1992-05-21

[Stage Direction]
38TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 38th report of the Standing Committee on House Management.
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1) this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture entitled The Path to Sustainable Agriculture.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response within 150 days.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
13TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
['Agreed.']
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-75, an act to amend the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many residents of Nepean, Gloucester, in my riding of Ottawa Centre, as well as many constituents from other ridings in the national capital region. These constituents are very upset about the disparity between gas prices in the national capital region and those in other parts of Ontario.
These petitioners are calling on Parliament to urge the government to correct this injustice.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to deliver a petition as well. It is signed by several constituents in western Canada who claim that Parliament should enact legislation, which we are doing right now, except there is a difference because these people are asking that a referendum of the people be binding upon Parliament.
These people have every right and responsibility as Canadians to make sure that any referendum which may be held would be binding upon Parliament. I submit this respectfully.

May 21, 1992
Time Allocation


Hon. Robert R. de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: In so far as the Canada 125 Corporation is concerned the answer is as follows:


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition that has been certified correct according to form and content under Standing Order 36.
This petition adds to the total number of signatures I have in my office; 1,132 people have signed this. The petition calls upon Parliament to reconsider a decision made by the provincial court of Alberta which ruled that the rights of aboriginal people include the right to hunt for profit on private land.
(a)	Maximum allocation by activity
Projects:	$34.6	millionCommunications:	$10.8	millionMarketing:	$1.5	millionAdministration:	$3.1	millionTOTAL:	$50.0	million(b)	Of the $50 million, $4.8 million will be used for salaries.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to support an appeal of this court decision and conclude an agreement with Canada's treaty Indians regarding sound wildlife management practices and restrict native rights to hunt, fish and gather for personal consumption needs and prohibit the sale for profit, wildlife meat or parts obtained by treaty rights.


Mr. Butland: With respect to the inserts included with new Government of Canada cheques released in April 1992 (a) what was the cost of (i) designing (ii) producing (iii) printing (b) what companies or individuals were paid for this work (i) when were they paid (ii) by whom were they paid (c) how many inserts were produced?


Hon. Paul Wyatt Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: With respect to the inserts included with new Government of Canada cheques released in April 1992:


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I wish to enter into the House today to make Parliament aware of the fact that a large number of constituents in the federal riding of Peterborough have asked that the government consider legislation providing for a referendum of the people to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the Government of Canada.
I am pleased to present this petition with pages of signatures, all in support of a referendum on constitutional changes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 240 and 301.


Mrs. Feltham: With respect to the Canada 125 Corporation (a) how will the federal funds be allocated (b) will any part of the federal allocation be used for salaries or bonuses?
(aXiXii)	the insert was designed and produced using internal SSC resources. Consequently no additional cost outside the government was incurred;
(iii)	the cost of printing the new cheque insert was a approximately $170,000;
(b)	St. Joseph Printing Limited was paid by Supply and Services Canada during March 1992 for printing these inserts;
(c)	approximately 22 million inserts were produced
[English]


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.



REFERENDUM ACT


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) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, not more than one additional day be allotted to the further consideration of second reading stage; and
May 21, 1992

Time Allocation
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on such day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


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.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



PAIRED-MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
Members
nil/aucun
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Murphy (p. 10955).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Cardigan has eight minutes remaining in his speech.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to speak on Bill C-81, the referendum legislation. Yesterday evening I indicated how pleased the people of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, and I were that this legislation was finally brought forward.
It is unfortunate the legislation was not brought forward sooner so that the government would not have had to bring in allocation time or closure. With this we do not permit all members to indicate how they feel about the legislation. This is not acceptable to the people of Canada, but being they have the majority they can do what the like for now.
Now that we have the bill in front of us we must take a look at it and see what the government's proposition is. From what I can see there are several problems with the legislation and with the question as to whether the government really intends to have a national vote.
The bill allows the government to call a vote in one or more provinces. The government has said this to avoid the confusion of having two constitutional votes in the same province. However, having some Canadians vote on different questions at different times could be a disaster.
The point of a vote is for Canadians to reach a conclusion on a single issue. It would be like Alberta voting yes or no whether to buy a Ford car, P.E.I. voting yes or no if it should buy a Chrysler, and Quebec voting yes or no if it should buy a car from General Motors.
Instead all Canadians should get together and vote whether or not we want a car at all, whether or not we want the Constitution or we want this country to remain together or not.
Separate votes on separate questions would only serve to confuse Canadians about the results. To avoid the confusion, all Canadians should vote on the same day, on the same question. To do anything else would leave this important question unresolved.
The bill would also allow the government to worm its way out of a national vote altogether. The referendum legislation itself is not binding, let alone the results. Clause 3 of the bill indicates that the Governor in Council may call for a referendum. I feel the government should be required to hold a vote on the Constitution, not only this time but any time the Constitution is to be amended in the future. As it stands now the government has put a sunset clause in the bill, killing it three years after it has passed. That would allow this or any future government to make amendments to the Constitution without first consulting Canadians.
The government has said no to spending limits in the legislation. Anybody, any corporation or any lobby group, can spend however much they want. This is unfair because during the last federal election Canadians saw the result of unrestricted third party advertising and spending. Is it fair for Canadians if certain well funded, special interest groups are allowed to hijack the national agenda? Spending limits must be included to ensure the fairness of the whole process.
For spending limits to be truly effective people must be organized into logical groups. The Liberal Party has called on the government to organize participants under two umbrella groups. Such umbrella groups would not only ease the imposition of spending limits, they would require Canadians to work together in a spirit of compromise and co-operation.
While nobody expects the constitutional deal to be perfect, there should be something in it for everybody to support. Umbrella groups would force Canadians to come forward to reveal their true colours. By having umbrella groups Canadians will have to decide if they are in favour of national unity or if they are against it.
May 21, 1992

Canadians want to vote on the Constitution and they want their Constitution to reflect all parts of the country. A Constitution that does not have the support of the majority of people in each region is useless. What is the point of a Constitution that the people of Atlantic Canada disagree with? What is the point of a Constitution if the people of Quebec feel that it is being shoved down their throats?
If the federal government does not agree to the principle of regional vetoes people will view the process as being irrelevant, and that is the last thing we want.
A referendum is the ultimate form of consultation. Members in this party hope that the government will be more forthcoming in consulting Canadians than it has been in consulting the opposition parties.
From this side it seems that the Prime Minister's idea of consulting is deciding what he is going to do and then telling us about it later.
It has been a year since the government first mentioned the possibility of a national referendum. Instead of starting the legislative process back then it has waited until the last minute before throwing this bill together. The result is a bill of holes that could jeopardize the success of the entire round of constitutional negotiations.
Liberal members want to be constructive. We criticize the government's bill in the hope of making it better for Canadians. We realize the government has the majority and it will probably have the last say. But in the interest of fairness and in the interest of all Canadians who want to keep this country together please listen to what we have to say.
There are ways to improve the bill. All 27 million people in this country want to reach a settlement of our Constitution and a national referendum is the way.
I certainly believe, as I have indicated, that the opposition parties must be consulted more to come up with the proper question. I believe we must have a double majority, that is regional majorities and a total majority over all. It could be financed if people were given tax credits for donations made to either yes or no in the referendum. I believe that the sunset clause should be removed because this means the legislation dies within three years. Now is the time to bring the
Government Orders
Constitution to the people and every time we wish to make a change it should be brought to the people.
You are aware, Mr. Speaker, of the disastrous result of the last federal election campaign. We ended with a government which was elected to a large extent by third party spending. We are now experiencing the results of the agenda of that government.
Let us not go through the same mess with this constitutional referendum. Let us control third party spending and be sure that we have a fair result. Of course, as I indicated before, it must be national. The referendum also should be mandatory. The only way it can be of any success is to have a referendum and let the people have a say and then if each region and the majority vote yes, possibly we can put this constitutional issue to rest for a good period of time. Hopefully that will be the result.
If the government will accept a few of the recommendations from the opposition and the people in general then, hopefully, we will come up with success.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada. It might be a surprise to all Canadians that someone is going to stand up and speak positively about the referendum. I have heard an awful lot of rhetoric from members in the House about people being positive about a referendum but then making a lot of negative comment. It is something the government has talked about for a period of time.
I recall an excerpt from the throne speech of May 1991 which said:
In September, my government will refer its proposals to a joint parliamentary committee that will be established to consult with Canadians.
After receipt and consideration of the committee's report, my government will propose a plan for a renewed Canada. You will be asked to approve enabling legislation to provide for greater participation of Canadian men and women in constitutional change.
Also I would like to read an excerpt from the Beau-doin-Dobbie committee report of February 1992:
We recommend that a federal law be enacted to enable the federal government, if deemed appropriate by the Government of Canada, to enable the federal government at its discretion, to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal, either to confirm the existence of a national consensus or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions.

