Canada as being part of the Parliament of Canada.
I am sure the hon. member understands that. I know he was a believer in whole-hearted reform. I am sure he would not associate himself with people like Preston Manning who are suggesting that after they had defeated a proposal for whole-hearted reform, we should go forward with some kind of half-hearted, partial reform.
December 11, 1992


THE HOMELESS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Only a few steps from Parliament Hill in my riding of Ottawa Centre, homeless and jobless people are living on Wellington Street in a makeshift tent.
Why was there nothing in the recent budget to help these homeless young people and others in cities across Canada so that they may have a dignified shelter over their heads?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the federal government puts in in excess of $2 billion on an annual basis toward housing in Canada. It is a very, very large commitment and it has been growing over the years.
I do not know what the hon. member has in mind specifically, but here again, the best way to enhance confidence and optimism is to create the opportunities for job creation. We took a number of steps and announced a number of initiatives in the statement on Wednesday which will help small business and which will help individuals train and adjust to the changing environment. It constitutes a massive program of complementing the changes that are already taking place and being advanced by the private sector.
What we are proposing here is a partnership regime between the two levels of government, the private sector and the workers of Canada to deal with this very important challenge that can be turned into enormous opportunities for our country.


POVERTY
Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, if this government's policies are so great, how come in Montreal 18,000 children need food baskets this Christmas, while in Quebec City another 4,000 are going to need those baskets and in my own riding of Mount Royal, 540 people will go to the Multi-caf food bank for their Hanukkah and Christmas baskets, now without meat and now without milk. They have had to put in powdered milk because they cannot afford real milk. That is a total shame.
Oral Questions
What are this government's economic policies going to do to answer the needs of these families? Is this the way we have to live in the province of Quebec to feed our families?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. member that the federal government is transferring in excess of $39 billion annually to the provinces in the form of cash transfers and tax points. That is a lot of money. Those transfers are not going down. They are going up.
What we are doing as well, as we outlined in the economic plan last week, is taking a number of steps to bolster growth, to encourage confidence, to create jobs and to generate economic activity. Rather than zeroing in on the negatives, I ask the hon. member to look at the positive elements in that package and look at the response that it has been receiving from the business community which is responding in a very favourable manner. It will, I am sure, deliver the jobs that we have projected.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I will put a question to the Minister of Finance.
As he probably knows, in Winnipeg this year, right now, close to one out of every four children live in poverty. We have had a 500 per cent increase in welfare cases, and we have the highest unemployment rate for young people in the entire country.
Yet this week his colleague the minister of western diversification had the nerve to spend public dollars to begin a series of ads trying to camouflage the fact that this government has frozen transfer payments to the province of Manitoba for the past two years.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance: As a minister who preaches the virtue of frugality, will he ask his colleague to either pay for those ads out of his own pocket or out of the bulging Tory coffers from those $500 a plate dinners and use the public money to alleviate poverty, suffering and unemployment in the province of Manitoba?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is taking exception to the very generous contributions that the federal government provides to the province of Manitoba.

December 11, 1992
Oral Questions
If he is opposed to it, tell us what elements he wants cut back.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
This year, 1.2 million Quebecers will spend Christmas in poverty. Could the minister tell us how he will give hope to these 1.2 million poor Quebecers? Will he once and for all attack the problem of unemployment and create jobs, instead of attacking the unemployed who are victims of his bad economic policies?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, like all hon. members in this House, we are concerned about unemployment and poverty. I could tell the hon. member, who voted against Bill C-91 yesterday, that it is a way to create high quality jobs and thus reduce unemployment.
Instead of voting for this positive measure, the hon. member just repeated the nonsense that his party spewed out during the whole debate on a similar bill in 1987. That bill passed and has yielded concrete results for the Montreal region.


NATIONAIR
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Today's report in both The Ottawa Citizen and Montreal's The Gazette has an uncanny resemblance to Justice Moshansky's report on events leading up to the Dryden crash. In short, like the Dryden crash, the Nationair crash in Jeddah was an accident waiting to happen.
Will the Minister of Transport agree to do the following: One, release the Jeddah report today; and two, invite Justice Moshansky to come back into the aviation field and do an inquiry into the affairs of Nationair and the Jeddah accident.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, we will release the Jeddah report as soon as we receive it and have a chance to examine it.
The Jeddah inquiry was under the auspices of the local governments, with participation by the National Transportation Safety Board of Canada. We will deal with this report when it comes to us.
I think the hon. member has to accept the fact that after Mr. Justice Moshansky tabled his report, the next day when appearing on television and radio programs and in interviews with the media, he reiterated that the aviation system in Canada is one of the safest in the world.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, the minister did not respond to my request for an inquiry, a request that has been communicated to me today by both CUPE, the union that represented the flight attendants who were killed on the crash, and by two parents of those flight attendants.
I want to go back to the minister in a slightly different way. There has been a question about the relationship between Transport Canada and Nationair. The chief of air carrier operations for region 7, an individual who was part of the pre-Jeddah audit of Nationair, who also wrote the glowing report on Nationair's safety during the lockout situation, has been seconded this fall by Transport Canada to work for Nationair as part of an executive exchange program for up to three years.
In light of this, I would ask the minister once again, will he not only launch an inquiry into the safety aspects of Nationair, in particular the Jeddah crash, but will he also conduct an inquiry into the relationship between Nationair and Transport Canada?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, as soon as Nationair started experiencing problems with its employees and there were reports about the Nationair safety system not being adequate, we had put into place a regular inspection system to ensure that safety was in fact maintained in conformity with the Transport Canada standards. All the reports received not just from one inspector but from all the inspectors assigned to this case were to the effect that the company did meet Transport Canada requirements. There were no reports of Nationair not meeting Transport Canada requirements.
December 11, 1992

Oral Questions
Regarding the employee in question, the hon. member said he was taking part in on ongoing exchange program between government and the private sector. This employee, who is experienced in transportation, will go and work for Nationair, and a Nationair employee could come and work for the government of Canada. As far as I know, the department looked into all aspects dealing with conflict of interest and there was no conflict of interest in this case.

[English |


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to pose my question to the Minister of National Defence.
The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution to bring about peace in Cyprus. Talks between President Vasilious, representing the Greek Cypriot side, and Mr. Denktash, representing the Turkish Cypriot side, have been going on all summer and have been suspended because of the presidential election coming up in Cyprus in February. These talks will resume in March.
Does the minister not think that our peacekeeping troops should be left in Cyprus at least until a just and viable solution is found, since it is around the corner, or at least until the United Nations can find peacekeepers from other countries to replace the Canadian peacekeeping forces?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can advise the hon. member that on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will be making a statement immediately following Question Period with respect to the government's policy on Cyprus. I can assure my hon. colleague that it will be consistent with the recent report of the Secretary General of the UN.



Mme Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
After a presence of over twenty years in Cyprus, the Canadian government gives just a few months' notice before withdrawing our troops. Why abandon at this time a policy that has maintained peace since 1964 without even debating it in this House?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, as I have already indicated, I will be making a statement in the House with respect to the government's decision on this important matter and there will be an opportunity for the parties to respond at that time.


REFUGEES
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration. This week a distraught government-sponsored refugee couple came to my office. As the minister knows, the Husseins have been awaiting the arrival of their child for six months because Canadian officials in Turkey were not able to complete the rather simple paperwork. On December 6 they received news that their child took sick and died the same day. Given that the department was fully aware of this case because of numerous inquiries and urgent requests on behalf of this couple, will the minister initiate today a full and complete investigation into this tragedy and commit himself to reporting back to the House?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the member for giving me notice of his question.
This issue was first brought to my attention this morning. On a personal note, I can certainly empathize with any family that has lost a child. I have given directions in my department to provide me with information as to what has happened in this case. I can assure the hon. member that as soon as I find out I will apprise him of the results of those findings.

December 11, 1992
Oral Questions
What is important here and what this points to is the importance of our refugee determination system proceeding in a more efficient and faster way. That is behind many of the amendments I proposed to the Immigration Act.
It is of little comfort to a family that is going through a tragedy like this, but the purpose of these amendments is to change the situation in order to avoid tragedies such as this.


David Walker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister is quite right that this sort of tragedy has to be avoided at all costs. I would remind the minister that his department and his office were contacted several times in the last six months and he should, as part of the investigation, ensure that this does not happen again.
There is a similar case of another family that came on the same plane and is in London, Ontario awaiting the arrival of their child. I would like to ask the minister to look into the case of the Taher family and to make sure that they do not suffer the same tragedy as the Hussein family.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, absolutely. I want the hon. member to know that the member for London East is working on that case. Again this morning this was brought to my attention and I have personally asked my officials to provide me with a report of this situation.
If the hon. member or any hon. member in the House has suggestions of how we can improve the system in order to have a more expeditious dealing with those cases, I am open to suggestions.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Al Johnson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. During the recent referendum the Reform Party of Canada distributed letters and pamphlets which urged Canadians to call a 1-900 line to support their campaign. What it conveniently failed to mention was that there would be an automatic charge on the caller's phone bill. Many
people thought this was a toll free line. Now they find they have to pay the bill which may total millions of dollars.
I challenge the Reform Party to tell Canadians the full cost of this scam.
What is the minister going to do to stop this sort of shameful abuse of legitimate services offered by our telephone companies?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the regulations of the CRTC are quite clear in terms of ensuring that consumers are informed about potential charges.
For example, the general tariff for Bell Canada specifies that each sponsor's advertisements, publications or other communications containing a 900 service number shall also contain an appropriate statement outlining the charges that a caller will incur for each call to that number.
The CRTC does this in order to protect consumers. If any Canadian has a concern where they believe that a service has not followed this regulation, they have the right to launch a complaint with the CRTC.


JUSTICE
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, two months ago Dawn Shaw, a six year old girl was raped and murdered in a school playground in Comox, B.C.
The RCMP has done everything in its power, without much success, to identify the murderer. One of the things hampering the police investigation is the fact that rapists do not leave fingerprints but they do leave body fluids and other tissue which contains DNA material.
Will the Minister of Justice consider changes to criminal law to permit DNA samples to be taken in addition to fingerprints and photographs when people are charged with sexual assault in order to facilitate the identification of sex offenders through DNA matching?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what is a very good question.
December 11, 1992

As that member and the House may know, DNA typing is a relatively new technology. It is expensive but it seems to be very effective.
The Criminal Code at present places limits on what the police can do in obtaining evidence of crime. The courts have taken some decisions with respect to what is appropriate interference. I have asked my officials to look further into the matter of how DNA testing can be regulated and how it can be made available for the best use of this kind of situation.
I thank the member for his question.


HOCKEY CANADA
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
The minister will know that today in Florida, governors of the National Hockey League are discussing the future of the league, while in Canada the hockey tradition, whether it be professional or amateur, goes on.
However, many serious questions have been raised recently about the financial dealings of the non-profit federal agency Hockey Canada and certain individuals.
I ask the minister responsible if the government will provide to this House a full financial disclosure other than the annual one-line item expenses and income reports for Hockey Canada since Hockey Canada has been incorporated?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I will take that question on behalf of my colleague, the Solicitor General, who has indicated that this matter is currently being investigated by the RCMP. The Government of Canada will offer no further information until the RCMP has concluded its investigation.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the Minister of Justice telling the House that the RCMP has an ongoing and I would hope an independent operation and not simply an operation in conjunction with the FBI.
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the minister why the government has hidden the RCMP's involvement for so long in this matter?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague would know that the RCMP does not necessarily advertise the investigations it is undertaking.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Given that the mandate for the U.S. negotiators in the bilateral air services treaty expires on January 20 when the new administration takes office, I would like to ask the minister what instructions he has given to the Canadian negotiator in view of this timetable and in view of the current crisis in the Canadian airline industry?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, the negotiations are proceeding in a satisfactory manner. If it is not concluded before the new administration takes power in the United States, we do not doubt that it may renew the mandate of the present negotiators or it may appoint new negotiators and the negotiations would then continue on a normal basis.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I am becoming increasingly concerned with the government's failure to take really meaningful action in the face of the crisis in the Canadian airline industry.
We need some answers to some questions and I hope the minister will give some today. In particular, has the government initiated a meeting between the government and the two major carriers as provided in the terms of the loan agreement to Canadian Airlines? When will the government announce the details of its plans to recalibrate the regulatory framework of the industry, to use the minister's own mumbo-jumbo? When can we expect some real action on this crisis by the government?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, we are not only having discussions with the airline presidents and employees but we are also negotiating and discussing with all the stakeholders in the

December 11, 1992
Oral Questions
airline industry. I hope, when the House returns, to be in a position to table proposals.

\ English]


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Bill Attewell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
I am very concerned about the enormity of violence against women in Canada. We live in a country where at least one in every ten women is battered by her husband or male partner. An average of 100 women are murdered every year by their partners.
The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that Canadian women live in a safer Canada. The only way this can be accomplished is with a tough and aggressive national policy.
What is the status of the panel on violence against women and when their final report is received, hopefully early in the new year, will she deal with the recommendations quickly?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has been following the work of the panel and is aware that over the past year submissions from some 4,000 individuals and organizations have been heard. Along with the aboriginal circle, the panel has visited 139 communities, including many remote communities in all parts of Canada.
An interim report has been published, to which I would draw the attention of members. As well, last week a compilation of testimony, a very moving and disturbing reflection of what has been said, was published.
Early in the new year the final action plan will be published which I know will give not only the federal government guidance but will provide actions which each individual in this country can take, along with organizations, to bring about an end to violence against women throughout Canadian society.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, the president of the CBC has secretly threatened to close down the network's television stations and take CBC radio and Radio Canada off the airwaves if employees do not allow the corporation to dip into their pension reserves in order to shore up its funding shortfall. This is blackmail of the worst kind.
I would like to ask the Minister of Communications if he will refuse to allow this blatant coercion of CBC employees to have to actually pay in order to secure their own jobs.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the constraints that apply to all aspects of government activities apply as well to the CBC. The CBC and its employees are currently looking at the question of a surplus which exists in the accounts at the present time. It is the responsibility of the board of the CBC and the board of pensions to take a look at this and determine the best way to use that.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, the employees had reached a tentative agreement with the management of the corporation to use those pension surpluses. Apparently on the directive from Treasury Board that plan is out the window.
So also is a counter offer by the CBC employees to allow the CBC to make zero contributions to its pension plan over the next year.
I would like to know if the minister is prepared to resolve this ongoing financial dilemma by committing this government to implementing long-term and stable financing for the CBC. Or does he condone the wishes of Treasury Board to essentially take the guillotine to the CBC?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, let me first of all challenge my hon. friend to indicate to me what directive of the Treasury Board he is referring to. The Treasury Board did not direct the board of the CBC to take a decision with regard to the pension funds.
Second, the federal taxpayers are currently providing a subsidy for the CBC every year in excess of $1 billion-it is a very substantial subsidy-at a time when ordinary Canadians are wrestling with the need to try to be able to afford the basic necessities of life, at a time when the
December 11, 1992

Oral Questions
federal deficit continues to put additional pressure upon governments.
It is incumbent upon all members of Parliament who call for more federal spending to explain to Canadians directly that they also favour running up the federal deficit at the same time.


PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The public accounts of the Government of Canada inform us of shocking increases in the costs of running the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's office.
I want to ask the Prime Minister how come there is no money for the poor in Canada and there is enough money for a 160 per cent increase over four years to run the Privy Council Office.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had inquired into this he would have realized that the increase in the PCO and PMO budgets is essentially due to the four royal commissions; the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, the new reproductive technologies commission, the electoral reform, the Indian claims and aboriginal peoples commission.
I should advise the hon. member that the increase in the political staff component of the Prime Minister's budget over the last four years has been something in the order of 1 per cent per year, less than the rate of inflation.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, that is cold comfort for the unemployed and the homeless in Canada.
Are the Deputy Prime Minister and his government finally willing to set an example for Canadians, to stop what they are doing and to help the poor in this country instead of satisfying the needs of the government and the Prime Minister?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, let the hon. member be serious. Who does he want to pay for the royal commissions? Does he want the private sector to pay for them?
What other department of government would he suggest should pay for them? These four royal commissions are very important, the first on national passenger transportation, the second on new reproductive technologies, the third on electoral reform and the fourth on Indian claims and aboriginal peoples.
If he does not want the government to pay for them, who does he suggest should pay for these commissions?


NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about Canada's nuclear development program.
It is my understanding that negotiations for construction of a Candu III prototype reactor have not yet been successful either in New Brunswick or Saskatchewan, the two provinces involved, but I understand that a separate element of that program, a Research Centre of Excellence, has been separated from negotiations with one or both of the provinces.
I would like to ask this question: Why has the Centre of Excellence been separated from the commitment to build a reactor? What is the status of the over-all negotiations?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has been very faithful in his promotion of his province and also for nuclear power.
Lepreau L-l in New Brunswick is without any question of a world-class standard. It was my hope that we would be able to develop an agreement with New Brunswick. New Brunswick has informed us that it will not need that type of power before well into the next century.
We have finalized a memorandum of understanding with Saskatchewan whereby, tied in with 25 per cent of the world's uranium production that is now located in Saskatchewan, we will put together a deal, especially

December 11, 1992
Routine Proceedings
now after the NDP in Saskatchewan has supported the nuclear industry.
What we will do is ask of the NDP in the memorandum of understanding the same consideration for the nuclear industry as we asked of the previous government in Saskatchewan. I think it is a good deal for Saskatchewan, for Canada and for the nuclear industry.
As I say to the hon. member, we ask of the NDP government in Saskatchewan the same deal as we asked from the Grant Devine government.
 * *


VIMY BAND
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, the Department of National Defence is considering moving the Vimy band from Kingston to Camp Borden at a cost in moving expenses of over $400,000 when the same people could be moved from Camp Borden to Kingston at a cost of only $93,000.
Will the minister direct her department to abandon this foolhardy and expensive scheme in the interest of saving money for Canadian taxpayers and ensure that the Vimy band remains where it has been since its founding 40 years ago, in Kingston?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct my hon. colleague and state that the cost savings from such a move would be about $400,000 a year.
We have to look at all sorts of ways in which to reduce our budgets and meet our commitments. We will be looking at a variety of options and will certainly be prepared to advise my hon. colleague when decisions have been made.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before resuming with Routine Proceedings, I am pleased to announce to the members that, as is the tradition, the Speaker will be delighted to welcome all members of the House, between noon and 2 p.m., in Room 216 North, where we can have a bite and exchange wishes for Christmas and the New Year.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mary Collins: I rise today on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was unable to fly to Ottawa this morning because of the snow storm. On her behalf I am now announcing the government's decision about Canada's participation in the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cyprus.
After extensive consultations with the United Nations, Greece, Turkey, as well as Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the government has informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations that Canada will withdraw its troops from Cyprus beginning June of 1993, the withdrawal to be completed by September.
For the past 28 years, from the very beginning of the UN peacekeeping operation in Cyprus, thousands of Canadian men and women have displayed extraordinary competence, fairness and calm under pressure in the cause of peace. Their presence in Cyprus has been a powerful symbol of Canada's commitment to peace and security in the world. It has been a source of honour and pride, not only for those serving there but for all Canadians.
I am sure I speak for all members of the House and for all Canadians when I say that these Canadian men and women, as well as their families, are those to whom Canada owes a large debt of gratitude for their dedication and their professionalism, and to the 24 who died in the service of peace for their sacrifice.
December li, 1992