Government Orders
The legislation as put forward is a precautionary measure in the mind of the government because of the negotiations that are taking place. As was noted on April 14 of this year by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs when he spoke about the consultative process, he said:
If at the end of May, there is not a substantial consensus on the Canada round we would intend to go to Parliament with a federal proposal which we hope would secure the support of the two opposition parties. If that support were not there, we would proceed alone. Parliamentary approval of that package might be followed by a national plebiscite, whose purpose would be to secure the agreement of the people of Canada, in effect, to reach around those premiers who did not agree.
Carrying on with that particular objective, the Prime Minister was quoted in The Toronto Star on April 9, 1992 as saying:
My position is: If the provincial premiers cannot agree on constitutional proposals that would be put to the people, then the federal government, with the other federalist parties in the House of Commons, brings forward proposals and causes these proposals to be put to the people.
I think that all Canadians would want the federal government to be in a position of moving forward with a referendum in what I guess would really be considered a plebiscite to let them have their say.
The over-all objective is to ensure that there is every means of success in this Canada round. I know that is also the intent and in the minds of most other members of Parliament in this House, I am sure all except those who want to break up Canada. Certainly we would want to have a referendum that will not interfere with any right of any province to hold its own referendum. That is certainly the intent of this legislation. It must be characterized by fairness so that all points of view are expressed and considered, and the element of fairness must be there when we go to the people with a referendum.
Certainly it is a serious step and it must not be taken lightly. It is a very serious step and I think all members of this House would agree with that. The current process of the Canada round has been long. It has been somewhat painful at times. Nonetheless, it has been an important journey for Canada as we have carried on with these consultations.
As the House will recall, first there was the citizens' forum, next there was the Beaudoin-Edwards committee on the amending formula, then there was the Beaudoin-Dobbie review of the federal government's constitutional proposals, and a series of national conferences that followed. Now under way and nearing completion is the multilateral process involving the federal government, nine provincial governments, two territories, and leaders of the major aboriginal groups. Whatever other successes we have had, whatever this consultative exercise may yield, it will eliminate the possibility of anyone ever daring to impose a contrived sense of what Canada is.
Resolving the constitutional issue in a positive, modem way is what we all would like to see happen. National referendums, of course, have been held only a few times in Canada, and certainly a number of times in the provinces. There have been two national referendums, as we know, the first of course being in 1898 and one in 1942 on conscription. Certainly national referendums are something that in very important cases like this clearly are needed.
It should be noted that through the years individual members of Parliament have brought forward private members' legislation in connection with holding referendums and they have not been very successful in doing that. Most recently, in the fall of 1989, the member from Etobicoke brought forward a private member's bill, Bill C-257. Certainly he has carried on in his mind that holding a referendum or plebiscite is something for which there should be legislation in place. We should commend the member from Etobicoke for his foresight and his action in that area.
In a recent article written by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore he wrote: "I emphasize that not every issue has to be put to the people. The main work of enacting laws, resolving issues and debating public concerns must continue in our elected and deliberative legislative bodies. Direct voting in a referendum or plebiscite is such a special democratic device that it ought not to be trivialized or overused. Perhaps every decade or maybe once in the life of each Parliament, one or two topics of overriding national importance should be subjected to the fullest expression of popular opinion".
May 21, 1992

It goes on in another line: "Plebiscites can help in our self-definition as Canadians". Certainly a lot of us would agree with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important piece of legislation and support it with some changes that may take place in the committee and ensuing days.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this legislation which has been introduced to provide, and not to assure, the holding of not a referendum, but a plebiscite on the constitutional questions.
The proposal that there should be a plebiscite has been defended on democratic grounds. I think that all Canadians should be cautioned about that argument as presented by a government which has again added to its record of having limited debate more than any other government in history. Let us not look to the government's commitment to democracy as the premise on which we have before us a proposal for a plebiscite.
My party has agreed to support at second reading this legislation in the hope that there will be abundant amendments to it to make it acceptable and to make the process work more effectively and more democratically.
I think that in our enthusiasm for a plebiscite on an issue as complicated as the Constitution some caution should be sounded as to whether this plebiscite and this legislation really will perform in the interests of the two key issues on which it is based, one being Canadian unity and the other that a referendum is the soundest reflection of a functioning democracy.
We have to reflect on the two national referendums that this country has held, one in 1898 on prohibition and the other in 1942 on conscription. I think that all Canadians and this House should be conscious of the fact that the questions that were put then were relatively simple. If one looks at one of the key plebiscites held in this country, namely the referendum of 1980 in Quebec which was on a constitutional issue, that again was a relatively simple question.
We are not dealing with a simple question here. We are dealing with a very complex question. We are dealing
Government Orders
with a whole host of constitutional changes. I think it is edifying to reflect on the process as it has occurred so far which points to the extraordinary complexity of the issues with which we have to deal.
This process really began with that 1980 referendum in Quebec which demonstrates clearly that referendums do not resolve constitutional problems. The reason why we are here today is that the 1980 referendum in Quebec did not resolve the constitutional issue with respect to Quebec. It is 12 years later and we propose another referendum.
More important is that we look at how the immediate process began. That began with a whole host of proposals by the government for constitutional reform, a set of proposals that was never really adequately understood by Canadians but which then became the subject of a special joint committee of this Parliament and as well five conferences on the Constitution.
I participated in all of that. The process involved was one in which people had to commit themselves quite thoroughly to understanding every element in the process. We know that the proposals of the government were changed dramatically by the hearing process of that committee as well as the conferences. Out of those conferences came the proposal for a social covenant and the proposal for a reformed Senate quite different from what was proposed originally by the government.
I do know during that process there was a great deal of difficulty in understanding such questions as distinct society, concurrency and interdelegation.
Yet we may propose to put a question of yes or no to the people on proposals having to do with the Constitution that are part of this long evolutionary process. But it is key in all of this to know that we do not know what will be the outcome of the present first ministers' consultations, what will be put to the people and how well the people understand on what they are voting.
Who will determine the message that is received by the people to which they will answer yes or no? It will come I am sure from the same people who communicated the message about the free trade agreement which was essentially a yes or no question in the last election.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
Could anybody seriously argue that the people of this country were given an opportunity by the press and the powerbrokers in this country who declared themselves on one side of the issue in their dominance of communication and explanation? Do we really believe that Canadian people ever were given an opportunity to understand what was at issue then and what is going to happen here?
They are going to talk about the status of Quebec, the aboriginal peoples, the division of powers, the charter, a whole host of things. People will be dependent on the public press unless there are some dramatic changes in how this thing is carried out.
Very few confederated nations have successfully held referenda. We have had the example of Australia that has had 32; only 8 were approved. We say that the referendum is in the interests of Canadian unity. Would anybody suggest the 1898 referendum lead to a conclusion that was in the interests of Canadian unity? Would anybody suggest that the 1942 referendum lead to an outcome that was in the interests of Canadian unity?
We have two premises on which we are going to base this referendum. We have no clear message that this process can contribute to democracy, if we understand democracy to be based on informed consent of the electorate. On the other hand, we have problems on the record wherever such referenda have occurred on complicated issues of this sort about whether in fact it will contribute to Canadian unity.
Let me say this: With respect to the issue of Canadian unity there is the question of where minorities fit into the equation. In previous plebiscites it has been the Quebec minority that has been scotched.
I represent a section of this country which the politicians have thoroughly ignored. Our status in this country in terms of citizenship is an unequal citizenship. I am supposed to depend and those whom I represent are supposed to depend on what government says, on what the party says, what the media says, and what the powerbrokers say about the appropriateness of this Constitution.
But will people know that 30 per cent of the population are not to be included in these constitutional proposals? Is that democracy? Is it democracy that questions that are going to be put to the Canadian
people ignore 30 per cent of the people, and will they know that?
There has been almost a conspiracy by our political leaders and the media to help shut out some. If there was going to be any prospect of fairness in this plebiscite, if we are going to assure ourselves it is going to contribute to Canadian unity or the democratic process, then there had better be significant changes in the character of the process that is going to be enforced when this plebiscite takes place.
There had better be serious examination of the question of spending limits, not only of the total expenditures but also who spends and what provisions will ensure that regional minorities or demographic minorities will have a fair shake in all of this. If we are not careful about that this will not contribute to Canadian unity.
What regulations and rules will apply to ensure that Canadians are adequately informed? Every line, every dotted i and crossed t in that Constitution, must be understood by them and explained to them so that their decision will be on the basis of informed consent in a democratic process that is all too often organized to deny to the people informed consent.
I hope people will understand that the record of referenda and plebiscites in the United States has certainly not been in the interests of democracy. It has been in the interests of those who have the money and who can shape opinions by denying information, denying analysis and denying to the people an understanding of where they are in the process.
If we are going to have a plebiscite and that plebiscite is to be in the interests of either Canadian unity or democracy then there had better be substantive changes in this legislation. Otherwise it will fail democracy; it will fail Canadian unity. A most dangerous outcome could result to the future of Canada if care is not taken.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the debate on Bill C-81 and say that it certainly is time the government has adopted at least my party's position on holding a referendum on any future constitutional amendments.
I also would like to say that I appreciate and commend the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for his efforts over the years on referendum legislation. I know that he has worked tirelessly on this and I know that he is pleased that this is at least happening.
May 21, 1992

It is also high time that the Prime Minister responded to over 40,000 letters which I personally delivered to his office last month. They were sent to me by concerned Canadians demanding that the government conduct a binding national referendum on any future constitutional package.
The Prime Minister's office claimed it received only approximately 10,000 such letters. I will leave it to the Canadian people to decide who is telling the truth and perhaps who is not.
At any rate, I am pleased to see the government so interested in direct democracy and consultation of the Canadian public and they say that a leopard can never change its spots. However, enthusiastic as I am about the prospects of a national vote on the Constitution, I nevertheless hold some serious reservations about the government's sincerity in doing so and the contents of the bill itself.
Before I go on let me make my position completely clear. While I support the general direction the government has taken in tabling referendum legislation, this does not necessarily mean that either I or my party will support the final question proposed by the federal government.
Only if the question is truly national in scope and adheres to the principle of equality of all provinces, and only if the question allows for a yes or no response to the final package as a whole, might I or my party support a referendum question on any future constitutional amendments.
One would assume that if the government were truly serious about soliciting the will of the Canadian public it would give this legislation all the force that a real referendum requires. That is, this bill should be more than just an advisory mechanism for the government's own use. Rather the results of any vote should be binding on this House.
I realize that a binding mechanism would necessitate an amendment under section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which would require the unanimous consent of all provincial legislatures. This does not prevent the government from adopting a simple motion that states that the House would adhere to the results of such a vote.
It is a simple matter. If the government considers itself a democratic entity it should have no problem in comply-
Govemment Orders
ing with such a simple request. By strict definition this bill provides only for a plebiscite, not a referendum.
Canadians are not simply asking that the government listen to them and then pat them on the head and tell them to go away. They want a real opportunity to express their feelings on the most important document in this country. Instead, the government has chosen to deny Canadians their fundamental rights in a free and democratic society by once again shutting them out of the process.
Yes, the government will let them vote on some sort of manipulated question. But what good is all this if the government can then turn around and reject the results or, worse yet, twist the results to its own satisfaction simply for the purpose of partisan gain?
I submit that this is the only intention of the government in the first place. This toothless bill is simply an attempt by the government to make itself appear more democratic when in reality perhaps democracy is the farthest thing from its mind.
This fact is expressed in the comments of the government House leader himself who has said recently that he would prefer not to have a referendum at all. The same House leader has termed this legislation: "A weapon to be used only if the various premiers and other leaders involved in this process do not comply with the government's own constitutional vision".
In the final analysis a constitutional referendum, if the government chooses even to conduct one at all, will be meaningless and subject to the whims and political gamesmanship of this Tory government.
I fear that perhaps the government is more concerned about achieving a deal than it is about achieving true unity. I hate to think that the government would be obsessed with a short-term patchwork truce rather than working without artificial deadlines and crises toward a long-term cohesive solution which will celebrate the true equality of all provinces and all citizens.
I therefore restate my belief that if Bill C-81 is to advance the cause of democracy in this country it must be amended in order that a national referendum must be conducted on any final constitutional package. In addition, a motion must be proposed that the results of such a referendum be binding on this or any other future government.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
A further question I would have for the government would be why this bill does not provide for a truly national vote. Why has the government allowed for the possibility of asking different questions in different regions or provinces, or for the possibility of conducting the vote in only specific provinces or regions while omitting others? Bill C-81 could enable the government to propose a question or questions nationally or in one or more provinces. What is the government's rationale for this move?
Perhaps the government believes on the one hand that the views of the residents of particular provinces or regions are more important than those who live in other provinces or regions. On the other hand the government may want to use this provision as a strong arm tactic or weapon to pressure reluctant but principled premiers into succumbing to the will of the federal government.
Still yet another possibility is that the government would like to hold a separate referendum in the provinces outside Quebec so that English and French Canada may be denied the opportunity for an intelligent and meaningful dialogue with each other on the country's constitutional aspirations. Whatever its reasons the government has erred on this count.
If members on the other side of the House believe in the equality of all citizens regardless of where they live in this great country they will do the right thing and conduct this proposed referendum on a national scale.
As an extension, if the government wants to show Canadians that it believes in the equality of all provinces it will hold any constitutional referendum in each and every province.
I am not sure whether the government believes in the equality of all provinces but this is certainly a prime opportunity to show Canadians where they stand on this question.
It is essential on important matters such as constitutional amendments that a national referendum be paramount over advisory provincial referenda. One question should be asked everywhere at the same time, not a set of different questions extending over a period of time.
As a protection of regional interests, approval of the amendment should require a majority vote in at least
two-thirds of the provinces and a majority of all votes cast nation-wide.
The current amending formula provides for the most fair and equitable protection of regional interests. It did not just pop up out of nowhere. It was arrived at after years of deliberation and academic argument. Thus far it has allowed for a fair expression of regional interests.
I cannot see much value in tinkering now in order to apply some special regional vote to this upcoming particular set of amendments.
The four-region concept being talked about has been thrown around before in constitutional deliberations. It was inevitably rejected because it did not recognize the equality of the provinces. The government must now acknowledge the equality and ensure that any future amendments require the seven and fifty formula for approval.
Finally I come to the issue of the referendum question itself. ITe government has given no indication in Bill C-81 what the question might look like or how it might even be arrived at.
The government House leader has said it is possible to have more than one question. Perhaps it is this government's intention to submit a myriad of questions to the electorate in order to obtain a nebulous body of results from which the government can then pick and choose its desired conclusion.
In this case the government may not only take the referendum as an advisory one, but it may also manipulate and interpret the results for purely partisan reasons. What guarantee do we have that in Bill C-81 the government will not just do this, ignoring the whole purpose of a referendum which is to elicit the will of the people, not of the government?
I am also concerned about the provisions that would allow us only three days of debate when it comes time to draft the wording of this question. I cannot imagine why the government would want to invoke closure before the debate has even begun, unless of course it is not interested in what anyone else has to say or what the results might be. I am sure there are at least some democrats over there who would be interested in what others have to say about a proposed question. If the government wants to act unilaterally on this one it
May 21, 1992