Beyond our contribution of troops and equipment, Canada has spared no effort to help the Secretary-General find a peaceful solution to this dispute. As recently as this year, the Secretary of State for External Affairs visited Cyprus, Greece and Turkey in May to press all parties concerned to work with the Secretary-General to that end.
She renewed our plea to Cypriots at the UN General Assembly in September and indicated that our patience was running short. We were deeply disappointed that the discussions under the Secretary-General's guidance have not been successful. In a unanimous resolution on November 25, the Security Council stated that the present status quo is not acceptable.
The government has also taken into account the report and appreciates the effort by a group of parliamentarians, led by the hon. member for Don Valley East, that provided the Secretary of State for External Affairs with useful information on the current situation in Cyprus.
After 28 years of service in Cyprus, after 28 years of watching both sides in the dispute being either unable or unwilling to negotiate a political solution, after 28 years of significant expenditures to maintain troops and equipment in that region without any measurable progress, it was time to face facts and come to certain conclusions.
Our experience in Cyprus has taught us many lessons.
One of the most important is that parties in a dispute must understand that there are limits to the duration of any peacekeeping operation. Peacekeeping must never be considered as an end in itself or as a substitute for political leadership, negotiation and honourable compromise. The basis for any peacekeeping operation has always been an agreement by the parties involved to work toward a political settlement. Whether or not Canadian troops remain in Cyprus, Greek and Turkish Cypriots bear the ultimate responsibility for resolving the dispute.
It appears that instead of taking advantage of the peace and order which the UN mission has afforded, some political leaders have used the presence of UN forces to avoid making the difficult choices, to avoid making the compromises required to ensure peaceful coexistence. At a time when there are increasing demands for peacekeeping around the world, we must
Routine Proceedings
ensure that we establish our priorities carefully and manage our resources and contributions effectively.
In deciding to withdraw our troops, we are not saying that the United Nations should put an end to its peacekeeping mission in Cyprus. That is a matter for the Security Council, the Secretary General and the parties involved to consider.
Furthermore, I assure the House that we will continue to support the Secretary-General's ongoing efforts to find a peacefully negotiated solution. In that regard, Canada once again calls upon the parties involved to implement Security Council resolution 789 and to work with the Secretary-General. If circumstances change, Canada would consider contributing directly to new UN efforts toward a peaceful settlement in Cyprus or to its implementation.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the UN General Assembly last September, the Government of Canada endorses the Secretary-General's agenda for peace, in particular the peacemaking and peacekeeping themes of that document. That is why Canada will continue to play a leading role in international efforts to secure peace. We are turning a page in this particular chapter of our history. Our passion for peace remains as fervent as it was 30 years ago when our soldiers donned the blue beret and went to Cyprus.
With over 4,000 troops participating in peacekeeping missions from Cambodia to Bosnia, from Croatia to Central America and the Middle East, the words Canada and peacekeeping will always be closely associated in the eyes of Canadians and in the eyes of the world.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to respond on behalf of the Liberal Party to the minister's statement notifying the Secretary-General of the United Nations that Canada will withdraw its troops from Cyprus beginning in June of 1993, the complete withdrawal by September.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I would like to express our gratitude, our appreciation, our heartfelt thanks to the thousands of men and women who act as our peacekeepers around the world. Their role is expanding now to peacemaking, to diplomacy. Returning from Cyprus, spending a lot of time with our peacekeepers there, I saw first hand what an outstanding

December 11, 1992
Routine Proceedings
reputation our Canadian UN troops establish for Cana- Commons so that we could debate it as our party has da-	been demanding for the last month? No.
The problem, as I said even on that visit there, is that they are doing too good of a job and the countries do not want to release them back to Canada. That is maybe part of the dilemma we are in.
I had the privilege with the hon. member for Don Valley East to establish the Canada-Cyprus parliamentary committee to look into the whole Cyprus situation because after 28 years Canadian taxpayers are saying that maybe it is time we brought our troops home. In that committee were members from the government side, the opposition side, my colleague for Kent joined me, the member for Outremont, the member for Don Valley East and a senator formed part of the fact-finding mission.
That committee made certain recommendations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs and if the government will not listen to the Liberal recommendations, to the NDP recommendations, I thought that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would at least listen to her own members.
The committee made excellent recommendations. One was that the Government of Canada not withdraw from participation in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus until a replacement is found or a just and viable solution to the problem has been reached. I thought that was an excellent recommendation that the committee made to the government and had the government implemented it, I think everyone in Canada, in Cyprus, in Greece and in Turkey would have been happy.
Another recommendation made was that the Government of Canada seek additional funding to offset the costs of our peacekeeping force in Cyprus from those countries with a direct interest, including the Republic of Cyprus, Greece, the U.K. and the United States of America.
We heard from President Vassiliou himself that the Republic of Cyprus would be willing to increase its share of the peacekeeping cost. However, did the secretary of state negotiate that before making her decision? No. Did the secretary of state bring the issue to this House of
Has the secretary of state gone to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade and said to the committee that this is a very important issue for Canada and for peacekeeping around the world, please investigate and make recommendations to the government? No. The minister made her decision and then notified the standing committee and then notified us without consulting Canadians through this Chamber.
Another excellent recommendation was that the Government of Canada should do its utmost through the UN to bring about a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem as quickly as possible. We were also pushing for the solution to be brought about as quickly as possible.
However, the secretary of state, as usual, went on her own way without any diplomacy, without any consultation of the Canadian people, without bringing it to debate in this House.
I do not think the secretary of state is fair to Canadians. In the statement read by the Associate Minister of National Defence she did not point out the serious situation that exists in Cyprus today. On the northern side, Turkey has 35,000 troops, and that is in addition to the Turkish Cypriot army.
The Greek Cypriot side is spending $1 million a day on purchasing military equipment. If the UN peacekeeping forces pull out of the buffer zone, what is going to happen? I am quite sure that some of the 35,000 Turkish troops will start occupying the buffer zone.
Is the Greek Cypriot side going to stand for that? No. It is going to make sure that there are some forces brought to the green line, to the buffer zone to counter that move. Without the UN forces to negotiate disputes-it is not going to be a full-fledged war from day one-there will be little incidents between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots or between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish army which will fester like a wound and then blow up into a full-scale war.
There is a lot of cost on the part of Canadian taxpayers and those of other countries. However, which is cheaper? A full-fledged war between Turkey and Greece, or keeping our peacekeepers there until such time-and
December 11, 1992

that is all the opposition is asking-that a just and viable solution is found.
I mentioned in my question in Question Period today that President Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash had negotiations all summer. The talks did not break down completely. The talks were suspended because there is a presidential election in February. Both sides agreed, together with the Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, that these talks will resume in March under the careful guidance of the Secretary-General himself.
Why not wait to withdraw until a solution is found? A solution is around the corner. Why not wait until such time that another country will help us and send some peacekeeping troops in there? Unfortunately our secretary of slate blew it again. I wish I could have congratulated her in the spirit of Christmas, but no, our image in the international community is suffering. The secretary of state does not bring such important issues, where our military is involved, to be debated in this House first.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put the position of the New Democratic Party on the government's announcement on the record.
I can actually find reason to congratulate the minister. We on this side, certainly our party, do appreciate that the minister has chosen to make this announcement in the House of Commons. It demonstrates that the government or at least the minister can learn rapidly. A week ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs chose to make the announcement on Somalia downstairs in a press conference while the House was in session. I want to say that we appreciate that the minister has made the announcement here in the House today.
The next step for the government is to decide that important decisions of this kind will actually be brought to the House with a resolution in order that the House can pass judgment and can debate the issue before the government simply announces it. However, we appreciate the rate of learning demonstrated by this minister in the last week.
Canada has contributed to UN peacekeeping in Cyprus since 1974. Thousands of Canadian service personnel have served in Cyprus since that time. Thousands of families have made the sacrifice of separation in order that Canadians can participate in keeping the peace in
Routine Proceedings
Cyprus. Twenty-one Canadian Forces personnel died in Cyprus in the service of their country and in the service of the United Nations and we honour their sacrifice and their commitment.
I should take this opportunity to note the fact that many Canadian veterans of UN peacekeeping operations are disappointed that the Canadian government has so far failed to strike a Canadian service medal for peacekeeping under the United Nations in recognition of that service. The Canadian Peacekeepers Veterans Association, headed by James MacMillan-Murphy in my riding, has taken up this issue and I hope the government will respond to it.
The minister has today announced that Canada is withdrawing its forces from the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus. It has done so with no replacement indicated. It has done so with no resolution of the dispute that took Canada and the United nations into Cyprus and it has done so with no assurance that this withdrawal will not make the situation worse. The government has said that UN peacekeeping is part of the problem. I submit that is simply wrong and that there is no evidence for that statement. UN peacekeeping is what is maintaining peace and security for the people of Cyprus.
The parliamentary committee to which my friend from Parkdale-High Park referred gave that evidence this week to the House of Commons, an all-party committee. It spoke to Cypriots from all sides and said that the UN peacekeeping force is vital for peace and security in Cyprus. In the minister's announcement there was no item of evidence against that proposition.
I submit that what the government is doing here is pandering to a natural war weariness by Canadians of the contribution that has been made over these many years. I submit that it is incumbent upon the government to show leadership to Canadians on this difficult issue and to say that we are performing a vital role and we must keep it up until either our forces are replaced with others or until there is a just and honourable solution to the dispute. As long as we are providing a useful service, we should stay in Cyprus.
We oppose this resolution because all parties say our contribution is vital to peace. We say that this announcement comes at a particularly delicate time while there are initiatives to try to resolve this dispute. There will be an election in Cyprus in February. The peace discussions

December 11, 1992
Routine Proceedings
have been adjourned until March and I think the government has a duty to those from Canada who have sacrificed over the years in service in Cyprus not to come to this House until it can give assurance to the House and to the country that what we are doing is part of a solution and not simply an abandonment of responsibilities.
If we leave now or in 1993, as the government has announced, there is a real risk that the situation will blow up again and that all we are doing is saying, particularly to the Turkish side, wait long enough and our arms will again be able to impose our solution in Cyprus. That is wrong and it is a position that this government should have rejected.
It is said that this costs too much. It is said the government trots out the $14 million a year that this costs. As the member for Parkdale-High Park said, this is modest compared to the costs that may occur as a result of this decision.
It is modest to the billions of dollars that this government wastes in the Department of National Defence, including the latest outrage on helicopters.
I regret this decision. Our party regrets this decision and we hope the government will use the Christmas season to reconsider.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis, on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing this point of order. I am well acquainted with the Standing Orders, and I know that unfortunately, there can no further speeches by members.

I was elected in 1964 and we have had Canadians in Cyprus since 1964 and it so happens that I have been following the issue since 1964. Therefore, I very much regret that the rules of the House do not allow more participation because the rule is very clear: only the minister's statement plus two members, one from each parly, can speak. I am unable to participate, but I shall at the first opportunity since I sit on the committee on management of the House.
The very able chairman from Edmonton Southwest is here and I will certainly raise the issue at the first opportunity at the committee of management of the House that we may see the time has now come to change the rule which deprives a full debate, maybe at least an hour debate of some kind, with more participation from the House on very specific and important issues of international importance. I have a great deal of interest and Canada has a great deal of interest for its reputation.
Unfortunately, such is the rule, such is life. I want strongly to be on record that I very much regret that we are withdrawing at this time. We should have waited until at least March to know what would have taken place.


BILL C-98 PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Bill Attewell: Mr.Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1992, without amendment.


ELECTORAL REFORM
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
I would point out to the House that it contains close to 100 pages of amendments. It is an interim report and deals with the issue of who shall vote and how they shall vote. There are a few other items but that is the primary thrust of it.
The committee has engaged itself in close to 31 separate long meetings on the draft report alone because the work is so detailed in trying to provide for Canadians a better system of voting and protection against fraud at some kind of reasonable price.
The big change to enable Canadians who are away from their normal home to vote more easily under those conditions. That will include Canadians who are in some
December 11. 1992

Routine Proceedings
other location temporarily within the country as well as Canadians who reside abroad.
Previous to this report, Canadians have had the opportunity, if they were in an embassy or the military, to vote. That is extended to others who have engagements outside the country for some limited period of time but still have their connection to Canada.
The report is far-reaching.
We are also anticipating as committee members that the government will produce a bill for us to consider immediately upon return in the new year so that these changes can be implemented in time for the next election. That is why we have done a report that contains what we believe to be the appropriate legal language to implement all of these provisions. That is the way we have done it. The drafting hopefully is done and will be checked by justice to make sure that we are all protected. We look forward to that.
I would like to pay a compliment to all members of the committee and the staff who have served us so well in difficult circumstances, and also to Elections Canada which have been so diligent in being of assistance to us in this very very detailed examination. It has been difficult, but we hope it was very worth while for Canadians and for our democracy. I commend it to all members, to read it in all its glory during the break.
We will also be sending it out to the 295 returning officers in Canada, and asking them to examine this detailed drafting and feed information back to us if they think we have gone astray.
They are very knowledgeable human beings. They have just been through the referendum and should be in a position to give us some good advice if they think we have done something, and recommended to this House something, that will not work.
This was a little longer than a normal introduction but I think the subject matter is of considerable importance and difficulty. Thank you again to all committee members and our staff.


BILL C-88 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-88, an act to amend the Copyright Act, with amendments.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to thank my committee colleagues and the Minister of Communications for the efforts and co-operation that made it possible to table this report today.


BILL C-227 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I forgot to mention that the committee intends to report in another couple of phases and will be meeting in January on all the other issues. This issue was the dominant one but the other issues have to be dealt with and quickly, and the committee intends to do so. I want the House to know that as well.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
In so doing I would like to comment that this report has given members of the committee an unparalleled opportunity to visit places and people of Canada that we otherwise would not have had the opportunity to experi-

Routine Proceedings
provided mixed emotions for us. We experienced moments of pride and we experienced moments of sorrow in what we saw. We felt compassion and some helplessness during our visit. Perhaps this report will in some way help.
There are those whose housing was quite comparable to what we might consider to be an average southern community. They had an established economic base, a form of self-government, a relatively stable social environment and a good climate. We learned about them.
There were those settlements that had little of what I have just referred to. Yet despite it all they seemed to be determined to make their plight a better one despite the adversities confronting them. We learned about these people as well.
It is our sincere wish that this report accurately reflects what we heard, what we saw and what we felt. Our recommendations are intended to provide a path to resolve the housing problems that exist for our native Canadians in order that they may achieve suitable, adequate and affordable housing.
The committee and the chair, in particular, are greatly indebted to the clerk of the committee, whose camera seemed to appear everywhere and the results of her photographs will appear in the report, our Library of Parliament researcher, and the members of our own staff for their work and efforts in the research and writing of this report.
Most of all, I would like to extend the committee's most sincere and heartfelt thanks to those communities that opened their hearts and their homes to us. Their hospitality was beyond reproach and served as an example to the rest of Canada.
I want to thank the members of the committee whose dedication to this cause was beyond reproach. There were times when details seemed to attract the attention of some of the frustration of others. When all is said and done our report is better for their participation, and I want to thank them for their determination.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the seventh report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), the subcommittee on Development and Human Rights has examined the subject of human rights.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
[Stage Direction]
59TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 59th report of the Standing Committee on House Management. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted when laid on the table.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
A. Kim Campbell: for leave to introduce Bill C-109, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.
December 11, 1992


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING ACT
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: for leave to introduce Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms).


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


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, four out of five Canadians want stiffer legislation preventing criminals from using firearms in acts of violence or in the perpetration of a crime.
The government responded to this public pressure by passing the current gun control legislation. However, this legislation does not get to the root of the problem, which is the criminal misuse of deadly weapons. Instead the government's legislation restricted the legitimate recreational use of firearms without really tackling the need for stronger enforcement of regulatory control.
Since I could not support the government's legislation, I prepared this private member's bill to increase the penalties for those convicted of a firearm related offence. My private member's bill would ensure that the recommendations of the Special Committee on Gun Control are enacted with specific reference to increased penalties for the misuse of firearms and that plea
Routine Proceedings
bargaining could not be used as a means to reduce a sentence without the Attorney General's permission.
The bill is a major step toward keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals.


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


CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-395, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to property).


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


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, every citizen of Canada must be guaranteed that their right to own, use and enjoy property is recognized and respected by all levels of government in Canada.
The right to enjoy property is a fundamental right existing long before the constitutions that protect it. When, for example, a garbage dump is imposed upon a community against its wishes, it is extremely difficult and costly for individual Canadians to protect their rights even though they would be directly and obviously affected negatively.
The amendments I propose to the Canadian Bill of Rights will strengthen Canada's commitment for individual Canadians to protect their right to use and enjoy their property.


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

December 11, 1992
Routine Proceedings


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I move:
That the 57th report of the House management committee,
presented to the House on Friday, December 4, 1992, be concurred
in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


An hon. member:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present petitions on behalf of literally thousands of British Columbians from the communities of Little Fort, Darfield, Barriere, Clear Water, Vavenby, Blue River, Birch Island, Bridge Lake, Louis Creek, East Barriere Lake, Blackpool, Avola, McLure, Valemount, Jasper, McBride, Skwaam Bay, Heffley Creek, Chu Chua, Whispering Pines, Wells Gray and Vinsulla.
I will summarize their lengthy petition, but basically they indicate their opposition to diverting the North Thompson River, a tributary of the Fraser River. The plan is to divert the water into the San Diego, California area. It is an extension of the North America Water and Power Alliance Program.
These petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada introduce legislation that would prohibit the sale of Canadian river water or lake water to the United States or northern Mexico.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions. The first ones urge the government to reinstate the federal co-operative housing program and commit $6.1 million to the program which has been planned for 1992 to permit approximately 2,000 co-operative units to be sponsored. That comes from people in Coquitlam, British Columbia.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitions is a little late but is important. The petitions urge the government not to proceed with Bill C-91 on the drug matter.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Finally, the last one is from the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of B.C. The petitioners urge the government not to proceed with the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by numerous citizens from Regina, Saskatchewan.
They remind the House of their express concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty. They seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the action necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition signed by several thousand Albertans.
It is particularly appropriate that I rise today to present this petition. As you know, Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Hon. Ken Rostad, Attorney General for the province
December 11, 1992

of Alberta, and the Elon. Stephen West, Solicitor General for the province of Alberta, met with their federal counterparts and Alberta members of Parliament to press for further amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
This petition indicates the support of my constituents for the revision of the laws of Canada to respond to the sense of concern that many Canadians are feeling in the face of rising levels of violent crime committed by young people.
I thank my Alberta colleagues for their support and commend those who have circulated this petition in the memory of Ryan Garrioch.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly authorized, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners are concerned about the increasing incidence of rape and murder.
They call upon the Parliament of Canada to reinstate the death penalty.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to table a petition from many of our seniors.

They are asking the government to re-evaluate Canadian old age security pensions so that they can truly reflect the needs of our Canadian seniors.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, there are several hundred signatures petitioning the House of Commons to prohibit by law the importation, distribution, sales or manufacture of a game called "Serial Killer" and to advise producers of "Serial Killer" that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
Mr. Speaker, we abhor crimes of violence against persons. We believe that "Serial Killer" offers nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but rather it contributes to violence.
Routine Proceedings YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today each of which relates to a tragic murder of a child in Calgary.
The first petition is in the memory of Ryan Garrioch and your petitioners request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered minimum age of 13 years.


Al Johnson: The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is in the memory of Shannon Dawn Morrisette Bird in which your petitioners strongly request that the penalty for child murderers be increased to capital punishment.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding who also represent many others.
They petition this government to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacturing of the so-called killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of constituents and others from the Scarborough and Markham area.
The petitioners indicate their concerns for human rights accordance in India and in other countries. They have noted the continued detention of Mr. Justice Ajit Singh Bains who has now been released from custody.
The petitioners wish the Canadian government to communicate their concerns on the issue of human rights accordance to the Government of India.


Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise before the House with two petitions on behalf of the First Nations of Canada.
The first petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 is a petition about the goods and services tax. Whereas the First Nations of Canada are immune from such taxation by virtue of their aboriginal and treaty rights, the

December 11, 1992
Routine Proceedings
petitioners call upon Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities to the citizens of First Nations in Canada.
They ask that the government take immediate steps to rectify the deficiency of the policy guidelines, including changes which will protect the taxation immunity of First Nations citizens both on and off reserve lands, including those citizens who do not yet have recognized reserve lands.


Mrs.   Ethel@: Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with aboriginal languages.
This is on behalf of over 100 aboriginal First Nations people who have given their names to express concern about the erosion of their languages. They speak about the 53 aboriginal languages and are ever committed to the preservation, development and enhancement of aboriginal languages.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition from a number of residents of Toronto.
The petitioners point to the resolution passed on November 24, 1989 in the House of Commons unanimously that this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty. They seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
They point also to the fact that Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and its moral obligation to seek the elimination of child poverty in Canada.
They point to the fact that on May 7, 1992 the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that there is no plan to cope with the problem of poverty exclusively for children.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the actions necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition also from a number of residents of Toronto who urge the Parliament of Canada to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada in opposing the use of their lands for NATO-NORAD attack training.
The petitioners demand that the Canadian government end all NATO-NORAD low level flight training in Canada and to redirect Canada's NATO and NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today.
The first is from 475 people in the Stoney Point area near Sarnia. The petitioners note that in 1942 the Canadian government confiscated their reserve number 43 under the War Measures Act. In spite of a government promise to return the land after the war, the land is still in the possession of the Canadian Armed Forces in breach of the proclamation of 1763.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities to the Stoney Point First Nation by returning the land at Stoney Point to its aboriginal inhabitants and their descendants.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition indicating that the United States has unfairly imposed a duty on our softwood lumber exports and has engaged in numerous other harassment practices against Canadian producers.
The petitioners note that the free trade agreement has caused serious job loss and devastation in the Canadian economy without the promised benefits.
They therefore ask Parliament and the Government of Canada to take any action necessary to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry and to effect the cancellation of the free trade agreement.
December 11, 1992


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present 27 more petitions in the long line of petitions regarding water exports.
These petitions come from people in Armstrong, Anglemont, Celista, Chase, Sorrento, Tappen, Salmon Arm, Sicamous, Mara, Endorby, Vernon, Lumby, and Falkland. They are all towns and communities within the riding of Okanagan-Shuswap.
The people that have signed the petition are very concerned about the proposal to divert a portion of the flow of the North Thompson River, and divert the water to the California market.
They have asked that the Government of Canada state categorically that it will not permit Canada's fresh waters to be dammed and diverted to the U.S.A. or to Mexico, and to state categorically that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged, on behalf of approximately 200 citizens of Windsor and Essex county, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to submit this petition pointing out that the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion to the effect that this House expressed its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and that it would seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
The petition goes on to describe the tragic jeopardy in which this nation's future social and economic stability will be placed if this problem is not addressed.
Therefore they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the necessary actions to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000, and to develop a plan for the implementation of that commitment.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to present a petition signed by a number of people from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. The petitioners express concern about the rate at which drug prices have gone up, and about the cost of these drugs to provincial and private drug plans as well as to individuals.
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners urge that Bill C-91 not be finalized. Further, they ask that Parliament repeal Bill C-22, passed in 1987, so that Canadians can have the full benefit from lower priced generic drugs.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 398, 401, 407 and 442.