should think again because it looks like it could use all the help it can get.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this bill today. I would also like to compliment the member from Etobicoke who introduced his own bill on referenda. I had the pleasure of seconding his bill when he introduced it.
In 1867 Canada was created by its people. Now 125 years later I am proud to see that the government will give people a final and concrete say in how their country should be rebuilt. This is truly a Canada round of constitutional negotiations.
The government is committed to ensuring public participation in the renewal of our Constitution. By tabling this legislation to enable a referendum on constitutional reform our government has reinforced this commitment.
Constitutional reform must be open, must be public, and must be transparent. We must provide every opportunity for the ideas of Canadians to be heard. It is not enough to have Canadians involved in the debate; they must also have a stake in it and they must also vote on it. Our government also must listen.
In the summer of 1991 I sent out a survey on the Constitution to every household in my riding. My constituents told me that they wanted to participate in constitutional renewal. Sixty-six per cent said they want to be involved in creating and reviewing constitutional amendments through constituent assemblies and public hearings.
Our government has responded to these demands by providing Canadians with opportunities to be heard at every turn. First there was the Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future in November of 1990. The forum was created to get Canadians from all across the country talking to each other about the values and characteristics which define this great country and which define us as Canadians.
Then there was the Beaudoin-Edwards special joint Committee on the process for amending the Constitution of Canada. It asked Canadians how our Constitution should be amended and who should be involved in the amending process. The Beaudoin-Dobbie committee
Government Orders
toured the country to ask Canadians to discuss and improve upon the set of 28 proposals which had been tabled by the right hon. Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
The federal government, nine provincial governments, two territorial governments, and leaders of the four major aboriginal groups have now entered into discussions. There have been consultations and multilateral negotiations.
I hope that these groups and leaders will come to some sort of consensus on a constitutional package which will be truly national in scope, a truly national round.
My constituents told me that not only did they want to be involved in creating the constitutional proposals but that they wanted to be involved in a national referendum. Sixty-three per cent said it was important that our government hold a national referendum to improve any constitutional amendments.
I am happy to see the government move in that direction. I am an advocate of referenda when necessary on national issues. Referenda in the past have been used in different countries and different states to involve people in debate, to make the trade-offs in their own minds on issues, to get more fully involved in discussing what is at issue, what ramifications issues have, how it would affect them personally and how it would affect their country. In this way they become emotionally involved. It is less easy for citizens to say they do not like a proposal or to criticize it in a facile way when they have a personal stake in it.
It is very important that the Government of Canada consult with people. That is not to say that governments should use referenda at every turn on every matter or allow referenda to be used on issues that are not of national importance.
We do have elected representatives; we do have a court system. It is almost tragic that the more people seek to go to the courts, the more they want referenda, the less effective our political system may be in the future. This is something we must consider because we must have an effective political system to resolve matters in a democratic way to protect the interests of individual Canadians of every background.

Government Orders
I want to stress two points. First, I am personally not in favour of spending limits. I believe these are restrictions on freedom of speech. However the government has indicated it would have spending limits similar to that of a national election. That might be a compromise in the interests of equality and fairness so I am prepared to go along with it.
In my view this freedom on spending should be extended to broadcasting. If people want to buy broadcast time to air their views on an issue they should be able to do it.
I would like to read a quote of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist who examined this issue and wrote in a judgment dated June 18, 1986:
lb restrict political spending is much like allowing a speaker into a public hall to express his views while denying him an amplifying system.
In a modem democracy we must be able to spend money to do things like direct mailings and reach out to a lot of people. People lead very busy lives. It is not as it once was where people would have a lot of say without spending the money.
We must not muzzle the free voices of our nation. Canadians are mature enough to make their own judgments. Canadians can see through who is spending money and what they are saying. Canadians are mature people. They can make their own judgments. What we do need and where we should concentrate, if we are speaking about spending limits, is on disclosure. I am pleased to see the government has tough disclosure rules on this issue.
On the subject of freedom and involvement I would also like to quote John Stuart Mill:
The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.
Once again that reinforces the notion of freedom of speech and public discussion.
I applaud our government for moving in this democratic direction, yet Canadian legislatures must make sure this bill is fair. We are doing that by having our disclosure rules and other rules.
This legislation puts in place a Canada round and we want to achieve success in a Canada round. This legislation does not mean that a referendum will be held but is enabling legislation so if at a certain time the government decides to hold a referendum it can decide with consultation on a national question.
I will close by saying I endorse this legislation. I am prepared to make a compromise on the spending limits although I believe we should have increased disclosure rather than spending limits. People want to know where a message is coming from. We acknowledge that in order to get a message out or a point of view across, people or committees need to spend money and that is perfectly legitimate.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-81, as it is the means by which Canadians will be consulted on the amendments to the Constitution of Canada.
On numerous occasions the Liberal Party has stressed the importance of having within the Canadian Constitution the ability and the right to go to the people. Logic dictates that if one province has the opportunity to express its views on its constitutional future, so should all other provinces.
I believe the pinnacle of our democratic system is the holding of a referendum. It is a process which gives Canadians the opportunity to express their views on their future. My colleagues and I are very pleased to see this process being utilized as it was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in April 1991. The simple fact of the matter is that all Canadian citizens participating in a national referendum will be brought closer together.
I totally agree with the concept of a national referendum but Bill C-81 is flawed. This bill contains absolutely no provision for capping spending limits. These should apply to either side of the referendum question. The proposed bill should provide for a yes and no umbrella committee that would follow realistic spending limits. In other words, no corporation, no financially powerful individual, no group or political party can buy the Constitution of Canada because it is not for sale.
Furthermore the polls indicate that Canadians want a referendum. At this point in time, I believe that the Canadian people deserve a fair and honest question. This would enable each and every Canadian to express their views on this matter once and for all. The wording of the question is the key, the key to a new life for this magnificent country of ours.
May 21, 1992

That is why I strongly believe that total co-operation is required in this House. If we are unable to reach an agreement on the question we will be setting a terrible example for our fellow citizens. As members of Parliament, we must show Canadians that we are able to deal with this matter expeditiously and professionally. I say expeditiously because Canadians are fed up with this bickering over the Constitution and want the matter resolved as soon as possible so that we can all get on with our lives.
Unfortunately we are off to a bad start. The opposition parties have not been consulted at all on this bill. Our House leader was only briefed. If this government was genuinely concerned about our Constitution and the future of this country, it would have put Canadians and Canada's interests first and politics last. Our country should be first and foremost in our hearts and in our minds because the issue at hand transcends partisanship; it goes far beyond political expediency. The unity of our country is at stake.
The bill does not provide for a double majority. A fair referendum should not only have a majority of votes at the end of tabulation, but it should also have a majority in the five regions of the country. I believe there should be a majority in Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada, western Canada, and northern Canada. This would better serve the concept of a fair and realistic referendum as no one or two regions of Canada would impose its will on another region.
We have to come out of this constitutional exercise better off than when we entered into it. Therefore, we must have a national majority and a regional majority. Furthermore, once the referendum results are in all premiers should acknowledge the results and comply with the will of their people.
Once again this referendum must be understood by all and to be fair at all stages of the process. It must be unquestionably fair. The days of major decision making behind closed doors without a mandate are over. The people will no longer accept this. I believe Canadians are tired of hearing about the Constitution and would rather talk about the economy as it is extremely important. We must all realize that this matter has to be resolved once and for all.
Government Orders
We are going through very difficult economic times. The risks are high but we cannot allow this wonderful country of ours to perish because of the negative vote. In my view it would be disastrous.
The final decision will be rendered by the people and not by governments or politicians. We will get our marching orders directly from the people and the decision should be very clear and should give government clear direction also.
To conclude I would like to say once again that the Liberal Party fully supports and endorses the concept of a referendum on constitutional proposals. The Canadian people must be given the opportunity to express then-views. After all, this country belongs to them.
However, as I have previously indicated, we require some changes to this bill. The government must allow amendments to be adopted. Without these amendments I am very concerned about the outcome of the referendum and I hope that the governing party will see the light and take down these political barriers.
There have to be firm limits on spending to allow this to be a fair choice for the country. The limits would create an atmosphere which would be more likely to result in a fair decision. This bill should allow for a national and regional majority.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate, even for this short period of time, in the debate on Bill C-81.1 must say, as other speakers have said, that in a referendum bill that is supposed to pull the country together and be a unifying force we certainly got off to a very bad start to have the government invoke time allocation this morning after just two and half days of debate on what for me is a most important bill and the question that will come from this bill, this Parliament is going to have to decide.
Those were two and a half short days and it does not auger well for the mood of the country and/or any debate on what finally is going to be in a constitutional package, let alone a referendum question when we get to that. I could speak for the whole 10 minutes on the ramrod, jack-boot method of the government House leader in forcing this bill through when we do not even know what the constitutional package is and there are no deadlines

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
out there that have to be met. This should have had a full airing.
Every member who wanted to participate should have been able to speak. Instead we are cut off at the pass with this allocation of time with all questions to be put tonight by five o'clock. That is totally wrong and does not breed the goodwill and non-partisan, bipartisan atmosphere that is going to be so necessary if some of the wounds of this country are to be healed.
Last night I was in my riding at a very inspirational meeting, an adventure spring citizenship festival. Main-street Canada was there: fire chiefs, police chiefs, municipal leaders and 300 to 400 Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, all reaffirming their faith in Canada, getting certificates of citizenship. I would like every member of Parliament to get to some of those citizenship festivals to get in touch with the pulse of the real people rather than just hearing ourselves talk in this chamber where sometimes we lose touch with the real people. I could do a whole speech on that citizenship festival last night and on the faith of those basic people, the taxpayers of Canada and the youth of Canada who are going to be the leaders of tomorrow, and how they feel about Canada.
In this Chamber with this Bill C-81 and the mechanical debate we have had up until today, and now with the allocation of time order that is going to cut us off tonight, it certainly does not give you much inspiration to talk about the nation in the way the founders talked about this nation and helped to bring us together.
In my very short time left, I want to be very clear that on Bill C-81, in terms of the principle of a referendum, I certainly have said for some time that this government especially, in view of the Constitution and especially this government's credibility with the people, it is fundamental that there is some reference to the people to approve whatever constitutional package comes forward from the constitutional discussions and/or the question that is going to be framed in this House.
This bill does not even go part way. The constitutional referendum should be a binding referendum. It should be national in scope and it should be a single question, yes or no. I do support those in this House who have very real fears about the reason for this bill at the present time which does not even meet any of those tests.
It can be very manipulative, have different questions in different parts of the countiy and have some referendum questions that are not going to be put to other provinces. If that happens it is going to be most divisive indeed. For members over there, including the member from Etobicoke who has certainly led the way in the academic research on referendums and plebiscites, I find it passing strange that some members on the government side do not appreciate from their history that in effect if we are going to have a referendum it has to be a single question, it has to be national in scope and has to be binding.
The specious argument of government is that a referendum cannot amend the Constitution. We know that but it certainly can have a motion to bind the result of whatever the people decide in this Parliament. This Parliament is one of the eight parliaments together, the national Parliament and seven parliaments representing 50 per cent of the people, that can amend the Constitution.
There is no reason at all for this hokery-pokery and specious reasoning. There is no reason to say we are not going to put a binding clause on a referendum bill because this Parliament does not amend the Constitution by itself. It certainly could be restricted in what it did if there were a proper referendum question.
It is passing strange to me, and I am afraid we are heading down to another Meech Lake fiasco of imposing artificial deadlines, when I hear the intergovernmental minister talking at these different constitutional conferences that we are certainly making progress here. I actually do not even have to turn up the sound on television any more to realize that in effect some of this so-called progress is maybe some progress, but the real questions have not be decided.
What I have one of the greatest fears about is that frankly the constitutional fatigue has set in and in effect there is going to be a charade or a mirage at the end of the day that we resurrect a form of Meech and then put off the real serious questions and decisions on Senate reform and the inherent right of the aboriginals for self-government, whatever that means, let alone the division of powers. I am very concerned that in the heat of the summer with constitutional fatigue with the looseness of this referendum bill, a very bad question or questions could be put to the Canadian people that will
May 21, 1992