Mr. Gardiner: With regard to the Voyageur 92 program, (a) how many television programs have been prepared by or for the government or its agencies (b) what persons or companies were hired to make these programs (c) how much was paid for the production of each program (d) how much was to be paid for the placement of each program (e) how many television stations ran the programs and which stations were they?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned, the answer is as follows: (a) two half-hour programs, one English language and one French language; (b) 1st Satellite Communications Ltd; (c) $43,280.49; (d) no charges for the placement of the programs; (e) 121 cable community channels and 33 commercial stations indicated that they were going to broadcast the programs at a later date. A detailed listing of the specific stations has not been developed.


Mr. Gardiner: Regarding the North American free trade agreement, (a) what is the total actual and estimated cost of the public information campaign (b) what companies have received contracts for services under this program (c) what is the value of each of these contracts (d) how much is to be spent on television, radio, newspaper and other forms of publicity?


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: a) There has not been a specific public information campaign on the North American free trade agreement. There has been a public information campaign on how Canada trades with the rest of the world and how Canada can compete in the international market. The trade public information campaign dealt with general trade issues, the FTA, the NAFTA and the GATT. The total cost for the trade radio campaign and trade tabloid was $3,304,156.38.

December 11, 1992
Routine Proceedings
(b)	(i) Genesis Media Inc., (ii) The McLaughlin Group, and (iii) Canada Post Corporation were the companies that received contracts under the trade public information campaign.
(c)	The value of each of these contracts were:
(i)	One contract with Genesis Media for $1,880,000
(ii)	Two contracts with McLaughlin Group for $842,000.76
(iii)	One contract with Canada Post for $582,155.62
d) At present, there is no allocation of funding for television, radio, newspaper or other forms of publicity on the North American free trade agreement.


Mr. Boudria: Since September 17, 1984, how many Secure Telephone Unit (STU) telephones has the Government of Canada acquired and what was the cost of their acquisition for each fiscal year?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: The
Government of Canada has acquired a total of 3,816 Secure Telephone Units (STU) to date.
The following is a per fiscal year (FY) expenditure breakdown (estimated) of the cost of aquiring the STU's:
Fiscal Year	($) Amc
FY 1984/85	0
FY 1985/86	0
FY 1986/87	116,000
FY 1987/88	2,200,000
FY 1988/89	3,015,000
FY 1989/90	938,000
FY 1990/91	6,096,000
FY 1991/92	776,000
FY 1992/93	322,600
It is to be noted that prior to fiscal year 1986/87, there was no record of any expenditures for Secure Telephone units. Any units that were in Canada prior to fiscal year 1986/87 were either on loan from vendors or given by the U.S. government for Canadian use.


Mr. Thacker: In regard to cost to the government for answering Questions placed on the Order Paper for the period of June 13, 1992 to December 10, 1992, (a) what has been the total cost (b) cost per question (c) cost for this question?
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons): (a) & (b) Questions answered during the period of June 13,1992 to December 10,1992:
Question	Approximate	Question	ApproximNo.	Cost	No.	Cost$	$218	1,075	352	961247	286	354	158248	115	355	85251	469	356	87282	700	357	41284	244	358	92285	367	359	41289	969	360	57291	525	361	480294	682	362	189295	312	363	189296	76	364	82297	210	365	480298	128	366	245300	145	368	140304	3,211	369	2,868310	385	370	598311	62	371	428312	135	372	130314	95	373	420315	77	374	101319	59	375	859322	164	376	138323	120	377	41327	82	378	92329	1,534	379	72330	1,130	380	138331	128	382	102332	87	383	164333	93	384	228334	77	388	58335	205	390	475336	281	391	314339	311	392	106340	56	393	361341	232	394	112342	61	397	56343	118	399	109344	189	400	109345	276	403	445347	2,173	409	85348	169	410	85349	117	411	845350	30	412	90351	41	
December 11, 1992

(c) $35.
Total Cost:	$30,957
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

['If the hon. member would remain in his seat for a minute, I think I may be able to settle that right away and to his satisfaction.\nWhile re-reading article 53, I have to admit that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is right in saying that when presenting his motion, the hon. minister did not as per Standing Order 53(2) state reasons for the urgency of such a motion. At this time I must decide that the motion is not receivable by the Chair.\nI wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of a ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 21 minutes.']
Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 385 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 385 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Karpoff: For each year since November 1988, have any departments or agencies spent money or provided grants in the constituency of Surrey North and, if so, (a) by which department or agency (b) in what amounts (c) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


GWICH'IN LAND CLAIM SETTLEMENT ACT
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-94, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Gwich'in, as represented by the Gwich'in Tribal Council, and to amend an act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be disposition in the House that the subject matter be referred to Committee of the Whole for further debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Madam   Chairman@: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-94, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Gwich'in, as represented by the Gwich'in Tribal Council, and to amend an act in consequence thereof.
Shall clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-Definition of "Agreement"

December 11, 1992
Government Orders


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, I believe there is disposition on the part of the parties to make a short statement at the committee stage. Then if there are questions I would be prepared to take them.
I would like to very briefly outline the provisions of the Gwich'in Land Claim Settlement Act, Bill C-94.1 will, in the interest of time, keep this very short.
This bill will give the force of law of the Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement, of which I have a copy and which was tabled in this House on November 26. It is a historic agreement formally signed by the Governments of Canada, the Northwest Territories and the Gwich'in Tribal, council on April 22 of this year.
Under the terms of this accord the 2,200 Gwich'in people living in the Mackenzie River area, largely in the communities of Aklavik, Inuvik, Arctic Red River, and Fort McPherson, will receive title to more than 22,000 square kilometres of land in the Northwest Territories, and title to more than 1,550 square kilometres of their ancestral homelands in the Yukon Territory.
Bill C-94 also allows the Gwich'in to play a major role in managing the renewal resources of the area. It provides sub-surface rights to 6,100 kilometres of land in the Northwest Territories, and exclusive rights to certain commercial wildlife harvesting activities.
The financial benefits include a tax-free payment of $75 million in 1990 dollars to be paid out over the 15-year period following adoption of this bill. It also gives them an annual share of resource royalties at the level of 7.5 per cent on the first $2 million of resource earnings and 1.5 per cent on sums beyond that level of earnings as resources are extracted from the Gwich'in lands within the Mackenzie River Valley, and also a 15-year subsidy of property taxes on the undeveloped lands known as Gwich'in lands within municipal boundaries.
Under the terms of this bill federal, territorial, and municipal laws will continue to apply to the Gwich'in and their land until a self-government agreement has been successfully negotiated and brought forward to this House.
Those terms form the backbone of the land claim settlement, the backbone of Bill C-94, a bill whose merit all parties will acknowledge.
In every respect, this bill represents a great and historic step of progress. Bill C-94 provides the Gwich'in with a role in the development of the north. It does this through the creation of a number of specific management boards. It provides economic opportunities beyond their traditional vocations, a voice in the ongoing management of those resources, and provides for a dispute settlement mechanism to resolve disagreements which may arise with governments.
Let me just add that while the Gwich'in are exchanging certain undefined hunting, fishing and trapping rights contained in the existing Treaty 11 for the more clearly defined benefits of Bill C-94, all other treaty rights contained in Treaty 11, which was signed in 1921, will continue in place. These other treaty rights include the provision for annual treaty payments, education rights and other social treaty benefits.
The settlement of aboriginal land claims has been a major priority of this government. In recognition of the vital necessity to settle these land claim issues, necessary for the future of aboriginal peoples and the economic development of Canada, this government made the resolution of comprehensive claims the first pillar of the agenda of native initiatives which the Prime Minister presented in this House in September 1990.
Therefore, this legislation represents the first regional land claim settlement resulting from the prolonged negotiations with the Dene and Metis people of the western Arctic. In that regard the Gwich'in are truly pioneers. They have broken the ice and set an example for others in the western Arctic to follow.
In conclusion, I would like to personally compliment President Willard Hagen of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, Chief James Ross of the Fort McPherson Band and other members of their negotiating team and board for their very positive, optimistic, and confident approach to concluding this agreement.
Hon. colleagues, Madam Chairman, I would ask you to lend your support to the legislation before us today, which received a 94 per cent ratification vote from the eligible voting members of the Gwich'in nation last year. I call on members to facilitate quick passage. I do so especially because of the economic and human importance of this agreement to the Gwich'in people. I note that the Gwich'in elders will receive benefits before the Christmas period if this legislation is passed today.
December 11, 1992

I trust that hon. members will be prepared to give their consent to completing the passage of the bill through all stages today, including the final passage and referral to the other place. I encourage hon. members to give their complete co-operation to this important initiative.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Chairman, I am honoured to rise to speak to the second reading and passage of Bill C-94, which deals with the Gwich'in land claim. I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak on this comprehensive land claim legislation. As the minister has mentioned, the Gwich'in people are the first to reach a regional land claim agreement in the Northwest Territories since the failure of the comprehensive Dene-Metis final agreement.
There are now two other native organizations in my riding of the Western Arctic, the Sahtu Tribal Council and the Dogrib Tribal Council, that have also initiated land claims negotiations based on the former comprehensive claim final agreement.
The Gwich'in people are very proud of their agreement, which is the final product of many years of very hard work and their tireless efforts to seek and achieve an agreement that would give them an immense opportunity for a financially secure future. The Gwich'in people are looking forward to using this agreement to better their lives.
As parliamentarians we can and are obligated to assist the Gwich'in people in obtaining this goal.
Negotiations have spanned seven generations of the Gwich'in people. Their struggle began in 1921 under Chief Julius Salu of the Tetlit Gwich'in and Paul Niditchi of the Gwich'a Gwich'in who were signatories to Treaty 11 on July 26 and July 28, 1921, respectively, in the communities of Arctic Red River and Fort McPherson.
The Gwich'in people had believed Treaty 11 could be a peace and friendship treaty until it was discovered that there was a misunderstanding in the translating of the treaty from the spoken word to the written page, with Ottawa interpreting the treaty as a surrender by the Gwich'in people of their lands and their cultural identity.
Government Orders
Their language, religion and traditional values which had survived for thousands of years were almost lost.
A strong and proud people, the Gwich'in have stood peacefully against those outside forces which sought economic wealth in taking their non-renewable resources and using their water and lands, some of which have sustained damage. They have survived against the wealthy and misguided anti-fur lobby groups which callously and dishonestly oppose the harvesting of fur and animal hides with precious little regard for the impact such deceitful and disrespectful campaigns have had upon the the Gwich'in, their values, traditions and their economic way of life.
It has been Gwich'in determination which has carried the Gwich'in people to this moment of the second reading of their legislation today. Theirs is an agreement which is the product of extensive negotiations conducted since the Government of Canada first accepted claims from the Dene and Metis in 1976 and 1977.
Using the 1990 agreement in principle as the basis for continuing negotiations, the Gwich'in of the Mackenzie Delta region and Canada began negotiations in December, 1990 and initialled a comprehensive agreement on July 13, 1991.
Special thanks and congratulations should be made to the people of the Gwich'in Nation who turned out to vote, as the minister mentioned, and to the support of the Gwich'in Clan between September 16 to 20, 1991. Of the 1,122 eligible voters, 1,021 cast a ballot and 960 voted in favour of the agreement; a very impressive 91 per cent turnout and a 94 per cent vote in favour of the agreement.
Appropriately, the historic signing of the Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement took place on April 22, 1992 at the Chief Julius School in the community of Fort McPherson. It should be noted that at that time there were many officials there, including territorial officials, the leader, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as well as the member of Parliament for Western Arctic. Many respected elders who played an important role in the negotiation process were present and participated in the actual signing of the final agreement.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
The agreement is a celebration of the Gwich'in's culture and identity. After the signing, drum dances and fiddling dances and feasts were held in each of the communities of Fort McPherson, Aklavik, Inuvik and Arctic Red River, with the celebrations lasting for days. This agreement may not be the end of almost 20 years of negotiations or 70 years of struggle, but it is definitely a major step forward. The Gwich'in have negotiated a modern day treaty with more economic benefits, subsurface and surface ownership, regional powers in some cases, exclusive rights to hunting, trapping and fishing and clearly defined aboriginal rights. These provisions have been accepted and ratified by the majority of the Gwich'ins.
On the gains and provisions, the Gwich'in agreement represents significant gains for the Gwich'in people. They have within that particular agreement a flowthrough provision in section 3.1.5.
A general provision within the Gwich'in agreement protects the aboriginal identity of the Gwich'in people and within their legislation they are protected and included in the opportunity to benefit from or participate in any existing or future constitutional rights for aboriginal people which may also be applicable to them.
There is also the self-government framework in appendix B. The self-government framework agreement provides a broad range of aiiaiisjurisdictions over which the Gwich 'in may enter negotiation with the Government of Canada.
The framework agreement will allow the Gwich'in to discuss the transfer and delivery of programs, services such as education, training, language, revenue and taxation, health and social services and the administration of justice through a Gwich'in tribal justice system based upon traditional values. In years to come this aboriginal group will be recognized, its rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. There have been gains made from Treaty 11. Most Gwich'in Treaty 11 rights remain unaffected by the agreement.
On the question of land, the Gwich'in will receive title to 8,622 square miles of land in the Northwest Territories, including increased sub-surface rights and sub-surface resources, and an additional 600 square miles of land in the Yukon, which do not include sub-surface resources. They will receive $75 million over 15 years.
I urge the members of this House for speedy passage of this legislation in that there are specific provisions for
the elders to be affected immediately upon the passage of this legislation.
It also touches on the harvesting rights; many detailed rights in Gwich'in settlement area, including exclusive trapping of fur bearers, harvesting preferences on all species, exclusive harvesting on Gwich'in titled lands.
There is also the issue of expropriation. The quantum of land that was agreed upon in this land claims agreement is guaranteed to the Gwich'in forever. Even in the unlikely event that the government should need to expropriate a portion of land within the settlement area, this guarantee will stand.
Management rights and economic opportunities also exist. Gwich'in are guaranteed 50 per cent on management boards, including renewable resources, land use planning, environmental assessment, land and water regulation. The Gwich'in see this as a very positive gain which now gives the Gwich'in an equal say and a voice.
First time economic opportunities will now exist in a number of areas. They will have a role in development resolving disputes between government and Gwich'in and the amendments of the treaty. The Gwich'in believe that where no provisions existed before, now the Gwich'in have guaranteed consultation by developers on a variety of matters. There is an arbitration panel should there be a difference in interpretation of the agreement, and amendments may be made by agreement between the Government of Canada and the Gwich'in.
On the subject of future concerns and the implementation process, I would like to raise a concern which has been expressed to me by the Gwich'in. The Gwich'in are concerned over the lack of a benefits package for the Gwich'in when developers wish to explore for oil and gas on Gwich'in lands. In the Gwich'in settlement area this is an essential requirement for any First Nation that wants to promote and establish some form of self-government.
Another pressing concern is the existence of outstanding loans against the financial compensation package. The Gwich'in have taken responsibility for 15 per cent of the $40 million loan to the Dene Metis acquired when attempting to obtain a comprehensive land claims agreement. The Gwich'in believe that the Government of Canada has a fundamental obligation to provide claimant groups with the necessary funds to procure a comprehensive land claim agreement.
December 11, 1992

In the best interests of both parties and in good faith of the negotiation process, I hope and trust that the Government of Canada will respect the reasonable timeframe allotted to the establishment and commencement of the implementation plan and the implementation committee as well as provide the adequate necessary funding to put the structure of the agreement into place.
As the Liberal critic of aboriginal affairs and as a member of Parliament responsible for the constituents' concerns in Western Arctic, I will monitor the progress made with respect to the process put into place within a reasonable length of time of the settlement legislation passage.
I would like to take a brief moment to describe for the members of the House today the four communities of the Mackenzie Delta, Aklavik, Inivuk, Fort MacPherson and Arctic Red. Aklavik, meaning place of the barren land grizzly in Inuktitut, is a community of 760. These are the communities that have worked closely together to achieve this land claim legislation.
The community of Aklavik, which grew out of a small trading post established by the Hudson Bay Company, quickly became the chief trapping, trading and transportation centre of the muskrat-rich Mackenzie Delta. Aklavik is probably known by many of its inhabitants as the town that would not die. If you are from Aklavik you commonly use the phrase in a situation that is tough, "never say die". As the town was relocated by the federal government to Inuvik due to the serious flooding and erosion, despite these problems many residents remain in Aklavik today. Inuvik is the largest Canadian community north of the Arctic Circle. With a population of 3,200, it was the Northwest Territories' first modem planned town.
Fort McPherson is located on the edge of the Gwich'in Dene territory on the Dempster highway and was named after Hudson's Bay trader Murdoch McPherson. With a population of 729, it remains to be one of the north's most important economic areas for hunting and trapping.
The small community of Arctic Red River, with 125 residents, is located where the Arctic Red River meets
Government Orders
the Mackenzie and has been a seasonal fishing camp for the Dene for centuries.
I would like to take the opportunity in closing to pay tribute to the people who have worked on this particular land claims legislation. Do I have time? I do not. I will save the tributes and the closing comments for the next part of my speech.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who made the initial presentations from the Conservative and Liberal parties. I want the House to know that our party is prepared to support this legislation through third reading.
We recognize that the Gwich'in claim was overwhelmingly ratified by the Gwich'in people. As mentioned by the member for Western Arctic, on September 21, 1991 when the ratification vote was taken, 94 per cent of the Gwich'in people supported this claim and therefore I think the House has to recognize that the choice has been made by the Gwich'in people and that they overwhelmingly support the agreement with the national government. Only 5 per cent opposed. I wish we had achieved something like that in our own referendum.
Our party has always supported the idea of aboriginal land claims, not only because they resolve some outstanding social problems and problems of injustice that Canada has experienced with its aboriginal people, but also they are capable of bringing a substantial boost to economic development. Our party supports the settlement of claims because we know that through the settlement of lands and resources and also the financial compensation and royalties along the lines that the minister mentioned, a great deal of capital and the opportunity for economic development will be returned to the north.
The past northern policies of Liberal and Conservative governments have resulted in a decapitalization of the north where non-northern companies go into the north-mine, log, fish, hunt, whatever they do-and take the resources out of the north. They take the capital out of the north, they take the income out of the north and leave people in a relatively poor situation, with aboriginal people being the poorest among the poor.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
This agreement has an opportunity to reverse that kind of decapitalization process. The people who live in the Arctic have been living there for approximately 9,000 years. It was their home in the past. It is going to be their home in the future. Any kind of capital or income that returns to their investments on their own lands is going to be reinvested in the north and we are going to see the kind of economic growth that we have not seen in those areas for a long time.
Land claim settlements should be a key part of the economic strategy of Canada. They certainly can reverse the decapitalization trend that has taken place in the past.
I want to let members know that we do have some concerns about the federal government's involvement in the negotiation process. As my colleague the member for Western Arctic pointed out, in the past the federal government insisted that the Dene Metis groups in the western Arctic get together and negotiate a comprehensive land claim that would cover the whole area. After the expenditure of a great deal of money, time, research and negotiations, they came to an agreement. When that agreement was presented at Dettah in July 1990 it was rejected by the vast majority of the Dene Metis people. At that point the Gwich'in people walked out of the meeting and indicated that they were prepared to make their own settlement.
One of the reasons they did that, as the minister of Indian affairs will know, was because they said that their people had been suffering long enough. The land claim was going to bring about compensation, it was going to give them a land base, it was going to give them certain administrative and government powers which they felt they needed in order to get their people on the process of development. They were able to get into separate negotiations with the federal government with that as their priority.
Unfortunately it is a bit of a form of blackmail that the federal government is able to use when dealing with aboriginal people. On the one hand, aboriginal policy of the national government keeps native people in a state of perpetual poverty; it deprives them of the resources they need in order to pursue their economic development; but, on the other hand, they may be forced to accept land claim agreements in which they are required to extinguish their existing aboriginal rights. That creates
a serious problem, a serious dilemma, for aboriginal people.
The Gwich'in felt they could negotiate a claim which would help them with their economic and social programs, which would move them ahead as a people, and yet they were anticipating in the future that there would be some change on the part of the government, some change which would eliminate the blanket extinguishment provision or the right to extinguish aboriginal rights. They were taking a chance on the future in order to assist their people.
It is unfortunate that we still have, not necessarily the blanket extinguishment provision but the cede, lease and surrender kind of provision which still reduces aboriginal rights of people and requires them to surrender aboriginal rights when they enter into land claims.
Aboriginal people are the only people in this country who, in settling an outstanding grievance with the national government, are required to give up rights that have been assured to them under our Constitution. As far as I am concerned, it is unfair, it is a form of blackmail, and it should not be done.
I am pleased to see that there is another party in the House which has followed the lead of the New Democratic Party back in 1985 when we passed a resolution saying there should not be an extinguishment clause. Certainty it can be obtained by setting up forums through which native people can negotiate with the governments of Canada and the provinces, in order to make sure their rights are respected and their land and resource requirements are respected, given the changing circumstances.
We were also concerned, Madam Chairman, about the way third parties were consulted in the advancement of the Gwich'in land claim. We were concerned that, for example, 600 square miles of land became a part of the Gwich'in settlement in Yukon. The consultations that took place between the Government of Yukon and the federal government were not what we would call free and open and the parties were not considered equal in the process.
In fact, the federal government simply told the Government of Yukon that 600 square miles of the Yukon would become part of the Gwich'in settlement. In some cases that is more land than was received by groups of the Council of Yukon Indians during their settlement. They felt they were not being treated fairly and equitably in relation to the 600 square miles which was allocated as
December 11, 1992