not pull this country together but will make further stress and strain on the country.
In terms of time we are talking about a nation that has been here for 125 years. It was only 10 years ago in 1982 that we got the Constitution back to this country so that we could amend it. Many people can complain about the then Prime Minister. I sat in the opposition then and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, may have had many things that people could complain about. However, one reason I voted for the Constitution bill was that it at least brought it back to this country so that Canadians finally could try to amend it and change it.
That was just 10 years ago after 115 years that the Constitution was stuck in England. Goodness gracious, we only got our own citizenship in this country 80 years after the country was formed in 1947 and we only got our flag in 1965, 98 years after the country was formed. With those three little demarcation dates in history, the Constitution only came back here in 1982. The act of citizenship came in 1947. Finally we had the flag, which took over 40 years through all parliamentary committees, going from the Union Jack, to having official colours red and white, and then finally having the ensign. Finally after 40 some years of different parliamentary debate and different parliamentary committees, we finally raised the flag on February 15, 1965 just outside these Parliament Buildings.
With that perspective in terms of history, let us not box ourselves in to artificial deadlines that are going to do more to rip this country apart than to bring it together.
As far as I am concerned, in the closing moments that I have I could give you Pat's panacea for political problems in this country. It would be to abolish the Senate, in effect to make sure that the character of the distinctive culture, language and civil code of Quebec is recognized and implemented through proper law, and in effect fix the term of Parliament so that while the Prime Minister might be able to call elections within the fixed term, that a certain time, a certain fixed date, an election is held if he did not call for the fixed term. You would not be able to play around with all of the dates and the manoeuvring and the political manipulation that you have and the bad legislation and all the weird things that
Government Orders
happen as you get closer with the Prime Minister deciding where he sits in the polls.
That is a forlorn hope at this time of our constitutional discussion but anyone who thinks we are coming up with a constitutional package from the constitutional conferences that are going along today, no matter how sincere is whistling Dixie when they have not even got to Senate reform. They have not defined what self-government and the aboriginal inherent right is, let alone the division of powers.
We are going to be faced with a question that we do not even know. The worst thing about this bill, in conclusion, is the three-day limit imposed in this bill on the bill that is going to define the question. That question is going to be the question that makes or breaks Canada. It is the question that is going to decide if we have a Canada. I have never yet seen in my history of 20-odd years as a member that as you debate one bill you already impose closure on the bill that is going to follow, that is, the question bill.
That is not the way to build a consensus and that is not the way to build the non-partisan attitude that we need if we are going to have a greater Canada which we can have if we have the right leadership.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this very important debate. I was saddened, as were most of the members on this side of the House, including the previous speaker, by the fact that we had to have closure this morning.
We have a most important debate and we are trying to give a message to Canadians that we want to open up the constitutional debate but in the process of talking about opening up the debate, we close it down.
These contradictions are not lost on the voters and the people who are trying to right many wrongs in this country.
This is a little bit of a transformation for me to be standing up and supporting a referendum. I must say that as a university professor teaching political science for 15 years before I became a member of Parliament, I spent a long time thinking about questions such as referenda and plebiscites and the democratization of our process.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
For many years I thought that the use of the referendum would be too simplistic but I began to believe more and more that Canada has got itself into a trap of thinking that the only deals that really could be made, that really counted, or that would last are deals made among the elite groups of the country. There is a whole academic body of literature about making deals this way, elite accommodation for those of you who follow these academic issues.
It became quite apparent in the 1970s and 1980s that the deals being made by these elite have not been respected in the Canadian political body. Through the emergence of fringe parties, through the emergence of protest votes and tax revolts, Canadians have sought many ways to express their frustration with the system.
I concluded it was about time that Parliament began to take leadership on the fundamental question of how to democratize society.
The Meech Lake accord, which failed two years ago, failed in part because a small group thought that the solution it had thought about and worked hard at should be accepted automatically by the rest of the country. The ensuing public debate was one of the more divisive debates we have had on the Constitution or any other issue in this country.
Part of what we are doing on the constitutional debate is a healing process. We are trying to find ways in which the different regions can be accommodated, the different provincial interests can be accommodated, and the bottom line that the Canadian taxpayer, the people living in this country, feel that in the end there is a package we can put behind us and move on to more important issues.
The deal has to be accepted widely.
The referendum offers the possibility of opening up the doors and saying to people that here is the question that Parliament has thought about and put in front of you and what we want you to do is indicate that you support or disapprove what has been done.
There is a risk because we want to make sure that Canadians see the country continue. Whenever you have a plebiscite or a referendum on an issue of such
importance there is a risk. However, the risk of not putting a question out is greater.
There is the risk of having people sitting at home saying: "There they go again. They never ask me my opinion. I do not lrnow what they are doing. I do not know what the Constitution is". This is one of those rare opportunities when we can say: "You are part of the process. Here is what all the negotiations have led to. Here is the package. We want your approval. If you do not approve it, we start over again and we form a package that is acceptable to you".
That is a very fundamental shift away from traditional parliamentary democracy. The fact that this legislation is flawed is very important to consider because its acceptance will mark in the development of our parliamentary history the time in which we moved away from this Chamber as the place of final resolution of issues into a more broadly defined consensus and voting process.
It will not be something that evolves on every issue, but I think that the acceptance of the referendum here for the first time in many years across the country is an acknowledgement that the process must change to accommodate people. I look forward to participating in that change and to putting my support behind those who wish to have a referendum.
The Liberal Party worked at this issue since the failure of the Meech Lake accord and realized that only through broad based support could a new constitutional deal be accepted. That is why in the nine points that we introduced into the debate in April 1991 we had the referendum front and centre. It has taken a while for the deal makers to see the need to include others.
The introduction of this legislation was greatly welcomed by our party because we have been waiting for a chance to have Canadians express their views. I would particularly like to use this opportunity to thank the member from Etobicoke who spent long years-we were colleagues in Carleton University many years ago-seeing his ideas develop and emerge, and seeing him take a perspective. Very gently and gradually through research and persuasion, he has had the House of Commons turn to his idea in the end and say: "Yes, you were on the right track long before the rest of us. Thank you very much for presenting us with an option".
May 21, 1992

I think it is a valuable experience for every one of us to know that it is through the pushing of good ideas that we can, in fact, persuade Parliament to change its processes.
There are some fundamental flaws in this legislation that are going to cause a great deal of difficulty. I would like to bring them to the attention of the House. We have four concerns from this side of the House with this piece of legislation.
First, there is the fact that the referendum is still only an option. The proposed legislation would still leave it up to the government to decide whether to hold a referendum at all. We believe that legitimacy in the constitutional package will come from a referendum, therefore a referendum must be held.
Second, there should be spending limits. We do not want to see an endless amount of money spent by the federal government or by other parties unknown to Canadian taxpayers. We do not want to see the participation of groups as we did during the last election when there were people campaigning for the pro-free trade vote. They were able to pile millions of dollars into the coffers of the governing party, causing them to win the election. We do not want that sort of feeling hanging over a referendum.
Third, we would like to see regional majorities. If people in one region of this country do not agree with the deal we do not want them to feel that they have been imposed upon by others. We want to make sure that each region is in agreement with the essential points in the package as they will affect each region differently. Those of us from the west are particularly sensitive to being cut off, to having a deal signed over us and leaving us in the same constitutionally weak position that we have been in since Confederation.
Last, who decides the question? We want a straightforward and open parliamentary process through which representatives from all parties have an opportunity to work on the question. The ownership of the question is with Parliament and not with the government. People must feel that everyone has contributed to it, that it has not been decided at a cabinet meeting which then comes in and uses its majority to push a question through. It has been an all-party meeting. Everybody would have had a
Government Orders
chance to look at it to make sure it is fair in both languages. It should be fair to all the different regions.
These are the central points that we want to put forward. We are hoping that the government understands the fundamental flaws in this legislation and that it is able to change them. This has been a very, very important debate. I only wish the government had not decided to close it down so quickly because Canadians do want to know about the new referendum.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill that is before the House. The bill will establish a procedure to hold a national referendum on a constitutional issue or amendment that may be worked out in the weeks or months ahead. I do so with full confidence that it is entirely appropriate for this Parliament to provide for legislation to consult the people of Canada on important constitutional changes because the Constitution of Canada is the property of the people of Canada and must ultimately be decided by and have its legitimacy based upon the consent of the people of Canada.
Our party has been at the forefront of calling for a new constitutional consultative process. We all saw the disaster of the process used in Meech Lake and before it in the 1981-82 round of constitutional changes. Back in 1981-82 the province of Quebec was ultimately left out of the national consensus, fostering further grievances which have led us to the situation we are in today where we have a whole range of truly important national issues besetting this country and we are required, because of the failure of governments back in 1981-82 to include Quebec, to deal with yet again the grievances of Quebec in respect of constitutional matters and because of other failures, including the failure of the Meech Lake process, the grievances of others across Canada and particularly the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Once again we are in a constitutional debate and discussion, a matter of great frustration to this Parliament and of course a great frustration to the Canadian people. The issue is now before us. We have to deal with it and it is appropriate that we should provide, as this bill does, a mechanism for consulting the Canadian people in the process.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
The Meech Lake process really left out the people of Canada. It was on that fundamental ground that it failed. In its failure, it has come close to driving this country apart. One of the results of the failure is a divide in fundamental perception about the understanding of what this country is. Many people in Quebec who until then felt themselves to be welcome and part of Canada saw the failure of Meech Lake as a rejection of francophone Quebec. In the rest of Canada, Meech Lake was seen as a failure of constitutional process, a failure of consultation and in no way was seen as a rejection of Quebec. In that divided perception are the seeds of the division that we are now in this country working to repair.
All members of this House, perhaps with a few minor exceptions, want the current process to work. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in Canada want the current process to work. If it is to work we have to establish the possibility of genuine consultation with the people of Canada, and this bill seeks to provide it.
As I said, our party has called for an opening up of the constitutional process. We thoroughly supported the idea that the two parliamentary committees, the first known as the Edwards-Beaudoin committee looking at an amending formula, have a wide process of consultation with the Canadian people, and that took place. We supported the establishment of the Beaudoin-Dobbie commission. We were gravely disappointed at the difficulties it had at the beginning in establishing an effective consultative process with Canada and we have pressed from the beginning for a constituent assembly.
We were pleased to see the government ultimately accept the wisdom of that approach and agree to these five conferences across Canada which have contributed enormously to the improvement of the atmosphere, improvement of the process, and are offering us now some genuine hope we can settle the constitutional issue at least for the time being and get on with the other issues of the day.
The referendum bill we have before us authorizes the government, if it deems it appropriate in the public interest, to call for a referendum. It then provides a process for approaching Parliament for approval of a question to be put to the people of Canada and establishes the procedures under which the referendum is to be held.
We have some concerns with the details of the bill. We have been assured in part by the statements made by the government in the last 24 hours that it is ready to consider sympathetically amendments which we hope will allay the concerns we have. On that basis I have no difficulty in voting to support this bill because I believe it is important the people of Canada be given the possibility of being consulted on constitutional amendments.
In the remaining moments I have I want to address a couple of specific concerns which I think the Canadian people should be aware of as we proceed down the path of national referenda.
I think we should ensure that referenda only be used in constitutional issues. We do not want to move to a system of governance that they have, for example, in the state of California where referenda can be forced by special interest groups on virtually any question and it ultimately ends up where, in the nature of our society, the rich can control the results. In a referenda on an issue which affects the powerful in any country the powerful will have an undue influence in the result.
That happens within our parliamentary system as well and we should not be naive about that, but there are risks in allowing in our mass media age every issue to be handled by the process of referenda. On the other hand we should be clear that it is appropriate in the case of a constitutional amendment for us to consult the Canadian people.
This bill does not of course provide that any constitutional amendment must automatically go to a national referendum, but rather it is: "In the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of the electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada". The cabinet or the government can set the process in motion.
The two committees of this House that looked at the proposition of a referendum suggested it should be narrowed to situations where it was helpful to determine whether there was a national consensus. I suspect, certainly in the current round of negotiations, when this bill is passed that the government cannot escape the conclusion that the offer that is to be put together to use that language, the constitutional package that comes out of these rounds of discussion, will have to be in some fashion or other put to the people of Canada for their views.
May 21, 1992

It should be noted the bill does not provide the details of a question, it does not settle the timing of a question, and it is going to be important that that be worked out in committee.
I hope the committee that is considering this bill will look at amendments to the bill which will not just leave it to the government alone.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-81.
I support the principle of this bill and I emphasize the principle of the bill because I see flaws in it. I would like to discuss those flaws and my concerns in a moment.
It is clear Canadians want to be consulted on the matter of constitutional change. They want a say in the reshaping of our fundamental laws and we in the Liberal Party believe Canadians deserve nothing less. That is why we support a national referendum. After all the Constitution is not owned by politicians; it belongs to the people of Canada.
People are saying they do not want another Meech Lake. No more secret, late night meetings; Canadians must be full partners in the process.
I want to get to some of the reservations I have about this bill because I believe, as do my colleagues on this side of House, that the bill can be improved considerably. We sincerely hope that the government will consider amendments very seriously at the committee stage examination of this bill.
It is unfortunate that we are discussing this bill now. There has been an unfortunate delay concerning referendum legislation. After all our leader proposed a referendum one year ago. There have been all kinds of signals from across Canada, including signals from a couple of parliamentary committees, for the need of having a referendum tied to any constitutional change.
Unfortunately the government sat on its hands and did nothing. Now at this very late hour, when there is what you might call a bit of panic in the country, we have Bill C-81 before us. It is really unfortunate that the govem-
Govemment Orders
ment did not bring forward this legislation, if not months ago certainly weeks ago.
Let us take a look at some of the other concerns that we have on this side of the House. This legislation, Bill C-81, provides for a referendum but only on an optional basis. In other words it does not make a referendum mandatory before proceeding to any constitutional change. I believe that is unfortunate.
We know that the Constitution does not require referenda before changes are made. I am aware of that. We can certainly have legislation in this House that ties our hands, that binds parliamentarians to having a referendum and observing its results before we proceed toward constitutional change. It is very unfortunate that this legislation provides for a referendum but only as an option. There is also the question of the question. There is nothing in this bill that sets out the question. There is nothing in this bill that provides us as parliamentarians with a full role in the determination of what the question is. From my reading of this bill, the question will be left to the determination of the government. Again that is very unfortunate.
If we are going to have fairness in the process, if we are going to have Canadians supporting the process, then Canadians will want to see full participation of all parliamentarians, not just the government. It is unfortunate that the mechanism for determining the framing of the question, determining the timing of the question is not written into the legislation.
One of the gravest concerns I have is the lack of provision in the bill for a double majority. I want to touch on that in some detail because we all know that referenda raise fears. Referenda can be very divisive.
We have had a couple of national referenda, or we might call them plebiscites, in this country in the past. They have been referred to. There was one in the 19th century having to do with prohibition. There was the famous one in 1942 relating to conscription. In both cases the plebiscites or the referenda succeeded but they were divisive because, in effect, they produced a result of having one part of the country saying no and another part of the country saying yes. That by definition is divisive. We do not want to face that possibility in another referendum relating to constitutional change.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
A double majority which in effect demands that the referendum succeed in all four regions of the country will eliminate that fear of great division. We all know that Quebecers see themselves as a minority in Canada. Certainly they see themselves as a minority in North America and they do not want to see their rights and their aspirations and their hopes trampled upon and dashed by the majority.
The same thing is felt in western Canada, the region I come from. Western Canadians see this as a Canada round and they feel that they have a stake in any constitutional change, but they want to be consulted directly. They want a say in this and the full say they are asking for can only be obtained if there is a double majority. After all, there is a possibility that the question may be written in such a way that westerners will take one viewpoint, they will take one opinion on the question, whereas other Canadians, from Ontario, Atlantic Canada or Quebec will take another view.
Therefore it seems to me for a referendum to truly succeed, to truly have validity, to truly have credibility, there must be what we call a provision for a double majority. It must succeed in the west. It must succeed in Ontario. It must succeed in Quebec. It must succeed in Atlantic Canada.
According to news reports I have heard in the last 24 hours, the government is not prepared to amend the legislation before us in such a way as to provide for a double majority. I think that would be a mistake and I hope the government will reconsider its position with respect to double majority and look at this again very seriously. Canadians are demanding that kind of protection and that kind of insurance.
The other concern I have has to do with spending limits. Again, based on news reports, apparently the House leader of the government is entertaining some different thoughts and is, perhaps, prepared to amend the legislation to put some control on spending limits. I think it is absolutely essential that there be spending limits.
To have the legislation seen as being fair there has to be spending limits. If the sky is the limit there is naturally favouritism toward the rich, toward people with money. People with money in a process where the sky is the limit
will have no constraints, none whatsoever. They will be able to spend anything, all the money that they would want, while ordinary people of ordinary means will be constrained by their limited finances.
I believe it will make people feel that they have been treated unfairly, that the legislation has been essentially unfair and so spending limits are absolutely essential. Again I would urge the government to look at that.
We support the principle of the bill but it needs a lot of work.