part of the Gwich'in settlement. The minister may be able to respond to that.
With those concerns stated, we would like to pay tribute to all of those who were involved in the negotiating process. We think the result will be satisfactory to the Gwich'in people and will help them with their economic and social programs. It will make sure they can develop along the lines that they as a people in the Northwest Territories would like to develop. We wish them all the very best as a result of the outcome of this settlement.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Chairman, I would like to make some comments about this bill.
Bill C-94 is a very important bill because it deals with aboriginal people. They have been neglected for so long that they merit more attention than we are giving them. This bill is presented here the same day as the House adjourns, and it has to pass through all stages.
I find it somewhat strange that the Department of Indian Affairs could not have introduced this bill a long time ago so that it would be debated on its merit. This leaves us very little time to do so.
As the Gwich'in people seem to be happy with this agreement, I am certainly supportive of this legislation. It is extremely important that the Gwich'in people be in accord with this legislation and as the minister and other members said, the people are in agreement.
However, I would like to mention something here. I have been to the north and I have seen the aboriginal people living in conditions that are so bad that the Third World countries would be ashamed of those conditions. Canada should put a priority on treating her own aboriginal people fairly. I do not think the federal government has done it in a proper way.
We have a huge Ministry of Indian Affairs consisting of almost 3,000 employees dealing day to day with this problem. They should have projects and situations that would improve the lives of the aboriginal people. If you go to the north, you see how appalling the situation is.
Government Orders
The aboriginal people cannot continue to live in such a way. It is late in the day and the minister brought this legislation in only half an hour ago but I would like to commend him for doing it. It is better late than never. I hope that he will take a lesson and deal with aboriginal affairs seriously and have other treaties signed to the satisfaction of the aboriginal people.
Therefore, I support the agreement and I congratulate the minister for bringing it in, even if it is late.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3-Binding on Her Majesty
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Chairman, in speaking before to Bill C-94, I did not get an opportunity to pay tribute to the people who were involved. I think this is very important.
The minister had the opportunity to do that, and I appreciate it, but a double tribute is not going to hurt in this case since the treaty was so much work.
The prominent Gwich'in have worked for the Gwich'in cause over the last 71 years. Chief Julius Salu of the Tetlit Gwich'in and Paul Niditchi of the Gwich'in were signatories to Treaty 11 in 1921.
The late Chief John Tetlitchi of the Tetlit Gwich'in represented the Tetlit Gwich'in for many years as chief and as a member of the legislative council of the Northwest Territories.
These individuals are outstanding leaders in their communities and basically drove the process at a time when it was not deemed to be either fashionable or the thing to do. Chief Johnny Charlie of the Tetlit Gwich'in represented the Tetlit Gwich'in for 10 years as chief and still plays an active role within the Gwich'in nation. He is also a very active member of the community as well as of the region. He is respected by many Dene people throughout the Northwest Territories and many aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.
Willard Hagen, president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council has led the Gwich'in since they decided to proceed with a comprehensive land claims agreement with the Government of Canada.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
James Ross, Chief of the Tetlit Gwich'in, was instrumental in obtaining a Dene Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement on April 9, 1992, and later the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement. Chief Ross has served his community and his people in various capacities over the last 10 years. He has been very active within the region and within the Northwest Territories, and is recognized for his work. He is fiercely determined, a very proud man, very intelligent and very eloquent on issues that affect his people, as well as his region and the north in general.
The former leaders of the Gwich'in who deserve special recognition and praise are: Chief Hyacinthe Andre of Arctic Red River, the late Chief Johnny Kaye of Fort McPherson, Chief Andrew Stewart of Aklavik, Chief Grace Blake of Arctic Red River, David Krutko, a former negotiator of the Gwich'in claim and former vice-president of the Metis Nation of the Northwest Territories, Margaret Donovan, former vice-president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, Fred Koe, former negotiator of the Gwich'in claim and currently the MLA for Inuvik in the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, Richard Nerysoo, the MLA for the Mackenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, and newly appointed cabinet minister for the Government of the Northwest Territories, as well as having been a former Minister of Justice and a government leader of the Northwest Territories.
As well, I would like to commend and congratulate the current leadership of the Gwich'in Nation, without whose efforts the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement might not have been realized:
Willard Hagen; James Firth, Chief of Inuvik and vice-president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council; Robert Alexie Jr., vice-president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council and former negotiator of the Gwich'in claim; Chief James Ross; Chief Eugene Pascal; Chief Peter Ross, Charlie Furlong, president of the Metis Local of Aklavik and former president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council; Morris Blake, president, Metis Local of Arctic Red River; Ernest Firth, president of the Metis Local, Fort McPherson; Tommy Wright, president, Metis Local, Inuvik.
In closing, I would like to say that we support the passage of Bill C-94. It is what the Gwich'in people want. There is a saying within that community and it reflects the history of the Gwich'in people.
During the celebrations and during the finalization of the comprehensive claim they passed out stickers, posters and sweat shirts, and on them it said something that speaks loudly for these people. All it says, as we have said many times about being Canadian, "Proud to be Canadian", many of those Gwich'in say "Proud to be Gwich'in".


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Renewable Resources Board
Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question concerning the Renewable Resources Board. Who is going to be sitting on that board and how are the members going to be elected or appointed to that board? Also, what are the powers of that board?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, the Renewable Resources Board will comprise members chosen half from the governments, principally the federal government, but with the devolution of authority to the Government of the Northwest Territories, the GNWT will have a role, and half from the Gwich'in Nation people.
It will have authority to review the proposals for the harvesting of renewable resources on the Gwich'in territory. It should be remembered that the harvesting of renewable resources will be enabled with the first right of use to be granted to the Gwich'in people within their own territory. The board will adjudicate and consider the larger interests of the surrounding people, and within the context of the laws of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, the implementation of those rights of the Gwich'in people.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Chairman, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether this concept of a renewable board is something that is being considered in relation to the other claims such as those in British Columbia.
As the minister knows very well, one of the more pressing considerations in the B.C. claims is obviously the fishery. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about impact evaluation, particularly independent impact evaluation in relation to the fishery. Certainly, part of that has been dealt with in this most recent negotiating process between the Government of Canada, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and the Gwich'in.
December 11, 1992

I wonder if the minister could give us some idea how that concept is evolving or devolving toward the settlement of comprehensive claims in B.C.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, the concept of a Renewable Resource Management Board is an element of our approach to negotiations of a land claims settlement with any First Nations group. However, we do not want to pre-empt the latitude which is taken by the parties to the table in seeking a flexible arrangement.
I would not necessarily undertake that in the case of British Columbia land claims we would create an entity to be called a renewable resource board. There will be in the context of British Columbia land claims, provision for a process of negotiating self-government which is provided for in the Gwich'in land claim agreement as a subsequent step but in the context of British Columbia First Nations may be part and parcel on a parallel track with the settlement of the land based issues. It would be premature to anticipate how those arrangements would work.
In the case of the Gwich'in agreement, the provision for a Renewable Resource Management Board is something that will take place immediately, subject to establishing the membership of that board. It will have immediate effect upon the adoption of this legislation and it will deal with all matters of administering wildlife within the settlement area.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Chairman, I wonder if the minister can explain this. Within the 600 square miles, or whatever the area is, within the boundaries of the Yukon territory, will there be representatives from the Yukon government with respect to renewable resources in that area? Or does it even come under the jurisdiction of this renewable resources board?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, we should understand that the 600 square miles was provided in recognition of the fact that part of the traditional territory of the Gwich'in people was in an area known as the Upper Peel River Valley on the eastern side of the watershed.
However, due to an anomaly in the maps, when the boundary was drawn between Yukon and Northwest Territories, that area which was part of their traditional
Government Orders
hunting and trapping area was caught on the western side of the boundary.
The 600 square miles are not to be administered in the same way as those within the primary Gwich'in settlement area within the Northwest Territories. The wildlife or renewable resource management would be administered in a co-operative way with the surrounding First Nations in the Yukon and subject to arrangements that will be worked out with the government of the Yukon territory as well.
In particular, the interests and concerns of the people of NaCho Nyak Dun will be taken into account and there will be no question of the management boards provided for in this agreement having effect in that other 600 square mile territory, which I think if I am correct, falls under what we describe as a fee-simple type of arrangement subject to management structures being worked out with the existing public government, the government of the Yukon territory and in collaboration with the surrounding First Nations.


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, my understanding is, if I am correct, that half of the board is appointed by the federal government and the other half is appointed or elected by the Gwich'in people. If there is a tie vote, what happens?
Is there a veto by the Gwich'in people if they really disagree on a given subject or is it carried simply by a majority vote?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, the board will have responsibility to administer renewable resources under provisions of the existing laws of general application that apply in that region of the Northwest Territories, unless and until a self-government agreement gives it expanded powers over the management of wildlife in that area. It does recognize its pre-eminent right to the harvesting of wildlife resources.
There are to be six members of the board, as I understand it: three from the government, non-aboriginal, and three from the Gwich'in nation, plus a chairman for a total of seven. The chairman is to be a resident in the settlement area, is to be nominated by members of the board and appointed jointly by the Governor in Council and executive council of the two governments.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
Therefore, the presumption would be that if the chairperson is drawn from within the settlement area it would be a Gwich'in person. Then the Gwich'in would have the ultimate say in decisions taken by the management board but they would not be binding on the public government in terms of existing laws, unless those laws are changed through the negotiation of the self-government agreement which is provided for in this settlement act.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 6-Orders and Regulations
Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, I imagine the orders and regulations are coming from the Order in Council so it is really the federal government that makes all those regulations.
Are the Gwich'in people really happy with this type of situation? Naturally, if we make the regulations, we control more or less everything as well as orders and there is no input from the aboriginal people at all. If everything is Order in Council it is done by the federal government and its ministry.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, that is not the case, although in law I believe the hon. member makes a valid point. If we had constitutionally recognized inherent right of self-government with clear designated authorities residing with First Nation governments, as had been envisaged in the Charlottetown accord, there would be no question of the powers of those First Nation governments being in any way fettered by the powers of Parliament.
However, under our present system of law and given the supremacy of Parliament, this is the body which must implement laws with respect to the administration of all territories within Canada unless those laws fall within provincial constitutional jurisdiction or by delegation are exercised by territories or other levels of government.
Under the present system of law within Canada if the orders and regulations to give effect to this agreement are to be changed they must be changed by Governor in Council.
The question the hon. member asked was: Do the Gwich'in people consent to this arrangement? Yes, they do, and I am advised that clause 3.127 of the agreement provides that the agreement may be amended-this is why we would use Orders in Council-with the consent of Canada, the Gwich'in as represented by the Gwich'in Tribal Council and where the territorial government is affected, the Government of the Northwest Territories.
In other words, there is no question here of the Parliament of Canada usurping the authority and the recognition of Gwich'in prerogatives with respect to their territory. Their consent would be required.


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, is the consent binding on the government? Does it mean that if they do not give consent there can be no change to the agreement, or is it correct?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, as we have passed clause 3 we will not return to debate on it. Clause 3 says:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
The section of the Gwich'in settlement agreement which I referred to, clause 3.127, is a section of the agreement which is being approved by way of this legislation today. Therefore, if it is binding upon Her Majesty in the right of Canada and provides for the consent of the Gwich'in Tribal Council I believe that should answer the hon. member's question.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On Clause 8-Inconsistency or conflict
Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, in case of environmental damage, pollution or whatever might happen to the environment, is there any provision that any construction in that area would go to a review board so that there would be no things done to the environment that would be inconsistent with the new concept on the environment?
December 11, 1992


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, as with the Renewable Resource Board we spent some time discussing a few moments ago, there is also provision for an Environment Impact Review Board. In all there are some five boards which will deal with the administration of water rights, for example, environmental impact and the governance arrangements.
The Environmental Impact Review Board will be structured in a parallel way to the Renewable Resource Management Board. It would have the responsibility of assuring that the necessary environmental standards by which we are all constrained would be carefully considered before any regulations were adopted which might affect either the interest of the Gwich'in people or others residing within their territory or surrounding the perimeter of their territory.
Furthermore, where there is a dispute as to decisions arising from the advice of that Environmental Impact Review Board there is also provision for an arbitration process within the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 9-Payments out of C.R.F.
Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, as far as appropriation is concerned, the funding of all this agreement, does the minister have any numbers to show how it is budgeted, how much it is going to cost to implement that agreement, and whether it is going to pay for itself or the federal government will have to disburse moneys?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, subsequent to the initialling and signing of the settlement agreement there was a negotiation of something called an implementation agreement. This is an important aspect of our policy on land claims. It is not good enough to make promises. We must have a system for carrying out those promises and providing the mechanisms and funding to do so.
In this implementation agreement there has been negotiated a one-time payment of $8.4 million to establish the management boards that were referred to earlier and the mechanisms so that the provisions of the agreement can be carried out. Then there will be an
Government Orders
annual budget of $2.4 million thereafter to provide for the financing of the year-to-year provisions of the agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, at this stage I would like to compliment all members of the House who have taken such an interest in his important and historic achievement. Particularly I compliment the member for the Western Arctic whose constituency encompasses the Gwich'in settlement area.
I have been involved with this process over some three years. I have met the leadership and representatives of the Gwich'in nation on many occasions. I would like to say how impressed I have been with their commitment to securing the conclusion of this important agreement.
I want to reflect for a moment on the mood in the hall at Fort McPherson on April 22 when this agreement was signed. There was a huge map behind the stage of the territory, as well as the assets and amenities of that territory. On all the walls of the gymnasium were extracts from the text of the agreement. Every member of those communities who came to witness the signing of the agreement on April 22 had a full, complete, and, for the younger members of those communities, impressive knowledge and understanding of the matters we are debating in the House this afternoon.
I commend the Gwich'in people on their study and preparation for this important matter which we hopefully will approve today. It bodes very well for their future.


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, I would like to add that the minister certainly deserves the praise of this House for having done that. I am sure he will continue to serve the aboriginal people well.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jelinek:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 53, I move that the notice provisions of Standing Order 54 be suspended for the following government motion:

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6), the deferred division on government business No. 15 be taken immediately upon adoption of this order,
That the said government motion stand on this day's Order Paper in the name of Mr. Valcourt and;
That Standing Order 24(3) regarding the daily adjournment of the House be suspended for this day's sitting.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will put the motion to the House and then hear argument on whether the motion is acceptable. The motion can be debated, so we will debate it after.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is a one-hour debate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, procedure is almost becoming more important than the substance of where we are today. This is fundamental and I cannot believe the advice of the Table to the Chair would allow this motion to be put.
Section 53(2) it says, if one takes the time to read it, that the minister in proposing the motion has to state reasons for the urgency of such a motion and then the Speaker shall propose the question to the House. There was not a reason mentioned in the minister's motion about why this is an urgent motion.
My point goes much further to say that the motion is also fundamentally defective because this talks about notice and/or days and sittings. There was a notice about where we are in this procedural problem. The point is that this is a national urgent matter that I think has only been used once before and ironically I think it was in the peacekeeping of Cyprus 20 some years ago. The fact of the matter is that this motion is for matters to be handled, not to try to remedy a problem the government finds itself in now by not observing the rules. This is for future events. My position is that this matter has been defined and it is no question of notice. It is no question of hours and days of sitting. It is a question that in effect we had a motion of the minister, as Your Honour says. That motion was put and the question was put. You were in the chair this morning, Madam Speaker, when the question was put. Five members rose to force a vote.
I want to see the "blues". I am sure Your Honour has seen the "blues" and the question was called. Five members rose and Your Honour said something. Most of the words I heard. Then there was a little confusion: "That pursuant to Standing Order so and so, the order to defer the vote until another time".
There were some of us in this House who appreciated the problem the government might be in if the motion was put to a vote, we had a deferral, and in view of the Christmas recess this would give time for this motion to sit out there.
It is an amendment to the Constitution. Even yesterday the opposition House leader was talking to the government House leader in terms of the order of business and talking about notice.
We got on to something about other matters to be discussed. If this matter is so urgent how come there was not any previous notice? Even yesterday, in effect talking about what might come up, the opposition House leader at page 15049 said:
I thought that perhaps it was an innocent mistake -
Referring to the government House leader's outline of business.
-with regard to other business that may be raised tomorrow, particularly in view of what has transpired in other jurisdictions.
The inference was very clear of what happened in the legislature of New Brunswick.
There is no person here, and certainly not myself, who is reflecting on what happened in the province of New Brunswick. New Brunswick can look after itself and decide to pass its own laws as it already has.
What some members have forgotten is that this is the Parliament of Canada, not the legislature of New Brunswick. This motion has very serious implications. It certainly is a very important motion. It is an amendment to the Constitution.
There were many of us who were thinking of speaking this morning. However, knowing the rules and knowing you cannot roll back the clock, even if this is Friday and knowing we cannot have another Black Friday in this House, we knew that if the vote was put the matter would be deferred. Let it be deferred if it is an important matter so that there can be reflection across the country. Some of us by this procedure of trying to get back into it, having had the vote, in effect are precluded from now
December 11, 1992

Government Orders
debating the issue, even though we can debate on a procedural point.
How can the Chair accept the motion when the minister did not even give the request for urgency?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member would remain in his seat for a minute, I think I may be able to settle that right away and to his satisfaction.
While re-reading article 53, I have to admit that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is right in saying that when presenting his motion, the hon. minister did not as per Standing Order 53(2) state reasons for the urgency of such a motion. At this time I must decide that the motion is not receivable by the Chair.
I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of a ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 21 minutes.




Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-96, an act to amend the Judges Act and other acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in Nova Scotia, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I think there is a disposition that the subject matter not be referred to a legislative committee but in fact referred to Committee of the Whole.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-96, an act to amend the Judges act and other acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in Nova Scotia.

On Clause 2-


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Chairman, I have just a brief question for the parliamentary secretary.
This particular statute, cited as the Nova Scotia Courts Amendments Act, will do away, as I understand it, with all county and district courts in Nova Scotia, which is the same as a provincial statute which has been passed in the legislature in Nova Scotia. Can the parliamentary secretary indicate how many Superior Court judges will now be in place in Nova Scotia as a result of this.


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, I frankly do not know. If I can just have a minute, I can look it up. If you want to go on to something else. It is not something I have readily available. Thirty-three.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Chairman, may I just ask a question or can I make a comment?


Andrée  Champagne: The hon. member has up to 20 minutes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me begin by saying a few things about the bill and perhaps the parliamentary secretary can respond. I know the position he is in.
As the Chair knows, this legislation enables Nova Scotia to proceed with reorganizing and streamlining the court system, merging the County Court and the Supreme Court trial division into one court, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. That has been done in most parts of the country, so we will support the bill.
The Supreme Court appeal division will now be constituted as a separate court, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. That is like in British Columbia, where we have the Supreme Court of British Columbia and then the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. It is a housekeeping bill, removing references to the County Court and the judges' salaries associated with that institution.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
I just want to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the drafters of this legislation took the time to include clauses which remove sexist language from the drafting, I think for the first time. For example, subclause 33(1) reads "of the province concerned of the judge's election as provided'' where the original read "of the province concerned of his election as provided''. Of course, we have a lot more women judges.
That is one of the matters I wanted to ask about. In the Nova Scotia legislature there was a bill, Bill 241, the Court Reform Act, which was passed this spring in the Nova Scotia legislature. Speaking for the New Democrats, John Holm, called the bill "by and large a tremendous move forward". He noted that "certainly we will be supporting it". Therefore, if it is good enough for Mr. Holm, it is good enough for me in this instance.
I read the Nova Scotia debates with care. Miss Sandra Jolly, who is the member from Dartmouth, raised a number of interesting matters.
She raised the matter of other recommendations that were being put forward with the Nova Scotia bill, a recommendation that judges, lawyers, police, prosecutors and court staff should receive regular supervised training to ensure that they understand the unique nature of domestic violence and to assure that they are kept abreast of developments in this area. In other words, so the court and the court officials know about domestic violence and what that means because so many of these cases are coming before the courts.
Another recommendation that was made in Nova Scotia was that the Government of Nova Scotia should, in relation to family violence, promote and encourage more effective needs, assessments and planning, better service co-ordination, stronger client advocacy, public and professional education, preventive strategies in the development of a treatment program for batterers, mainly wife batterers.
A third recommendation that was mentioned by the hon. member in Nova Scotia was mandatory gender sensitive training for judges.
Does this bill deal with any of these matters and if not, why not? Is the government doing to deal with these very
legitimate questions that were raised in the Nova Scotia legislature?


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, this specific bill simply deals with the changing of the courts in Nova Scotia. I do want to thank the hon. member for raising the point that he did. Of course the government does take cognizance of all these reports.
In relation to the gender of language raised by the member this government has now appointed over 100 women to the bench in Canada. We were proud in Alberta that the new Chief Justice of Alberta, Catherine Fraser, was the 100th appointed by this government.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Chairman, the parliamentary secretary did not answer my question about the gender-sensitive training of the judges.
On the matter of gender sensitivity training forjudges, there was a Liberal bill or motion in this House but it was pulled at the last minute. I do not know why but it was just pulled. It seemed to me that was too bad because it was a motion that this House could have debated.
I take it then that the parliamentary secretary does not have anything new to add to the matter of training for gender sensitivity.


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, I am sorry if the hon. member missed it, but I did in fact note that the government takes cognizance of all of these such reports. However, it has been brought to my attention that the federally appointed judges take quite an active role in pursuing judicial education and this is only one area in which they are further enlightening themselves.


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, I see that Bill C-96 deals as well with the retirement age of judges. There are a couple of examples of judges retiring at the age of 70.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us what criteria was used to come to this particular age? Some judges in the United States are 80 and they still have not retired from the Supreme Court of the United States. Some judges might be incompetent at the age of 50.
Is there any provision in the bill to retire judges forcefully before they reach that age?
December 11, 1992


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, I believe there is reference to a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament to take such an action.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Chairman, having practised in Nova Scotia in my early days, I am obviously interested in any act that reforms.
I know what has been going on there in terms of the merger of the county court system with the Supreme Court system following the precedence in other jurisdictions. Frankly, there are so many questions one could raise on this whole matter.
I did not fully appreciate that it was going to be on the Door of the House today, although I must say that I now see it is on the Notice Paper for today.
I was interested in the questions put by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam who is the NDP justice critic. He has certainly maintained a consistent interest in this field. I was also interested in the parliamentary secretary's answer. I certainly agree with the parliamentary secretary that the government has moved eons in appointing women to the judicial role.
Just recently, one of the last appointments-and it was not the person the parliamentary secretary mentioned- but it was certainly a former friend of mine in the sense that she was a resident of the Annapolis Valley. She was a county court judge and family court judge and has become one of the more recent Supreme Court judges in Nova Scotia.


Alex Kindy: He is an independent and got some appointments. That is good.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I had nothing to do with this. It is not the gender question, per se. It is a question of the single parents. Of course, in most cases it is usually the woman looking for support from the absconding male. This is very serious.
I can think of many situations but obviously I am not going to mention names. There are a number of single parents who have gone through the family court process involving the county court judge. They have gone through long hearings and often, the male does not show up. The legal bills have been astronomical. I can think of one person in the heart of my riding who for a total of
Government Orders
about $800 in family support payments has run up a legal bill of over $26,000 with a firm that I know very well.
After having heard all these facts for and unfortunately knowing some of the players, I seriously considered writing or taking some action to ask the judicial system of Nova Scotia why this was happening. Why did the judge in charge render decisions and keep delaying and let the defaulter continue to default?
I tried to quickly look through the bill when it first hit the floor. Is there anything in this bill whereby the parent can write to a judicial committee of the court setting out the facts that they think they have not been treated fairly. Maybe they could also complain about legal bills and perhaps have some redress. Is that redress separate and apart from the judicial system?


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the question from the member and his concern for those circumstances in his riding.
The requirements he was asking about are really beyond the scope of this bill. This bill is neither major nor complex. Its provisions are essentially technical.
What we are doing here is to substantially affect the functioning of the legal system in Nova Scotia by making necessary amendments to federal law to permit the court restructuring in the province of Nova Scotia. That is essentially what we are doing with this bill. It is essentially a technical bill to allow the province of Nova Scotia to restructure its court.
Mr David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):
Madam Chairman, very briefly to the parliamentary secretary. I must say he is doing an admirable job in responding to the many and varied concerns on the subject matter before us.
We understand there are now 33 Superior Court judges in the province of Nova Scotia. Perhaps he might want to indicate the annual salary range for those judges.
We note that retirement is at age 70. Is that a reduction from the previous high of 75 down to 70? I presume that corresponds to the provincial legislation in Nova Scotia.
Regarding the sensitivity that judges display in their respective courts, my colleague from the New Democratic Party raised a number of concerns which had been placed on the floor of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly by the Liberal critic from Dartmouth.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
One was with regard to sensitivity that judges have or should have in their courtrooms. I wonder whether it is the desire of the Government of Canada to come forward with subsequent legislation in terms of mandatory training for judges on gender sensitivity as well as the whole issue of family violence, which is becoming more prevalent as time goes on.
That concludes all of the questions I have regarding this particular bill. Perhaps I may put in a supplementary for my dear friend and colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants. The parliamentary secretary could indicate to our colleague, who is a distinguished member of the bar of the province of Nova Scotia, whether or not there are any vacancies available at the present time.


Lee Richardson: I am sure the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is not holding his breath for a moment, or really even wondering if the reason for the question is to find an answer for him rather than for other members in the House.
First let me deal with the question on the training of judges. Yes, obviously we are very concerned about the reasons for the question and the discussion in the country today. The government, as I said, takes cognizance of all such reports.
If I could just get the attention of the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, an ordinary judge would make $155,800. The retirement age is set for the Superior Court at age 75 and County Court judges 70 until it is raised by this legislation.
Just to clarify this, apparently in 1975 the retirement age of judges was raised from 70 to 75. This bill will take it back to 70 but it simply grandfathers those who were on the bench subsequent to 1975.


Alex Kindy: A supplementary, Madam Speaker. The parliamentary secretary forgot to answer part of my question. It was whether judges who are appointed are being screened. Is there any process to appoint judges not just by the whim of the Prime Minister or Order in Council? Those judges should be screened and have some training as well.
What bothers me as well as the very high salaries is it is also my understanding that some judges have limousines given to them. Maybe not in Nova Scotia, but in certain provinces they have limousines given to them. Could he' inform us on that?
What happens to the judge who is 69 or 70 and just marries? I know of one case in which a young lady married a judge because his wife died, and she was about 22. The judge died a year later and my understanding is that there is no provision, so that she would not receive a pension. Is there any consideration given to this matter?


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, these are matters entirely beyond the scope of this act.
For the member's information, it might be useful for the House to know that there are advisory committees of the bar and others who advise the minister and the department, on recommendation to the Prime Minister. I would take exception to his point that judges are being selected on a whim.
With regard to any perks that the judges might have, I think service would be provided by the provinces and not by the federal government, if in fact such services existed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Chairman, the hon. parliamentary secretary is right.
This is dealt with in another act, the Judges Act, which is being considered by this House. However, members have just made a good point. This is a huge salary increase, is it not?


An hon. member:: No.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not? Perhaps I had better ask that. It looks to me that if we take county court judges who were making $70,000 and make them Supreme Court judges who are making $155,000-


An hon. member:: That is wrong.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Maybe I heard the wrong figures. I thought the parliamentary secretary said that in Nova Scotia they were making $70,000, and now they are going to be Supreme Court judges making $155,000.
Perhaps he could clarify that. Could the parliamentary secretary clarify that?


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, that is a misunderstanding. I am sorry. I am not quite sure, it is a misunderstanding.
As a matter of fact, for the county judges I think it is about a $5,000 increase. I am sorry if there was some confusion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Chairman, perhaps the last point I would raise is one that the parliamentary secretary discussed.
First, I should tell the member that the Minister of Justice actually rejected gender sensitivity training. The government rejected that because the minister considers it to be interfering with the judiciary. Other people have different views on that question.
However, I raised the matter of getting more women on the bench and he responded. He said a lot of women were appointed. He is from Alberta. The last appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada was Mr. Justice William Stevenson, who has written about four judgments and who is a man. I am sorry, he was second last. There was William Stevenson and then John Major, who is another man.
The Minister of Justice said that they had approached and offered the job to several outstanding female judges, but they turned it down. There is a problem in getting women judges.
The Vancouver Sun wrote an editorial on November 26 saying:
If the federal government recognizes there is a problem -and
there is one when only two of the court's nine judges are women -
That is, in the Supreme Court of Canada. Often women come up through the courts from Nova Scotia or British Columbia, for example, to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The editorial continued:
- it should be working to find a solution. There is no simple answer, but one thing it might consider is the requirement that Supreme Court judges live in Ottawa.
And what about job sharing in the top court? It's a radical idea, but smaller case loads and the ability to remain based in their home provinces might make more judges -male and female-consider a Supreme Court appointment.
In other words, it would not be a full-time job so that a woman could feel, if she has to spend time with her family, that the family will not be destroyed. More important, women will not feel that by taking one of these jobs they will put their family in jeopardy. That is a barrier that stands in the way of women being appointed to the court.
Government Orders
My friend from Annapolis Valley thinks-ladies and women is what he calls them. Both ladies and judges are women.


An hon. member:: He is discovering both categories.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Has the government considered new ways or new ideas to get more women on the bench to occupy some of these jobs?
I wonder if you could tell me when you are answering that, of the 33 Supreme Court judges in Nova Scotia how many will be women?


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, I again want to thank the hon. member for this interesting interjection which has no relevance to this particular bill. He has laid some veiy important points on the table that we can think about in anticipation of a review of the Judges Act.
I am sorry that I do not have that information here. It is not part of the act. I do not have that information.


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, I am wondering about presiding judges. The official languages bill, the last one we passed in the last Parliament, stated that presiding judges would have to be perfectly bilingual, as would presiding chairmen of commissions.
This regulation probably comes into effect very soon. Is the justice department studying this question? Is it making provisions so that anglophone judges would study the French language and francophone judges would study the English language in order to be appointed presiding judges? I would like to know whether this question is being addressed by the department.


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, this particular bill, and the amendments contained therein, will give effect a decision by the province of Nova Scotia to restructure its courts by merging the county court into the Supreme Court in Nova Scotia and by establishing the current Supreme Court Appeal Division as a separate court called the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
That is the nature and intent of this bill. Although there is some interest in the questions raised they have no relevance to what we are discussing here today.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Chairman, further to a question that has been raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary, whose knowledge of the subject matter which we are debating is extensive, could perhaps secure

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
from the officials and perhaps give us a date when he could do the following.
It is my understanding that with respect to jurisdictions, particularly with respect to federal appointments, an arrangement has been concluded with the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Bar Association, as well as the provincial attorneys general. There is now a new system in place with regard to how justices are appointed to Superior Court, some of them accept applications, with respect to the screening process et cetera.
I am led to believe that there is a manual which is readily available. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could secure from the officials an undertaking to table the procedures that are used for the appointment of justices in this country, and which take into consideration a variety of different characteristics?
I am sure that it is readily available. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary could provide that information to the Elouse.


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, the question is again entirely beyond the scope of this bill. However, as a courtesy to the hon. member I will be pleased to make the Attorney General aware of his interest.


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, what really interests me is the fact that the parliamentary secretary does not seem to answer the questions that are being posed. I thought that he was very much enlightened and very competent in this domain.
I sat on the justice committee in the last Parliament. We did some re-writing on the Criminal Code. At that time a question was posed as to whether judges who refuse policemen the order to have a search warrant should be questioned. Is anything in the department being looked at if a judge refuses a request by a policeman for a search warrant, whether this can be appealed in some manner?


Lee Richardson: I know it is in the hon. member's interest today to delay proceedings in the House, but this is outrageous. What possible relevance has this question to this bill, a simple technical bill to restructure the courts in Nova Scotia?
I am sorry, but it is so far beyond the scope of this bill, there will be no answer forthcoming to that particular question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Chairman, before the parliamentary secretary leaps to too many conclusions and imputes too many motives, for his assertion about delaying here, no one over here caused the procedural problem that presently faces the House.
We have sat here all day and have already passed a very important bill. With all respect to the junior inexperienced parliamentary secretary, for that parliamentary secretary to think that delay tactics have been used here to the extreme, he is, with all respect to the opposition House leader, more often in bed with the government on many things than on his own. He in effect does not understand what parliamentary opposition let alone obstruction is.
There has not been one tittle of obstruction on the very important bill of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which went through this House and Committee of the Whole. That in itself opened up the whole question of self-government for aboriginals and the Charlottetown accord and we could have talked quite relevantly until the cows came home on that. There was circumspection and in effect relevance to the questions put and that bill got through.
The parliamentary secretary can say that in effect this is just a reorganization of the courts of Nova Scotia and the fact of the matter is it has something to do with the judicial system in Nova Scotia. That in itself opens up the whole question of the judicial system in Nova Scotia on which any member from Nova Scotia or any member from across the country could have an awful lot to say.
Let us not have disparaging remarks on legitimate questions that perhaps the parliamentary secretary may not agree with, but it is certainly nothing in terms of the rules of obstruction and parliamentary debate that prevents us moving ahead.
While I am still on my feet, I must say I do have more questions that I hope the parliamentary secretary will not take umbrage with. I frankly was absolutely amazed. I have not practised law for years and I know what the members of Parliament get. We get frozen and everyone gets frozen. I was on the phone in the lobby talking to some good people from Nova Scotia about what they thought about this bill. I hope to hear from them in the next two or three minutes so that I will have perhaps some more relevant questions that will ease the ear of the parliamentary secretary, rather than what I am going to say now.
December 11, 1992

I was very surprised. I heard the parliamentary secretary answer when I was on the phone. Did he say the judges as defined in this bill get $155,000? I point out to him a study that I have done. We in Canada in many areas are paid quite a bit and sometimes too much. I understand it from work done in my office, that compares with the Chief Justice of the United States of $166,200 U.S, but that is more than this judge. Supreme Court justices under the Supreme Court get $159,000 U.S; again that is the very top court.
Circuit court judges in the United States receive $137,300 U.S. District judges, which would be I guess like our former county court judges, get $129,500 U.S.
I do think if the answer of my friend the parliamentary secretary of $155,000, albeit Canadian, is correct for the judges created by this bill in the reorganized court, although some of my judge friends may not agree with this, they are very well paid.
Back to the question that even though the parliamentary secretary says this is a technical reconstruction of a court, I find it very difficult when you eliminate the county court and put them all into one court that you consider this just a technical change. Even with a technical change, does the parliamentary secretary to the government not think there is any merit in having some type of judicial committee that the citizen can write to, complaining about problems, somewhat like an ombudsman, for a citizen in the courts who feels that perhaps he has not been served properly or do they just have to come to members of Parliament or do they write to the Chief Justice?


Lee Richardson: Madam Chairman, here we go again. It is a novel and interesting idea and I am sure that if constituents came to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants they would be well served.
With reference to the salaries, this bill does not deal with the salaries per se. It is simply levels the field across Canada and moves the county court. That is a figure that has been established across Canada for ordinary judges across the country. For the member's information, that amount has been frozen for the next two years. There will be no increases.
Government Orders


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, I see that Bill C-96 deals as well with additional judges. I would like to have the parliamentary secretary, who is very knowledgeable in these matters, explain-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He is parliamentary secretary for transport, not justice.


Alex Kindy: I am sorry, transport. Perhaps he is more knowledgeable about the question of the Canadian airlines and Air Canada and maybe he knows about debts and liabilities and assets.
Could he tell this House what are the criteria to appoint additional judges? Who makes the appointments? Who makes the recommendations? The public should really know how our additional judges are appointed. What is the procedure for anybody to become a judge? I think there were questions here and discussion that we should have more female judges. I agree with that. There should be judges who are sensitive in certain areas much more than some of them are today.
Maybe the parliamentary secretary could tell us what the criteria are for the appointment of additional judges and how many additional judges this bill provides for.


Lee Richardson: I thank the hon. member again for his question. It was a question raised just moments ago by the hon. member from Cape Breton. He may want to refer to Hansard for my reply to that question.


Alex Kindy: I do not think this answer is satisfactory. He did not answer how many additional judges would be appointed, what the criteria were to appoint those judges. How do you proceed? Maybe the parliamentary secretary does not understand my question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Chairman, we in this House as members of Parliament, and I happen to be a lawyer as well, have all received from the Minister of Justice information on how judges can be appointed in this country.
Any person who wants to be a judge has to fill out an application and it has to go to the judicial council and is reviewed by the Canadian Bar Association and with the office of the Minister of Justice. Any person can put in their name, any member of Parliament, any one from the public can recommend a person as long as that person will also file an application that they want to be a judge.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
We have all known that procedure has been in place for at least four or five years. I would be very surprised if the hon. member has not known that as well for four or five years. Other than that he should read his mail.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comment of the minister. At least he has informed us how judges are appointed or how they apply.
I know that he knows and probably most members know as well but the question was put to the parliamentary secretary so that he could inform the public. The public wants to know why certain people are being appointed and others are not being appointed. Some very superior lawyers are being by-passed, not just making an application.
Another factor that the minister did not mention is that lawyers have to be a member of the bar for 10 years before they can apply to be appointed a judge.


Paul Wyatt Dick: So you have read it. You know all about it. Why ask the questions?


Alex Kindy: So the public knows how the judges are being appointed.
I wish there were more female judges on the Supreme Court of Canada. The ratio of judges, men to women, is very low. I hope that the government will continue to do the proper thing and appoint not only people that may be friendly to the government as judges but judges should be screened on the basis of their competence.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I would move:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 28(2), at any time during the adjournment of the House between December 14, 1992 and February 1, 1993, the Speaker may, after consultation with the government, cause the House to sit for the sole purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill or bills; and following each Royal Assent the Speaker shall each time further adjourn the House forthwith until February 1, 1993, and that the provisions of Standing Order 28(3) respecting the recall of the House for urgent and pressing matters not be superseded by the provisions of this order.


The Deputy Chairman:: I have to say to the hon. member that we are in committee of the whole and I cannot take the motion until I am in the Chair.
Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 12-Superior and Tax Courts


Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, I would like an explanation of clause 12. I see in the bill that clause 12 deals with superior and tax courts. I have a question on that.
I know that most tax judges travel across the country and naturally they are under a lot of pressure. They are being paid certain allowances for when they stay in hotels and they have to pay for their meals. Does this bill provide for any additional tax judges because as far as I know they are overworked? Does this bill provide for that?


Lee Richardson: No, it does not.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
On Clause 14-
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, clause 14 refers in the amendment to "the judge attending the judicial centre at which or in the immediate vicinity of which the judge maintains his or her principal office". Would the parliamentary secretary please explain to me what is the purport of that amendment?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the purpose is simply to prohibit the claiming of an additional travel expense.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this is so he should not claim another expense for his travels or hotels. Who is checking on that? How is it verified?


Lee Richardson: Again, Mr. Chairman, this is beyond the scope of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 15- Judges of Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, again I am a little surprised at the parliamentary secretary saying, when a question is put, that it is beyond the scope of the bill. Clause 15 sets out in great detail "of judges, judicial centres and expense claims, travel allowances, moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses incurred by the judge in attending" a judicial centre.
December 11, 1992

Members may not have to like it, and perhaps he is supposed to know this from reading all the paper that we get across our desks, but what is the system? I think it is a legitimate question. What is the system for?


Alex Kindy: Absolutely.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As members of Parliament we have the unfortunate situation of today-a point of privilege which I thought was not in good taste about one of our colleagues who has just got himself into real problems, I gather-and we are subject to expense claims or some review and accountability. It is a proper question for a member to ask and the public has a right to know what is the system forjudges to show their accountability of their expenses in their various forms.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, that is a somewhat different question. I appreciate the member's reference to the section. The question referred to who was responsible for it and that is not part of the bill. I am sorry if there was confusion in my original answer.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, if it is in the interests of the House and now that the member has raised the question, I can tell him that the Commissioners for Federal Judicial Affairs administers this and all judicial expenses across the country.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, I like this answer a little bit better because at least it deals with the subject matter.
Could the parliamentary secretary explain to us how this commission works? Who are those people who are on the commission; who appoints them; are they bureaucrats or are they appointed people; are they independent of the judiciary? How does it work? Is it a self-governing body? These are very important questions for everybody. We need accountability of everybody, not just parliamentarians and other bureaucrats, but judges as well.
I would like him to answer that question straightforwardly.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, although this question is not particularly related to the change of the courts of
Government Orders
Nova Scotia, I may in the interests of providing information to the House-and I am sure this is the member's reason for seeking this sort of information-refer him to Chapter J-1, the Judges Act, in section 73 where it refers to the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.
I will quote in the interest of the member if he wants to persist in this line of questioning: "There shall be an officer called the commissioner for federal judicial affairs who shall have the rank and status of a deputy head of a department who shall be appointed by the Governor in Council after consultation with the minister with the council or such committee thereof as named for the purpose by the council".


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
On clause 18-Definition of "judicial office"
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 18 carry?


Alex Kindy: No, no.


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, no, what?


Alex Kindy: You are going very fast, and I did not have the time to look at it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What clause?


Alex Kindy: It is clause 16.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We have already gone past clause 16. We have passed clause 17. We are on clause 18 right now.


Alex Kindy: We are on clause 18. This is what happens, Mr. Chairman.
It is the definition of a judicial office:
"judicial office" means the office of a judge of a superior court or of the Tax Court of Canada.
Is that the office that is located in the court itself or is it a different office? What happens to judges who travel? What offices do they use?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is totally irrelevant to this particular bill.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
We will give the member a minute to find a reasonable question to ask.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 19, 20 and 21 agreed to.
On clause 22-Annuity to surviving children
Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Clause 22 deals with the death of a judge. If I remember right, I had asked the parliamentary secretary what happens to the widow or the children.
He did not answer. He said that it was an irrelevant question because it did not deal with the subject matter. I see that clause 22 specifically deals with that. Maybe he could revert to the first question and I will ask him: If a judge marries at age 69 because his wife died and he is a widower, and he marries just three months before dying, at that point, is the widow entitled to three-quarters of his pension?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I am just conferring with officials here to get a specific answer to that question.
In such a case, I am advised that the second widow in this case would receive one-third.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
On clause 24-Chief justice or chief judge to report.
Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, this clause talks about the chief justice reporting. To whom does he report in his duties? I would like to have precision on that clause. How does he report? Why this clause?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, he reports to the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 29-
Alex Kindy: Clause 29 is entitled Bank Act. Subclause 29(c) states: "Section 2 of the Bank Act is repealed and the following substituted". Could the parliamentary secretary explain why it is being repealed and the following is substituted in the provinces of Nova Scotia, British Columbia in the Supreme Court
of the provinces. Could he explain the reasoning behind this repeal.


Lee Richardson: It is simply to take out the reference in the act to the trial division of the Supreme Court, Mr. Chairman.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I asked the parliamentary secretary earlier about a judicial committee where citizens would be able to register complaints about the improper attention they thought they might have received from court procedures. Initially I did understand the parliamentary secretary to say that really was not in this bill and it was beyond the scope of this bill.
You are moving very quickly, Mr. Chairman. After all this is Committee of the Whole where we go through clause by clause. We went by clause 26 which talks about a council. It states: "The objects of the council are to promote efficiency and uniformity and to improve the quality of judicial service in Superior Courts and in the Tax Court of Canada".
I am just trying to balance that amendment that we sped through as I was reading the bill with the parliamentary secretary's answer earlier. As I read this amendment, that is periiaps the vehicle whereby a citizen can in effect register some question about the quality of the judicial service that that citizen received or was exposed to.
I would like to have a chance to put that question. I always thought, before we got into this bill, as I understand some other aspects of law, that there was some judicial committee. It may be composed of the Chief Justice. I think it may be an in-house committee with other judges. That is what I would like to ask about and to have it explained in view of the earlier answers.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can
we revert to clause 26?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if there was again confusion. My reference was not that we were amending any committee or council. This bill is simply deleting the reference to county courts. With respect to the Canadian Judicial Council, yes, clearly the hon. member, who is a lawyer, is correct. There is of course the Canadian Judicial Council that any citizen can complain to. I thank the member for clarifying that point.
December 11, 1992


Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, referring to that council, can the parliamentary secretary inform the House of the procedure of this council so that the public at least can become cognizant of how it works and how they may complain if they feel that something was not done properly.


Lee Richardson: Yes. It is a pretty straightforward procedure. They simply write to the Canadian Judicial Council in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to
On clause 31-
Alex Kindy: Clause 31 states the Co-operative Credit Association Act is repealed and the following substituted. Can the parliamentary secretary explain to the House why this is being repealed and something else being substituted. What was the reasoning behind this? The parliamentary secretary is very astute. He knows this bill very well.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for the compliment. Despite my astuteness I obviously do not explain it very well. I have answered this question three times.
The reference in clause 31 is the same as the similar references. It is simply because there will no longer be a trial division. That is the reason for this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 43 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 44-
Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the Customs Act. It is the same type of repealing and substituting. We have added the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and the Supreme Court in subclause (c). Could the parliamentary secretary explain the substitution itself?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I am not clear on exactly what the question asked for.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Chairman, clause 44 (l)(c) reads:
Government Orders
- in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the Yukon
Territory and the Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court,
Why the Supreme Court?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, again the previous reference was to county courts. This legislation is very simple legislation. It removes that level from the Nova Scotia court system. There is no longer a country court and that is why we have these technical amendments simply removing the name county court from the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 56 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 51-Order enforced as judgment of court
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, on the clauses that you quite properly went through with no debate, I guess the same answer would be applied. I understand that, but because all these different statutes are mentioned I again point out to those who have not seen how a bill can sometimes be dragged out that it really opens up all those acts to say something if we really wanted to. We have not been doing what some people may think we are doing, although I must say the clock is an interesting feature of a debate.
I am very interested in the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act in several ways. This is not just amending the terminology of the judges to conform to the different acts that have already been named. This sets out an order of the board. As the parliamentary secretary may or may not remember, it was members when some of us were in government and in opposition. Certainly the member for Regina-Lumsden as a member of the transport committee spoke in the House on the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. I do not know if that is the act because I do not have it before me. I think it is the act whereby merchant seamen finally got compensation after a long fight to be recognized. I would like to know that first.
It may be the Veterans Merchants Compensation Act. I am not sure, but I would like to know the reason for the amendment whereby it speaks of an order of the board for payment of compensation. What is the composition of that board, which seems to be a new feature, although it may not be? I just cannot understand why it is within the reorganization of the court system in Nova Scotia.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I would be very surprised if the eminent barrister and solicitor from Annapolis Valley-Hants really did not know the answer to that question.
However, in the interest of providing responses, I can tell him again that this bill does nothing but remove from in this case the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act the words "county court". It is the same answer as we have given for the last seven.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the parliamentary secretary, it is a little different and is sort of highlighted in the side note. Rather than a court it is going to be an order of the board that will have the same power as a judgment of the court. Is that a correct interpretation?


Lee Richardson: No, it is not. It is simply deleting a reference to country court which this bill does. It is simply a technical bill to remove the county court in Nova Scotia.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am getting surprised now because the word court does not even appear in this amendment. Right on the side note of the section it does say "Order in force as judgment of court".


Alex Kindy: It is the board.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is the board and there is no court around. Therefore it is a little different from just renaming one court for the new restructured court. In his answer I thought the parliamentary secretary would have just read off the side note on the clause itself.
In view of his answer I really am confused as to what is going on with this amendment. I would like some clarification and this is the proper place to do it.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I just hope that everyone is quite clear. There is no confusion. It is just simply dragging out debate in the House.
The hon. member knows full well the previous order had to be filed with a county court. There no longer will be a county court as I have said several times here. That reference is simply removed from the act.
I am sure the member is fully aware of this procedure. It is just a game they are playing here. We are prepared
to play if that is how they want to waste the time of the House of Commons and the people of Canada. They want to continue to drag this out with these repetitive questions. They know the answers to these questions. It is a simple technical bill that we should pass to allow the province of Nova Scotia to get on with the restructuring of its courts to bring it in line with all of the courts in Canada.
For the people of Nova Scotia whom he represents this will now not happen. The province of Nova Scotia has come to Parliament and asked: "Would you please make these minor technical amendments to federal law so we can get on with the revision of our courts in Nova Scotia?"
I would like to say to the people of Nova Scotia today that there is one reason and perhaps two sitting across the floor as to why this bill has not passed. It could simply have passed in 15 minutes this afternoon. They are simple technical amendments that the people of Nova Scotia will be denied because of the delaying tactics of the hon. member opposite.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in the questions we have asked in the different bills that have come before the House. I must say it is really quite interesting how the parliamentary secretary considers the whole institution of Parliament, let alone Committee of the Whole. With some other examples he can find out that the sections of this bill, most of which we have not even asked questions on, have flown right by. We have already passed one bill this afternoon.
I will take my chances with my electors from Nova Scotia as much as any of my friends are taking their chances with their constituents too. Our duty is to ask questions. The government brought the bill into committee of the whole. It wanted to get something through the House quickly. If it had any procedural experience, it would have never have opened up Committee of the Whole.
We could have held the bill up if we had wanted to obstruct. If we wanted to delay, we could have held up a section, which I told you about before on the debate on the aboriginals. It would have been legitimate debate, opening up that whole area of concern of Canadians, let alone aboriginals.
December 11, 1992

However, because it was a very important bill, and the minister of Indian affairs controlled his exasperation, although he obviously was a little exasperated by questions from time to time, that bill got through.
We are now in a massive reconstruction, for the first time, of the court systems in Nova Scotia and we are sailing along. The parliamentary secretary of transport- not even the parliamentary secretary of justice or the justice minister-is answering the questions. That shows how much this government feels about the court administration in Nova Scotia. It has a junior parliamentary secretary here and it is not even his jurisdiction.
I do not have to take second place to the parliamentary secretary who is a fine person, an astute individual and is an experienced politician belying his youthful looks. The fact of the matter is that he is not the parliamentary secretary for justice and we have found out that in questions, he could not give simple answers. Quite frankly in this last one, where he did get a little exasperated, he by his second answer-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. It being 3.21 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move that we sit beyond the normal time of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-96.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their place.
No members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Translation\
Louis Plamondon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If 15 members or more rise, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn. I did not
Business of the House
see any member rise. Less than 15 members having risen, the motion is adopted according to Standing Order 26(2).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, since we decided as a result of this motion to continue to sit for the consideration of Bill C-96, there has been a great deal of discussion among all the parties and all the representatives in the House regarding Bill C-42.
This is a very important environment bill. If we are going to sit, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to consider Bill C-42 in the last stage as well.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, further to the private discussion I had earlier with the minister, I am happy to say that I too will support this motion.


Mr. Breaugh:: I may be mistaken on this, but I thought the Chair put the question for continued study of Bill C-96 in committee to the next sitting of the House. Is that not correct?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: That was what I did say when the report from committee of the whole was received. Then the hon. government House leader brought in a motion which I put to the House and which was accepted, which means that we would continue studying Bill C-96 after the period for Private Members' Business.
Now a motion has been put by the hon. member for Kamloops asking the House to agree to study another bill as well. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Guy H. Arseneault: Point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, today the New Brunswick resolution came up for debate. I attempted to get in on that debate but because of different reasons, I guess regulations or whatever, I could not participate directly in the debate and I had a prepared text. I was wondering if, in keeping with the spirit of the holiday season and the co-operation here in the House, my colleagues would permit me to table my speech for the record to be published in Hansard. I would so request.

December 11, 1992
Business of the House


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to agree to that, and indeed it might be worth examining as a hopeful precedent.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, in keeping with the Christmas season and the importance of the subject, I am totally in agreement with this particular notion, and let us hope we can get it as a precedent for other events.


Alex Kindy: I would add the same thoughts. The hon. member is certainly very much entitled to do that. I hope that other members in future are going to grasp the same opportunity and that this would be accepted as well.


Miss Grey (Beaver River):: Of course, I have a problem with what has gone on in the House procedurally today. However, if the member from New Brunswick has been allowed to table his speech, I would like to submit my prepared remarks as well. We know the House turned into an absolute zoo on the other side this morning, and the government is preparing now, of course, through Standing Order 53 to force something through.
I would just say in closing before I table my written remarks that I was prepared to make today, that this government seems to feel that it can start putting through bits and pieces of the Charlottetown accord on Fridays by using these procedural agreements. It is just putting things through when people aren't paying attention on the last day before Christmas holidays. It is attempting to use Standing Order 53 right now. It thinks it will be able to put Charlottetown accord through bit by bit. If the government learned nothing on October 26, it should be that it cannot do that. If it does it by using these standing orders, putting it through bit by bit, this place will just be a very sad place and this will be a very, very sad day. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley- Hants earlier talked about a black Friday, it certainly is one now.
I will table my remarks.


Harvie Andre: I am not sure what brought that on. Frankly, I had always thought the Reform Party's position was that the questions of language should be totally provincial. What this does is establish for the province of New Brunswick the constitutional right to be officially bilingual.
The Constitution Act of Canada requires the approval of this body and of the other place, and we were simply
complying with what was a request from the province of New Brunswick that they be officially bilingual. I had always assumed, indeed I think I read it in the little blue book, that the policy of the Reform Party is that language should be up to the provinces. So I am not sure why the agitation.
But that being said, I would respect the decision of the House in respect of her request to have her speech tabled.


James Ross Fulton: Just for the record, I would like it to be recorded that I do not think it would be wise for this House to start accepting simply submitted speeches to be attached to Hansard.
I have been here almost 14 years and it is always better to not see the clock for awhile. I am prepared to sit here and finish Bill C-96 and finish Bill C-42.1 think that the practice of attaching speeches that were not given on the floor of this Chamber would end the necessity and value of this place.


Deborah C. Grey: Madam Speaker, I was certainly surprised at the generosity of the other side to just willy-nilly accept a speech on behalf of that member.
Now of course if that is going to be done then there would be every reason for it to be-as the member here says, it is a bit ridiculous-but if it is going to be good for that, then certainly.
My point of order earlier and what I request of the government House leader right now is one question. We went through the motions today, there were five people who rose in their places, a vote was deferred by yourself, Madam Speaker, until February 1. That is all we were asking for on this side of the House.
I would like to know why we are still here at 3.30 p.m., with the government having struck out twice on trying to bring in Standing Order 53? I want to know what it is going to do for strike three and if it is not such a crisis why may we not defer the vote, as was decided this morning, until February 1?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: At this time there is no request to adopt Standing Order 53. What I have put to the House and what the House has adopted is Standing Order 26. It will allow the House to conclude study of Bill C-96 and Bill C-42.
December 11, 1992

We did ask for unanimous consent. I was to ask for unanimous consent on the request of the member for Restigouche-Chaleur and the member for Beaver River. One hon. member refused that unanimous consent so I cannot do this. Now we will proceed with Private Members' Hour, as it is 3.31 p.m.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, a point of order. My saying no to the attachment of the member for Restigouche- Chaleur's speech and the member for Beaver River's speech was not intended to stop us from finishing Bill C-96 and Bill C-42.
I believe there is goodwill and unanimous consent in the House to do that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No. I understood that perfectly. I was simply repeating, in connection with what was said by the hon. member for Beaver River about the possibility that the government House leader or another minister might move a motion under Standing Order 53, that this was not the case. I simply repeated what I said before, that Standing Order 26 had been used and the motion was carried.
We will now continue consideration of Bill C-96 and Bill C-42, but I was simply reminding the House that there was no unanimous consent for allowing speeches prepared by members who did not have a chance to speak in the House this morning, to be part of the record. I was just summarizing the situation for the benefit of members who just came in and perhaps this will also be helpful to our listeners who have been bearing with us for part of the day.
It being 3.34 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: that Bill C-274, an act to provide for the conversion to civilian
Private Members' Business
uses of technologies and skills used in the nuclear weapons industry, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to begin the debate on Bill C-274, which I tabled in the House in 1989.
It is an act to provide for the conversion to civilian uses of technologies and skills used in the nuclear weapons industry. Bill C-274 is to prepare for the ending of contracts for producing or handling nuclear weapons. It encourages the conversion of technologies of nuclear weapons work into the manufacturing of civilian goods. It helps workers who lose their jobs as a result of the change to find new jobs or it provides benefits to those who become jobless.
The bill requires a company with a nuclear weapons contract to set up a committee to help in changing the plant to civilian production and in retraining the workers. The committee will have equal numbers of representatives from the company and the workers and non-voting community members.
The nuclear weapons company must set up a fund to do all this, and must deposit in it 2.5 per cent of its gross revenues each year. The company and the committee are also to seek funds from other sources.
The bill gives the minister discretion to help the committees and the companies carry out this conversion and provides fines for those who contravene this act.
This bill is supported by two recommendations of a report made to Parliament in October 1992 by the Subcommittee on Arms Export of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. That report recommended that Canada prohibit the export of components for nuclear weapons, and also that the government should help to establish a Canadian diversification and resource centre.
My colleague, the New Democrat member for Victoria, will further explain these recommendations later in this hour, as he was a member of that committee. However, I would like to present two strong reasons for converting from the making of nuclear weapons to the making of civilian goods.
First, nuclear weapons use up huge amounts of money, labour, scientific training and research. This is a terrible waste. Instead of these bombs and the missiles to deliver

Private Members' Business
them, we should be making such things as mass transit systems for our cities and instruments for detecting and cleaning up pollution, or we could be developing renewable energy resources that our country and the world badly need. With so much poverty in Canada and in the world we cannot afford to squander our best skills and our best materials.
Second, we already have tens of thousands of these mass killing machines stored in many places around the world, and under many governments. They terrify us, and with good reason. They have killed people already, not only in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but in other ways since then, more accidentally, and they have been used to threaten people.
If they are used again they might end all human life. Enough. Let us learn to work to get rid of them, not to make more. We cannot rely on the arms manufacturers by themselves to switch from making killing machines to making things useful for life because arms manufacturing is very profitable.
The arms makers' association that used to mount an annual sales blitz in March in Ottawa called ARMX is now advertising the same weapons to the same international buyers under the slick title of Peacekeeping '93.
Most people do not know to what extent Canada is engaged in producing nuclear weapons systems-vehicles, planes, ships or missiles that are designed primarily to carry nuclear weapons.
Canadians do not make a whole nuclear weapon or a whole nuclear weapons system but we do make many parts of them, mainly to sell to the United States or Britain. I have a list published in the Ploughshares Monitor in March 1990 of the companies that have made these parts since 1986. We have made parts for the following systems: the B-10 bomber, the B-52 stratofor-tress bomber, the tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile, the MX (peacekeeper) missile, the midgetman missile, the Trident submarine, the F-lll aircraft, Lynn HAS 2/3 helicopter, Nimrod MR2 aircraft, P-3 Orton aircraft, P-7A aircraft, S-3 Viking aircraft, SH-60 Seahawk helicopter and Tornado aircraft.
We make them in Waterloo, Ottawa, Rexdale, London, Kitchener, Montreal, Mississauga, Fort Erie, Haley,
Carleton Place, Scarborough, Oakville, Cambridge, Stratford, Winnipeg, Ajax and Peterborough.
The companies that made them are Fusion Penn Inc., Canadian Commercial Corporation, Garrett Canada, Litton Systems Canada, General Motors of Canada, A.T.C. Automation Tooling, Canadian Marconi Company, MIL Vickers, Vadoko International, Cercast Inc., Fleet Industries, General Electric Canada, Haley Industries Ltd., Leigh Instruments Ltd., McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd., Magna Electronics Corporation, Vac-Aero International, Via-U-Ray Testing, Bristol Aerospace, Menesco Aerospace, West Heights Manufacturing, C.A.E. Electronics, Computing Devices, Canadair Ltd., Dowty Canada, Dowty Electronics Ltd., Unisys Canada, Spar Aerospace Ltd., Leigh Instruments and Walbar of Canada Inc.
The people who made these instruments for nuclear warfare are not bad people. They are good people who are trying to do as we all try to do, put bread on the table. These companies are engaged in legal work. Many of them are subsidized by a government program that uses $500 million per year.
The purpose of this bill is not to blame them but to declare that the people of Canada wish us now to follow a different course of action. We wish to convert war industries to peace industries so that workers like these can put bread on the table doing work that helps people live rather than work that helps people die. I ask members of this House to support this bill.
Since I will be leaving half of my time for other colleagues to give their support to this bill, I wish to close simply with a verse written 25 centuries ago by the prophet Isaiah:
The work of justice shall be peace And the effect of justice quietness and confidence forever Keep judgement and do justice For my salvation is to come and my justice be revealed.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on Bill C-274.
December 11, 1992

I would like to make a few points. First of all, for the member opposite, there are no nuclear weapons in Canada. We do not have a nuclear weapons industry in Canada.
Second, Canada is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
Third, the nuclear industry is very important to Canada and nuclear technology plays a very vital role in power generation and in the medical and food industries.
I want to reiterate that Canada does not have a nuclear weapons industry. We removed all our nuclear weapons many years ago and we maintain a defensive policy today that does not include nuclear weapons. However, Canada is recognized internationally for its peacekeeping activities, for its stringent nuclear nonproliferation policy and its full-scope nuclear safeguards, for its arms control and disarmament activities and for its commitment to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. There is no nuclear weapons industry in Canada.
It is interesting to note that among the six nations of the world that have complete scientific and industrial military capability to support nuclear weapons-Canada, the U.S., United Kingdom, France, Russia and China- Canada is the only one that chooses to apply its nuclear knowledge solely for peaceful purposes, not for the production of nuclear weapons.
Canada's nuclear technology has from its very inception been under civil control. Scientists, physicists and engineers from the National Research Council established Chalk River, the birth place of Canada's nuclear technology, during the Second World War.
The Atomic Energy Control Board was established by an act of Parliament in 1946. Under civilian control AECB is responsible for ensuring that the use of nuclear technology does not pose undue risk to health, safety, security or the environment. Atomic Energy of Canada was formed as a Crown corporation in 1952 and it too is committed to the peaceful development of Canada's unique nuclear option, the Candu reactor, and to the achievement of excellence in related science and technology for the benefit not just of the present but of future Canadians.
In addition to its international obligations under the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, Canada
Private Members' Business
has it own stringent nuclear non-proliferation policy and full scope safeguards.
Canada's nuclear industry contributes to quality employment for many sectors of the economy, including the mining of uranium in Saskatchewan, the production of reactor fuel in Ontario, the manufacturing of equipment, the construction and operation of electrical power plants and the production of medical equipment and radio isotopes for use in medicine, cancer treatment and food processing.
Over 30,000 people are employed directly in over 100 companies. They include scientists, engineers, miners, technicians and support staff. The industry provides over
70,000	indirect jobs as well in related supplies and services.
It is also noteworthy that many aboriginal people are employed in the mining of uranium in northern Saskatchewan. Recently, Chief Harry Cook of the La Ronge Indian Band was appointed to the Cameco board of directors.
The nuclear industry in Canada contributes over $4.5 billion to Canada's economy annually, primarily to Ontario and Quebec, but to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and British Columbia as well. Ontario, for example, has already saved over $17 billion in foreign exchange by using uranium rather than coal for its power.
Nuclear technology is important to our exports. Prospects and orders on hand for Canadian exports of nuclear technology are considerable. They include over $1 billion of Candu technology, annual exports of $1 billion worth of uranium, heavy water supplies estimated at $.5 billion and related engineered products such as radio isotopes, cancer treatment equipment, food irradiators, training simulators and engineering services valued at $250 million.
I would like to quote Mr. David R. Anderson, the vice-president and manager of Canatom Inc., Ontario operations and chairman and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. On the subject of our Candu exports to Korea, he said:
For the Candu unit ordered in 1990 for the Wolsong nuclear power plant, AECL, the prime contractor to Korea Electric Power Corporation, will generate approximately 500 engineering quotation requests to be sent out from the Mississauga offices of AECL-CANDU to selected suppliers in Canadian industry for the components of the Nuclear Steam Supply System.

December 11, 1992
Private Members' Business
In addition, CANATOM Inc., acting as the architect-engineer to KEPCO through the AECL main contract, will issue from its offices in Toronto and Montreal, another 75 requisitions for purchase of equipment in Canada for the Balance of Plant, which comes under the direct control of KEPCO. Korea Heavy Industries Corporation will also place orders on Canadian suppliers.
The Wolsong 2 project will inject some $400 million into the Canadian economy, providing some 7,000 jobs over a four year period.
This is important at a time when jobs are scarce:
The breakdown is 2,000 direct and 5,000 indirect jobs. In addition, some 75 Canadian technical experts will be needed in Korea, many of whom are already living in Seoul.
Two more CANDU units for the Wolsong plant were ordered by KEPCO in September 1992. For the three units, Wolsong 2, 3 & 4, a total of 1030 orders will be placed in Canada by all parties concerned. The value to the Canadian nuclear industry is $915 million.
There are virtually no importations of nuclear equipment into Canada, however. Candu technology is developed, researched, engineered and manufactured right here in Canada. Canada has a positive balance of trade as well in two high technology sectors, aerospace and nuclear reactors, and Canada is not dependent on any country for the supply of key technologies, equipment, services or uranium supplies for its nuclear industry.
The September 1992 report in Business Magazine ranked Canada's top 100 research and development spenders. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ranked second with 1991 expenditures of $293 million, a 13.2 per cent increase over 1990.
Uranium, I would submit, is a clean source of energy. Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases. France, for example, generates 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear reactors and has one of the lowest carbon dioxide emission levels per capita.
Canada, fortunately, is in the forefront of nuclear technology and nowhere is this more evident than in nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. Nuclear medicine provides a reliable and non-intrusive way to diagnose and treat various diseases.
For example, Nordion International Inc., a Canadian company with over 500 employees and annual sales of
over $100 million, is a leading international producer, marketer and supplier of radioisotopes for nuclear medicine and research laboratories. Nordion is best known as the world's largest supplier of cobalt-60, a radioisotope used for sterilization of surgical instruments and cancer therapy.
Nordion also manufactures radiation processing equipment and supplies approximately 85 per cent of the world's requirements for molybdenum 99, moly-99, an essential radioisotope used in many medical procedures.
Theratronics International Limited is another Canadian nuclear technology company with 200 people and annual sales, mostly exports, of over $40 million. Theratronics is a pioneer in the field of radiation therapy and developed the world's first cobalt-60 cancer treatment machine in 1951. Since then the company has installed over 1,800 units in 70 countries. Over a million cancer patients a year are treated using Theratronics' products.
Canada's nuclear medicine community is highly regarded world-wide. Each year vast quantities of the world's food production are spoiled due to food borne bacteria, insect infestations and parasites. Food irradiation solves the problem.
I will not go into details, but I will say that it is because of nuclear technology that people have clean, safe food to eat.
Let me just summarize very briefly. Canada does not have a nuclear weapons industry. Canada has maintained the steadfast commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear technology and the Canadian nuclear industry is making a remarkable contribution to Canada's economy in terms of quality employment, significant export performance, providing a clean, efficient reliable source of energy, providing for our energy security and the development of human, intellectual and natural resources.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, as I looked at this private members' bill I would have to say that it does not apply to Canada and certainly, since we cannot pass laws in this House of Commons for other countries, I am really wondering about the purpose of this bill to begin with.
December 11, 1992

If the hon. member was looking at that poor, forlorn new chairman of Ontario Hydro, appointed by the Ontario NDP government, he is receiving only $425,000 a year, I understand, and I do not know how the poor fellow is going to exist on that.
I think the NDP government in Ontario would be better off putting some money into road maintenance budgets to make the highways safe for people in this country so we would have some safety on the roads.
First, all Canadian governments since that of Lester Pearson in the 1960s have been in support of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Regardless of political party, all governments have agreed on this point and have actually sought ways to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This is one of the fundamental values that Canadian governments and indeed the Canadian public have in common.
Second, in looking at the bill of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina, one reads that Canada should convert to civilian uses technologies and skills that are used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Under Canada's policy of non-proliferation, Canada does not export uranium to the United States because that country has a nuclear weapons program. Canada does not have a nuclear weapons program and we have never had one. However, we sell steel to the United States. We sell plastics to the United States and several other non-nuclear materials to the United States and these materials could be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons with no relationship whatsoever to the actual terminology of nuclear.
Is the NDP in sponsoring this bill today asking us to sever all trade with the United States in all materials that are used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons? Is it asking us not to send steel to the United States? Is it asking us not to sell our plastic products to the United States, or a host of other products we sell to them that may be used in the actual product that is produced in the nuclear weapons industry? They are certainly using it in the manufacture of cars, for example, the steel industry.
As a supporter of the non-proliferation treaty, Canada supports the right of developing countries to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means only. Many poorer countries are interested in nuclear energy because huge amounts of energy can be supplied. You cannot improve the way of life of people unless they
Private Members' Business
have an energy source to modernize their production in their every day life, even the decencies of electric lights and fridges for the saving of food.
Canadian policy is that Canada will not give nuclear technology to a country unless that country agrees to International safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is interesting to note that the Candu reactor is the most useless of reactors for those countries wanting to use the uranium in missile warheads. Heavy water is used as a coolant in the Candu reactor. This means that it uses natural uranium. As such, there is no need for a reprocessing facility in the Candu reactor system. The proportion of fissionable uranium, U-235, that is produced from the Candu is only 0.7 per cent.
If a country wanted to acquire a nuclear energy facility with the underlying intention of obtaining weapons-grade uranium for warheads, it would need a reprocessing facility to make this kind of uranium.
As indicated, the Candu is useless in this regard as it does not come equipped with a reprocessing facility and that is one of the safeguards of the Canadian Candu reactor. Canada is a major supporter of the non-proliferation treaty and has been since day one as one of the founders of it.
Of all the countries in the world, Canada is the leader in the promoting of the non-proliferation treaty dealing with nuclear weapons. There are only six that independently have the nuclear technology to develop nuclear weapons programs. These are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, the Peoples' Republic of China and Canada.
Other countries suspected of having nuclear weapons got the technology from other sources and did not develop it domestically.
Of the six countries I listed that have innovative nuclear technology, Canada is the only one with the capability to develop nuclear weapons but did not do so. We have never done so. This certainly says something about the kind of people Canadians are.
From the days of Lester B. Pearson it has been a policy of Canada not to develop an independent nuclear weapons system. Every government to date has stuck with that.

December 11, 1992
Private Members' Business
Canada has a nuclear program dedicated to peaceful purposes only. It has developed the Candu nuclear power reactor, a wide variety of medical and industrial radiochemical products, and a uranium industry that is the largest exporter in the world.
I just wish we could see the day when the critics of Canada's peaceful nuclear industry would begin to realize and talk about the tremendous strides that have been made in medicine in the nuclear field. Chalk River is a perfect example of what has been done in the field of medicine.
To ensure that these industries are not jeopardized by links to nuclear weapons, great care has been taken to develop international agreements with our trading partners. The important segments of Canada's nuclear non-proliferation policy are the bilateral agreements signed with all trading partners and the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty, which I have mentioned.
That is administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have about 20 people working at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
From the very beginning of international trade in nuclear products and technologies, Canada has required assurances from trading partners that Canadian-supplied items would not be used in any nuclear weapons programs. This policy has been strengthened, starting in 1974, requiring all trading partners to make the following basic commitments in bilateral nuclear co-operation agreements:
Canadian-supplied items will not be associated with nuclear explosive devices.
A provision for fall-back safeguards must be made if the International Atomic Energy Agency is unable to continue with its inspections and safeguard functions.
No transfer of Canadian-supplied items can be made without prior consent by Canada. They cannot be transferred from one country to another without Canadian consent. It is part of the agreement.
Enrichment of Canadian-supplied uranium beyond 20 per cent is prohibited; and adequate physical protection will be applied to ensure compliance with the previous conditions.
I see you are giving me the high sign, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that Canada has been one of the leaders
in the nuclear industry for peaceful purposes. Yes, we have a lot of expertise and good technology in this field, but it should be supported by the public at large for the good work that it has done in medicine and in biology and many other fields.
It is a great science. I do not know why we are debating this bill today because it really does not apply to Canada.


John F. Brewin: I thought, Mr. Speaker, you said the hon. member for Christmas. I know that he is a very avuncular fellow. I do appreciate your recognizing me and the opportunity to participate in this debate.
I am sure that the thousands, if not millions, of people across this country who believe very strongly, now that the cold war is over, in a peace dividend will be very disappointed that the speaker for the Liberal Party when speaking on this bill not only completely misconceived it but essentially spoke against it.
It is very revealing that the only person the Liberal Party puts up is someone who would go on about the Candu reactor which has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution before this House.
This resolution calls for conversion from a nuclear military weapons industry, not civilian industry, but nuclear military industry. It is a very critical and important issue to millions of people across this country.
We are not surprised that the member for Winnipeg South would oppose this resolution, although she too also misconceived the point of the resolution.
I want to congratulate the member for Trinity-Spadi-na who has pursued this issue diligently for many years and has finally seen this bill come before the House. It is a great tribute to him.
He has served this House very well. He has indicated he will not be running in the next election and this House will miss him. He has been a conscience of the House on this and many other issues. I want to assure him that if I and others are back, we will carry on the fight for the important concept he has embodied in this resolution.
Under the rules of the House, if we cannot get agreement and the matter dies on the Order Paper, I would ask all members to agree that this be referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs for consideration.

This bill calls for conversion of the nuclear weapons industry in Canada. It should not be misunderstood. This country is completely committed to the manufacture of components of nuclear weapons systems and the export of those components particularly to the United States of America. This bill by establishing the national policy of conversion is a very important bill for our country to accept.
I want to use the few minutes I have to draw the attention of House and of the country to an important companion study done by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
Last year and leading into early this year, a sub-committee on arms exports undertook a very comprehensive study of the future of Canadian military goods production and export. In the course of that study, it made a series of important recommendations, two of which bear directly on this resolution.
The first is recommendation 12. It recommends that an export control list be established which would include the components of nuclear weapons. This recommendation was unanimously accepted by the committee and recommended to this House by the members, including representatives from the government side and from the Liberal side. Where are they today? Why are they not standing up in support of this bill which would embody at least in part that unanimous recommendation?
The committee also recommended a number of other steps which would be in the spirit of this bill. It recommended that the government act upon the 1982 request of the United Nations General Assembly to prepare a national assessment of the relationship between disarmament and development in Canada.
The committee recommended that the Canadian defence procurement policy be changed to foster a leading edge in innovative industrial capability in civilian as well as military high technology products in areas of surveillance and monitoring, verification, sovereignty protection and peacekeeping.
The committee also recommended that the mandate of the Defence Industry Production Program be changed to encourage conversion and diversification and that it
Private Members' Business
primarily focus on technologies with significant civilian spin-off potential.
It also called on DIPP funds to be available to assist when a defence industry had been closed. I want to conclude with drawing the attention of the House to this most important recommendation which is at the heart of this important bill brought before the House by the member for Trinity-Spadina.
I will read recommendation 20 it in its entirety.
The Committee recommends that the government support the establishment of a Canadian Diversification and Conversion Resource Centre. The Centre should gather and disseminate data on diversification and conversion efforts in Canada and overseas, on federal, provincial and municipal programs which might assist diversification and conversion efforts, and on new products and markets. The Centre should also monitor Canadian and international defence production, defence industry support and military goods export control policies, and encourage the establishment of conversion committees.
This bill calls upon the nuclear weapons industry to establish conversion committees and the recommendation would broaden that to cover all military production in this country.
I commend this bill to the House and urge all members to support it.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill introduced by my colleague from Spadina.
The bill is to provide for the conversion to civilian uses of technologies and skills used in the nuclear weapons industry. In prefacing my remarks, I should point out that my own constituency, particularly the community of Trail, produced the heavy water for the Manhattan project. The Cominco Special Metals and Electronics Division produced a lot of the sophisticated technology used in President Reagan's ill-fated Star Wars program.
Therefore, to say that we have never had an industry in Canada that has contributed to the nuclear weapons industry and delivery system is quite wrong.
The main purpose of my remarks is to point out, in supporting the principle of this bill, that there are opportunities that I and many others feel are being missed for Canada to get aboard, gear up for and contribute in a major way to what should be and will be a major nuclear clean-up industry on a world-wide scale.

Private Members' Business
The delegation of my colleagues and I, headed by my friend, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap and three other New Democratic members were the first Canadian parliamentary delegation to visit the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State at Richland, Washington last March to investigate what is going on at that facility. It is a major clean-up.
I will read very briefly what they are doing to clean up the mess left over from the Manhattan project, the number of plutonium development facilities and about nine reactors that used to exist on that site. It is setting the pace and is a laboratory for the world in terms of the nuclear clean-up industry. I just want to point out what is happening in the local area. I will quote from The Economist of August 15, 1992:
Doing something about this problem is revitalising the local economy. More than 16,000 technicians, engineers and scientists are now beavering away on the site. During the past year the population of Richland grew by 10%. Home prices have risen 30% in three years-unusual in an environmental disaster-area. As Ralph DeSibio of Westinghouse Hanford, an erstwhile plutonium producer and now the prime contractor for the clean-up, puts it, "We're sitting on a waste mine."
It may be a waste mine but it is a gold mine for many of the people there. It can be a major contributor to more and sophisticated jobs in Canada, if we accept our responsibilities to help lead the way.
The federal government should be co-ordinating and communicating with American Westinghouse officials and attempting to get a piece of the action or at least be in an observer capacity at that site in Washington. In that way, we would be in a better position to clean up our own matters, whether they stem from military nuclear hardware or the clean-up of civilian nuclear problems. That is another major problem that we have not dealt with either. It would also allow us to contribute, in a more meaningful way, and we should be beginning to do that as well, in the major problems in the nuclear industry in what used to be the Soviet Union.
For a number of reasons, including demand reasons and the state of public opinion, the nuclear industry in Canada, and I am mainly talking about the peaceful nuclear industry, is gearing down in many ways. We can create employment, create technology, be on the leading edge in the so-called global marketplace that the government likes to talk to us about, if we are in a position to understand the clean-up technologies that are taking place. We could lend a helping hand to what otherwise
will be a major disaster for the whole world and help to clean up some of the problems left over by the change of regimes and the inappropriate and old fashioned nuclear technology that existed in the Soviet Union.
That is a disaster waiting to happen. We have potential disasters from the peacetime nuclear industry in Canada unless we are in a position to get on board and help to clean up this major waste disposal problem on a worldwide basis. There are opportunities there, let us grab them.
The intent of the bill before us is to begin to move us in that direction and I hope the government does.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I just learned that the hon. member for Trinity-Spa-dina will not run in the next election, and since I may not have the opportunity to do so later on, I should like to congratulate him for his hard work on behalf of his constituents.
Canadians can be proud of their country's record on arms control and nuclear non-proliferation. Traditionally, these issues have been among the priorities of Canadian foreign policy since the Second World War.
In the late 1940s Canada rejected the development of nuclear weapons. Instead, Canadian efforts in this area have targeted the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Electrical power generation, medical applications of radioisotopes, are among the contributions that Canadian nuclear science has made to human betterment. A corollary of this policy of focusing on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy was the decision to pursue in a consequent and unremitting manner initiatives towards nuclear arms control and non-proliferation. Canada has always stood on the side of peace and opposed war.
Canada was among the first nations to ratify the non-proliferation treaty in 1969. The treaty continues as the essential cornerstone of the global non-proliferation system. Canada's unwavering support for the NPT rests on its indispensable character in stemming the spread of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the NPT also permits the dissemination of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Canada, through the International Atomic Energy Agency and other channels, has played a strong role in this area.

The essential character of the NPT has prompted Canada to promote actively universal adoption of the treaty. Such a stance supports Canada's ultimate objective: the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
Canada has always been in the forefront of multilateral efforts to reduce conventional weapons, stem nuclear proliferation, and otherwise work for peace. The end of the cold war greatly reduced the threat of nuclear war, but this most welcome development also brought to the fore new and pressing challenges.
For that reason, the Prime Minister, in a seminal speech last year at Johns Hopkins University, set out an agenda for action on non-proliferation.
First, the NPT must be strengthened by its indefinite extension and by universal accession to it. These objectives were reflected in the political declaration issued by summit leaders meeting in Munich last year. Since then, Canada has participated in multilateral and bilateral initiatives to urge acceptance of the NPT. These efforts have met with considerable success and, to date, 155 countries have acceded to the NPT.
Nonetheless, a number of key countries remain outside the treaty. Further efforts are needed to persuade states like India, Pakistan, Algeria, Israel, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. This is particularly important as we move to prepare for the NPT Extension Conference in 1995.
Second, nuclear cheating must be stopped by strengthening the mandate of the International Atomic Energy Agency and increasing its resources. Canada will support giving the IAEA the teeth-the authority and the resources-to inspect any time anywhere. To this end, a Canadian expert is participating in a high-level group to develop strengthened and streamlined safeguards.
Third, controls on the export of nuclear technologies, materials and equipment must be tightened. With strong pressure from Canada and others the Nuclear Suppliers Group has agreed to require the acceptance of full-scope safeguards by recipient countries as a condition of supply.
Private Members' Business
Fourth, the migration of nuclear brainpower must be stopped. To that end, Canada has contributed generously to the establishment of International Science and Technology Centres in Kiev and Moscow so that scientists of Russia and Ukraine apply their knowledge and expertise to peaceful endeavours and not add to the world's stock of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Fifth, security co-operation must be strengthened regionally to reduce underlying causes of tensions, particularly in such chronic hot spots as the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East and the sub-continent. Canada is bringing its experience and expertise in verification to the arms control working group of the Middle East peace talks and we have been instrumental in encouraging the countries of the north Pacific to consider ways to enhance their security through cooperation and dialogue.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker? [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


John F. Brewin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is evident from the speeches in the House that there is not likely to be unanimous consent to adopt the motion, but I wonder if you could test the House on the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-274, an act to provide for the conversion to civilian uses of technologies and skills used in the nuclear weapons industry, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Ttade.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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.

Government Orders
Government Orders


JUDGES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-96, an act to amend the Judges Act and other acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in Nova Scotia-Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-96, an act to amend the Judges Act and other acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in Nova Scotia.
We have finished clauses 55 and 56. We will now go to clause 57.
On Clause 51-Order enforced as judgment of court


Alex Kindy: I have an initial question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport did not seem to have answered properly. When they talk about the board, what board is it? What constitutes that board?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Chairman, the board is constituted under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. It is set out in that particular statute. This particular clause now makes reference to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 69 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and concurred in.
Harvie Andre: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I was literally out on the phone regarding this bill. I just have one question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I am glad he is here.
Do these judges in this reconstituted court have to again take the oath? I understand this is a concern of judges in view of what it might do to the judicial seniority pecking order within the court. I would like to have an
answer. I know this is not a formal third reading. Obviously, I do not want to impede the thing any more, but that is a very legitimate concern.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's questions, it is my understanding that judges would be reswom in the new Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
In terms of the precedence, I do not have the Nova Scotia enabling legislation. My understanding in terms of seniority, which I think was another part of his question, is that is set out in the legislation itself.
I know there was one question, and I can get back to the hon. member, as to one judge who I believe is now on the Court of Appeal. There was some question about seniority. I do not have the answer to that, but in direct answer to him yes, they will be reswom and their seniority is established under the enabling legislation passed by the province of Nova Scotia.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know what is the government's intention with respect to this constitutional amendment. Personally speaking I think it would be very unwise to proceed with it at this time. We should wait to do it property in the new year. I wonder if the government could give us some indication of what will happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before dealing with that perhaps we could finish with third reading of Bill C-96.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: As I was saying, I wondered what the government's intention was with respect to this constitutional amendment. I personally think it would be unwise to proceed with it now. I hope the government would reconsider and when the House returns we could have proper consideration of it. I know my constituents would be very interested in seeing it happen.


Harvie Andre: The constitutional amendment with respect of New Brunswick has been debated, put to a voice vote, and five members stood to call for a standing vote. Therefore there is no further debate to be held on it.
December 11, 1992

According to our Standing Orders, on a Friday there is an automatic deferral of the vote. We had sought, since the intent of the House was clear, unanimous consent to have the vote now to allow those who want to vote against it to do so and allow those who want to vote for it to do so. That was denied.
We had looked at the possibility under the Standing Orders. The means exist for those who would deny this coming to a vote to do so and they did so. Certainly the position of the government remains the same. We are ready to vote. It is one of those factors in our Standing Orders for our own protection. It says on Friday all standing votes are automatically deferred. If at any time we could get unanimous consent we could have the vote, but that is all that is left to be done.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think the government House leader did recite the situation evenly. There had been some discussions. As far as I am concerned, without replaying the whole issue, I did not get to speak in the early stages because we did have the voice vote.
However, I just hope the government has learned the importance of proper notice and discussion with all members on something so fundamental as the Constitution of Canada. Albeit a special section that applies to one province, this is the Parliament of Canada. There is very real concern on any matter affecting the amendment of the Constitution of Canada, be it Bill 101 in Quebec, be it founding races, be it the fact that we are replaying the Constitution. Having had the referendum debate and vote on October 16, we will go about it a different way if we are going to try to amend parts of the Constitution piecemeal.
I am glad it is going to sit there until February 1 when we come back. Goodness knows what may happen between now and then.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to add to what my neighbour here has said. As far as I am concerned the constitutional amendment that was brought in today with just yesterday's notice did not give enough time for members to be here. It is just before Christmas. It is a very important amendment. I think the House of Commons should have
Government Orders
the opportunity to vote one way or the other. I hope the government is not going to try to ram it through with some tactic like the Standing Order 53, without giving proper reasons why the Standing Order should be put aside.
There is probably some agreement here on having other bills passed between today and December 31, so the House might be sitting. I hope it has learned a lesson from the vote on the Charlottetown agreement and today's experience and that it will respect the Parliament of Canada.


WILD ANIMAL AND PLANT PROTECTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-42, an act respecting the protection of certain species of wild animals and plants and the regulation of international and interprovincial trade in those species, as reported, with amendments, by a legislative committee.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean J. Charest: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by taking a few moments to thank hon. members for their unanimous consent, considering the fact that we had to extend our sitting hours today in order to pass this legislation. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member from Sorel supported the request for unanimous consent, as did hon. members sitting as Independents and our Liberal and NDP colleagues.
I am pleased to say that the bill before the House today, now at third reading, has met with a very broad consensus. The bill itself and the proposed amendments were given thorough consideration by a legislative committee. There was also a detailed study by various environmental groups. This legislation is the culmination of many years' work, as a result of which we were able to table this bill in the House.

Government Orders

An act respecting the protection of certain species of animals and plants was presented for second reading on March 17 and reported back by the legislative committee on June 18.
There are some changes proposed to the bill and I am happy to report that the changes, as far as I know, are the object of a wide consensus on behalf of all members of this House. There has been a very inclusive process of study of this bill in the legislative committee.
May I also add that the parliamentary secretary for the Department of the Environment, the member for Brandon-Souris, played a key role, as he did on other pieces of legislation, in facilitating the work before the legislative committee on this matter. I thank him today on the record, given the fact that as usual he will have done most of the work in the parliamentary process in advancing this bill.
This bill is about the important stress that is now on the world's wildlife populations. We know there is considerable stress on our ecosystems, on the species themselves, and within the species in certain cases. In the case of Canada this is especially significant given the richness of our geography and the fact that we have very key species that are threatened and measures are required to protect them.
The act is new federal legislation. It will protect wild animals and plants by regulating international and interprovincial trade in them and their parts and products.
There are three objectives: first, to help protect wild animal and plant species in foreign countries from poaching and smuggling; second, to protect Canada's wild animal and plant species from illegal trade; and, third, to protect Canada's ecosystems from the introduction of designated harmful species or so-called biological pollutants. It will replace the 1941 Game Export Act and regulations first made in 1975 under the Export and Import Permits Act through which the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species is implemented in Canada, otherwise known as CITES.
As mentioned a few seconds ago, this piece of legislation has gone under some very thorough and very extensive debate within committee itself and some
amendments address the concerns that were expressed in the committee.
For example, this new act will allow Canada to support the efforts of other countries to conserve and protect species, especially endangered ones. It will also prohibit wild animals and plants from being brought into Canada if they have been obtained or otherwise dealt with in violation of foreign conservation laws.
There is a very legitimate trade in certain species or threatened wild animals or plants going on now. That being the case, I should point out that this bill is something that will not impede that trade but will rather create a context in which it can happen with the safeguards we are all seeking.

I do not want to go into details because we have agreed and it is already late; this is the last day of the session. I could talk about this bill at length, but I do not intend to do so. I know that my colleague and friend, the member for Davenport, also wants to give us his comments and I will be very pleased to hear them. My friend and colleague, the member for Skeena, also wants to add some comments and I will be very happy to hear them too. I just want to tell members one thing in closing: the bill will help Canada meet its obligations under the biodiversity convention which the Prime Minister ratified recently.
Two conventions which bind Canada internationally came out of the conference called the earth summit held in Rio de Janeiro, as you will recall. One is a convention on climate change and the other is on biodiversity or, if you prefer, the preservation of biological diversity. Canada is the first industrialized country in the world to sign and ratify both conventions. We did so with the unanimous support of the provinces and territories and I must tell you that we are very proud of it. Today's bill will help us meet this commitment.
So, without further ado, knowing that it is already late and recognizing that the ultimate goal is to pass this bill, I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience and take the opportunity, since this may be the last time that I speak to you, to wish you and all those who work in this House, and especially those who contribute to its work, wonderful holidays. Mr. Speaker, I also hope that you will be able to enjoy this ecosystem which-
December 11, 1992


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There have been thorough consultations and I think you would find consent for the following. I would move:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 28(2), at any time during the adjournment of the House between December 14, 1992 and December 31, 1992 the Speaker may after consultation with the government cause the House to sit for the sole purpose of giving Royal Assent to any of the following bill or bills: Bill C-26; Bill C-42; Bill C-63; Bill C-86; Bill C-94; Bill C-96; Bill C-100; Bill S-13; Bill S-14; Bill S-15; Bill S-16; Bill S-17 and Bill S-18.
And, following each Royal Assent, the Speaker shall, each time, further adjourn the House forthwith until February 1, 1993; and
That the provisions of Standing Order 28(3), respecting the recall of the House for urgent and pressing matters, not be superseded by the provisions of this order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent to introduce this motion?


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do agree with this motion.
I understand there will be no attempt by the government to bring in an amendment to the Constitution concerning New Brunswick. I give my consent for that reason.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to say to my friend, the government House leader, that I appreciate the motion that is before us and I certainly will support it. I simply want to acknowledge the fact that we requested that Bill C-91 not be made a part of this list and that he has agreed to that and I want to extend my appreciation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harvie Andre: I want to respond to my friend from Kamloops. This particular motion is the usual one when we adjourn. We have what basically I think most people would agree is an anachronistic procedure of Royal Assent. There is a bill somewhere in the Senate to do away with that step which is really not necessary. Since Bill C-91, it is my understanding, will not be completed by the Senate prior to Christmas, it is not necessary for us to have it included in this Royal Assent.
I wanted to make sure that the public understands that we are committed to Bill C-91. There are hundreds if
Government Orders
not thousands of scientists out there waiting for this bill and we are going to meet their concerns.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my hon. friend, the government House leader. While I appreciate his interest, I do want to acknowledge-this is a strange acknowledgement-that perhaps the democratic approach to the consideration of Bill C-91 will be conducted by the appointed Senate. It certainly was not conducted by this government in terms of allowing adequate public input and reaction to the contents of Bill C-91.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, since we are in the Christmas mood, perhaps the government House leader could indicate to the House, as I am sure he has had extensive consultations with those in the other chamber, when the government intends to have Royal Assent of Bill C-91 should it pass in the Senate. What is the time frame?


Harvie Andre: The one thing about the other house is it actually does have I think proportionately more people than we have who understand the import of the bill. I am thinking of people like Dr. David Keon, the famous surgeon from Ottawa, who is enthusiastically supporting the bill and who recognizes the importance to medical science.
It will be trying to deal with it as expeditiously as possible and certainly as soon as it is able to deal with it. I am sure that the wisdom of that body of sober second thought will prevail. It will reach the right decision, provided it does not for Christmas get a whole new allotment of cow bells and kazoos.
As soon as it is passed, we will be very anxious to bring this House back to give Royal Assent to that bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On the Christmas spirit and the fragility over the difference of opinion on Bill C-91, perhaps the government House leader, even though it affects the other place, since he is sort of in a position to know, can he tell us if the Senate is going to be refurbished with new senators before it starts Bill C-91?


Harvie Andre: All I can say is I hope it is refurbished as soon as possible.

Government Orders


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are conducting a debate on this bill, an act respecting the protection of certain species of wild animals and plants.
We welcome on our side of the House the return of this bill roughly 13 months after it was introduced the first time.
We think that this legislation is long overdue. We want to report that a considerable amount of work was done in committee with a very strong and vigorous input on the part of the member for Skeena, who I am sure is very anxious to speak in a few moments on the strength of the bill, both in terms of international and interprovincial trade of endangered species.
In essence, the purpose of the bill is to protect certain species of animals and plants when it comes to international and interprovincial trade. The prohibition, and this is important for the Canadian travelling public, is to the effect that a person should not import into Canada any animals or plants in contravention of any law of any foreign state, meaning any law that is endorsed and subscribed to in connection with foreign trade by nations which adhere to the convention on international trade in endangered species.
This bill brings Canada in line with other international accords such as the convention on biodiversity and especially with the convention on international trade in endangered species.
It intends to protect biological diversity globally. It intends to band illegal trade of endangered species, fauna and flora.
Last year a convention on international trade in endangered species was strengthened and a list of protected species was extended to include over 1,000 species.
These international actions are no reason for complacency. The House may have heard about research reports that through poaching, the African rhino is on the verge of extinction in southern Africa. The African elephant is still in a precarious state because of the slaughter for the purpose of providing tusks and profit making.
A report issued only this week by the United Nations Environment Program warns that between 100 and 300 species a day, flora and fauna combined, become extinct through habitat destruction, especially through the destruction of tropical rainforests, coral reefs, wetlands and other biologically diverse and rich ecosystems.
Therefore, extinction is not someone else's problem. In the remote areas in Canada, for instance, there are at least 25 endangered species.
My next point is that while we support the passage of this bill because it is important, we would like it to go further. We would like to have fines increased to ensure that they are in line with other international penalties for illegal trade, and possibly the member for Skeena will address this subject more effectively based on his wide-ranging experience.
The fines as far as we are concerned could be brought to $100,000 for individuals and it would not be too little. The fines and criminal charges must be strict enough to ensure that Canada does not become a haven for smugglers.
Aside from the offences, this bill is about international trade, and yet we need parallel legislation which takes an ecosystem management and conservation approach to the protection of species. That is what some of us have proposed by way of private members' bills, including a private members' bill by the member for Davenport, Bill C-209, which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister in the House. I am sure that he already knows about it. This bill intends to provide protection for Canada's own biological diversity. It is intended to identify, protect, if you like rehabilitate, flora and fauna threatened or endangered by human activities in our nation.
Finally, once this bill is given third reading, we on this side of the House urge the government to move swiftly with its promulgation and to make good on the government's commitment contained in the green plan to increase public awareness through environmental education, environmental communications, the schools, through all means that are available. We will build on the urgent need to strengthen wildlife protection for the enrichment and enjoyment of present and, first and foremost because of the pressures to which the minister himself alluded earlier, for future generations.
December 11, 1992

We are glad to give support to this bill and to take this opportunity to urge the minister to also take an initiative for the protection of Canada's own biological diversity. I know that it is close to his heart and that he will move swiftly with the determination which characterizes him, for which he is well known, to fill this gap for which this measure is badly needed.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-42, and that good will actually got it to the point of being able to pass today. I was worried earlier today as I sat and the hours went by that perhaps those which we are here speaking on behalf of, which are the wild plants and animals of this planet, might not have any voices speaking on their behalf as this year rings its way out.
This has been a profound act of political will. It is a kind of consultation that I do not think very many pieces of legislation have ever been through. A national-interprovincial-territorial consultation process began in 1982. The legislation itself actually started to formulate back in
1987.	It has been a very long and tedious process to get it to where it is today.
Frankly, it is now a pretty good piece of legislation and the minister should be complimented for having ridden herd as he has and provided the necessary political will to actually get it to the floor of the House. I know, with the legislative agenda that there has been in the last little while, getting a piece of legislation about wild plants and animals to the floor of this Chamber with all of the other competing interests has not been an easy task.
I also think that the minister and those on the government side listened at least with due diligence to the concerns raised from this side about the issues of fines. They were substantially altered. They are considerable. It is in that area to which I direct my remarks for a moment, because I think there is a responsibility not so much now of the Minister of the Environment but of his colleagues in the field of justice and in law enforcement to make sure that law enforcement personnel generally in this country are aware of what this bill is all about.
As my friend from Davenport pointed out, this is more about plants and animal species that are being trafficked internationally and in some cases interprovincially than it is to protect the biological nature of this country. We do not have a lot of endangered species, in fact we have
Government Orders
very few that are listed under CITES. We have 195 endangered species at the moment that are listed by COSEWIC, Canada's committee in this field on endangered plants and animals. There is a great deal of work to be done in that area.
On the education of the enforcement personnel, the minister is committed to $12.3 million under the green plan-I spoke to him earlier today. I am quite confident that the funds are there and are going to be delivered- and for the 29 new person years. I know that excellent public servants such as Mr. McLean in the minister's department will be eagerly anticipating learning later today that the 29 person years will in fact still be delivered by the Minister of the Environment, perhaps over the next five years instead of over the next six, to get it jump-started and going.
So there is that one big job on educating enforcers of the law.
The other much bigger one is to educate the bench. In my own experience, it follows the issue of the exportation of things like bear gall bladders and paws and various "exotic parts" of Canadian wildlife internationally-
Regrettably when offenders are finally caught, charged, and brought before the courts such as some of my own constituents, the sentences are inappropriate. One fellow in particular was before the courts after having been convicted more than 100 times already and came back before the bench and was not given what I consider to be an appropriate sentence.
I am hoping that all members of this House will take some interest in this issue, in particular the Minister of Justice, and those who have some direct access to educational materials for the bench. Make sure that the judges and the courts in this country understand the seriousness with which this bill was taken by the members who worked on it.
The fines are not inconsiderable. They go up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for corporations that are involved. There are extensive periods of incarceration, and it is certainly something that I as a member of this House, and I know the Minister of the Environment is hoping that these kinds of sentences will be handed down.

December 11, 1992
Government Orders
I know that when a corporate entity appears before a court in any area of this country with an orchid in hand and the lawyer gets up and extols the virtue of the corporation and the client and says: "Oh, my Lord, you are not possibly going to put my client away for six months or a year and fine him or her $300,000 over this one measley orchid?" I hope the bench will come to understand that this legislation, at least in the foreseeable future is going to become more, not less, important.
According to Edward Wilson, the global authority at the moment on the loss of biodiversity, we are losing at least 10 entire species an hour on this planet. It is mind boggling. That is an entire species of parrots, entire species of orchids, entire species of other forms of plants and animals. In Somalia there is not one elephant left. At the turn of the century we were losing maybe a specie a month but the time clock is accelerating so fast that legislation like this has become mandatory.
Even though the fines and degree of incarceration were not brought to the levels that I think were necessary, meaning there is a possibility of Canada continuing to be a conduit for smuggling, and a conduit for poaching, I would hope through stringent and rigid enforcement, there would be zero tolerance for the smuggling of endangered plants and animals at the border.
I do not care what excuses some people have when they have a little snake hidden inside their cowboy boots, that they are taking and saying they did not know it was worth $100,000. I just do not buy it any more.
The amount of money being made, as we heard from witnesses in terms of the traffic in endangered plants and animals is comparable to the drug trade. We are talking hundreds of millions being exchanged for things like bear gall bladders for people who think it is some kind of erotic medicine. It is a very serious state of affairs and I am pleased this bill is being passed.
I know I told the minister and my friend from Davenport I was not going to talk very long, but I can get wound up into these things quite quickly.
We want to pass this, Madam Speaker, and I do have a few other things I need to say.
The minister pointed out the bill does three things. Canadians should not be fooled by the brand name. It is called the Wild Plant and Animal Protection Act. It does not protect those endangered species and biosystems inside Canada. This brings us into compliance with CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. There is about 50,000 species now listed in the appendices of CITES. Most of them are plants like orchids but there are many mammals listed in it and Canada's own COSEWIC listings should be included.
It does protect some of Canada's wild plant and animal species from illegal trade. It protects some Canadian ecosystems from the introduction of designated harmful species and it helps to protect wild animal and plant species in foreign countries from poaching and smuggling. The initiatives of the legislation are good.
As I said earlier, the kind of consultations the Minister of the Environment conducted are first class where there are consultations with the provinces and the territories and we get them all on board.
Now the job is getting the enforcers on board, the 29 professionals who can identify the particular endangered species that are often smuggled in, particularly at our airports but also at our ports and in vehicles coming into Canada. It is a big, big job and the public needs to be educated about the severity of it.
I do hope the minister will soon take the next step. That is to move on the kind of endangered species legislation there is at least in the United States. I would not take it as a specific model, but clearly there needs to be a legislative move in this country to protect endangered spaces and endangered species. I know the minister is committed to doing that.
I will end by saying it is a bill that Canadians should not be tricked by. It does not do a whole lot for plants and animals inside Canada, but it is a very useful weapon in the arsenal of dealing with international crime, even those international petty criminals who think that just smuggling a few orchids is not that bad. There is big money in it and has to be stopped.

I am pleased this is the last debate to take place before Christmas because it is a bill well worthy of singing a few tunes to. I congratulate the Minister of the Environment for getting it through.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before adjourning, I would like to take a few moments to extend to all hon. members and all employees of the House, to the clerks and to our pages, my best wishes for a meriy Christmas and a happy new year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to join with you in your goodwill. On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus I want to extend to you, Madam Speaker, to the table officers, to the members of the House, to the pages and the House staff, to the security staff and to all who work on Parliament Hill a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the intervention by my colleague if it could be made a motion, I would like to second that motion.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, we are all indebted to you for your patience during this long day. We all appreciate the hard work the table officers and all the staff of the House have done over the last few days. We
Government Orders
had some late nights. We had some nights without sleep, I know, on the part of a number of the staff in preparing for certain stages of certain bills.
In particular we ought to recognize the pages who have endured this with good cheer in the throes of their examinations.
To you, Madam Speaker, and to all present and their families, on behalf of the government, may we wish you a safe and joyous holiday and a prosperous New Year.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order on the same subject. I would like to join New Democratic, Liberal and Conservative members in wishing you a merry Christmas and thanking the staff of the House. I assure all parties and the staff that the Bloc Quebecois will continue to co-operate, as it has done this past year.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I would like to wish the Chair, the pages and all other members Merry Christmas.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.10 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 28(2), the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 1, 1993 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 17,1992