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, while we are discussing Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, the Canadian constitutional circus caravan is parked in Montreal, we see the actors going around in circles without getting anywhere on the substance of the issues.
We get the impression that only one thing is moving and that is the caravan itself which travels from city to city across Canada, spending millions of dollars just to realize, time and time again, it has reached an impasse.
Five Canadian provinces chose Montreal to take a joint stand on making a Triple-E Senate an absolute-condition for any constitutional agreement. That is where we are now, with all our efforts to bring Quebec back into the Constitution with honour and enthusiasm.
Quebec's minimum demands have been rejected: no veto, no assurances on Supreme Court appointments. As for the fundamental issue of Quebec's development instruments to be discussed during the second round, there has been no time yet to consider the matter, although the deadline is only two weeks away.
What are the consequences for Quebec? As far as constitutional guarantees are concerned, Quebec has no assurances that in the long run it will be able to maintain its influence within our federal institutions. As far as the division of powers is concerned we are denied the tools we need to maintain our identity and provide for our development. These results were entirely predictable and inevitable when we consider the events in this country that led to the demise of Meech Lake.
May 21, 1992

That is why we founded the Bloc Quebecois. We were elected to defend the higher interests of Quebec and to enable Quebecers to pursue the affirmation of their identity and development, both individually and collectively. The current talks are headed for an impasse because the basic realities of Quebec are not recognized by the other provinces and the federal government.
Yesterday I listened to members opposite talk about the Canadian nation without any reference to the principle of two founding nations which formed the very basis of Confederation in 1867 but was never observed. They are making pretty speeches today but they want us to be a large ethnic group within an anglophone Canadian nation. The answer is clear: never.
They accuse us of wanting to divide a country that does not recognize us and never did, a country that for decades prohibited French schools in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta; a country that hanged Louis Riel, imposed the War Measures Act, imposed conscription and now wants to impose a referendum thereby conscripting democracy. The sole purpose of this referendum is to short-circuit the mechanism by which the people of Quebec will exercise their right to self-determination. Its funding and spending regulations are worthy of a banana republic.
Today, on the third day of this debate, they are imposing closure, to end debate as we have discussed it enough here. The constitutional circus can go on for weeks or months but here three days of debate is enough and closure is imposed.
The Quebec people are proud and polite. We will all be there to answer no, thanks: No to the federal strait-jacket, no to continuing the constitutional circus on which we are wasting our energies. We will exercise our right to self-determination with honour and enthusiasm. We will repatriate all our taxes. We will assert our right to make all our laws. We will negotiate our international agreements ourselves. We will soon become a sovereign country, a normal people that will take its place in the family of nations.
The federal government is a giant with feet of clay, an overindebted giant, in debt here and abroad, a divided
Government Orders
giant, unable to have policies that correspond to the real country. It still has the power to waste our time. It still has the power to waste hundreds of millions on phony consultations, a referendum that will cost the government $100 million but solve nothing at all. But it does not have the power to force us to keep silent. It does not have the power to force us to belittle ourselves and deny who we are. The referendum tactic will not divert us from our essential objective: affirming and developing our people, the Quebecois, and soon our country, Quebec.
In closing, I would like to call on all my colleagues elected in Quebec. It is clear; we all know that the present negotiations are on the wrong track as long as the Quebec people are not recognized as such. Faced with this impasse, the federal government is now preparing to push something through and these people are being sucked in. After refusing it they partly accept it and now they tell us in the corridors: "We are ready to hold a referendum, but we think that it will not happen. We won't need it. We shouldn't need it. We would prefer not to use it, but we are preparing legislation anyway. We will pass the bill anyway. We are cutting off debate today".
I would call on the hon. members for Champlain, Gaspe, Matapedia and Abitibi to reflect on the consequences of what they are doing. It is clear now that we are about to make fundamental decisions for the future of Quebecers. I hope that when the time comes we will all be together to make a positive decision which will ensure that we can pursue our own development, look after the real problems, create jobs, take our own place on the international scene in a world of global markets, give our children a future in French in Quebec, make our institutions from now on depend on our own decisions and not be subject to another majority which can impose constitutional changes on us, which can impose fundamental changes without our consent. No self-respecting people would agree any longer to be denied within a federal structure. This is an essential condition for new negotiations and any possible agreement on a whole series of normal relationships with the rest of Canada. First and foremost, they must recognize us for what we are: a people with a brilliant future.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, we are embarking on a discussion of probably the most important piece of legislation that we have brought before this House, legislation that will enable us to express our point of view on the constitutional changes that we want to bring to our country, on helping us implement a new vision for Canada, whether we are living in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia or anywhere else within our wonderful country.
In a sense I regret very much that we have cut short the debate on this vitally important piece of legislation. I would sincerely hope that it was undertaken by the government with the expectation that by sending this to legislative committee the very important changes needed to make this a fair, open and workable piece of legislation will be undertaken there.
What is important to know is that the Constitution belongs to all of the people, not just to the bureaucrats and the politicians. All Canadians should have a final say on any constitutional reform package. This is not a foreign idea. This is something that has been undertaken in other countries around the world. This is an undertaking that we have done here in Canada. We know from the experience that we have had in the referenda in the past that the key, the vital and the important undertaking must be that this referendum be fair and acceptable to not only my people who live in Quebec but to Canadians everywhere else.
I do not see that it is a very difficult circumstance to realize that as a wife, mother and daughter I have a love for all this part of my immediate family. It is not difficult to extend it to the larger family, but we share this love in different ways. Where I have a sense of participation and belonging as a Montrealer and as a Quebecer, I do as well concern myself with what is going on in my larger country.
All Canadians want to have the opportunity to say this is right for me, this is how I feel as a Canadian and I have a sense of pride and belonging. Lord only knows that the rest of the world sees this as the most marvellous country. They see us as a bunch of little quarrelling children who have to find out how we want to play the rules of the game.
That national referendum which the Leader of the Opposition suggested as far back as April of 1991-and this government has finally agreed, as has the opposition, that this is a good way to go-really has to be right. I lived through the referendum in Quebec and I will tell you that it can be very divisive. Because it can be divisive and because there is heated passion about this, whether you are living in Quebec or in British Columbia or in Newfoundland for that matter, we all have a point of view. In the end we can all see how wonderful this country is.
In order to have that national referendum we first have to have the question right. There are a number of things wrong with the way this bill has been presented. I would sincerely hope that we will in the end fix those problems because they are fixable. The fixables that need to be attended to are the spending limits. The spending limits must be addressed because you cannot have the perception that any part of this country bought the election. It cannot be seen as belonging to the rich and powerful. It cannot be seen as belonging to either business or labour or interest groups. It has to be perceived as belonging to everyone with equal access to the opportunity to present their point of view so that when the point of view is expressed no one can be seen or act as a poor loser.
Second, there should be something done about some form of umbrella committees. Having worked in Quebec I can tell you that was a very effective way to use our energies and express our point of view.
The question of regional majorities comes very much to the heart of the matter as to whether we will be preceived to have been fair. We have put together a workable referendum procedure and it is transparent. There are no regulations in this piece of legislation.
We have no idea how a majority is going to be defined. We know there is not a provision for a double majority in there. Not only does it have to be perceived as being fair and right and acceptable for all Canadians as individuals, but we also have to see it as fair in our collective sense, in the regions in which we live.
Where in the past there have been differences, no one wants anyone to be able to go back and say, "you did not listen to me. You were not fair".
We wanted to be fair. We want Quebec to know that we are welcome as Quebecers within Canada, and Canada has to know that Quebecers welcome the oppor-
May 21, 1992

tunity to participate in their own way within this wonderful country.
I could go along and say that if we do not consult all three parties we, in our own actions right here, become too partisan. We need a mechanism whereby the actual question has to be defined and it should be defined by all parties, first in a small committee in which it can be examined and made sure that it is properly weighted and easily understood. Everybody will know what the question means so that when we go into the debate on the issues we know clearly what we are talking about.
It is perhaps not germane to the issue but this House is well aware that in the last few weeks and over the last few years the Canadian Parliament and Canadian parliamentarians have been helping the European parliaments establish themselves.
I looked after the Hungarian group this time. Last time it was those who came from the Ukraine. The Hungarians asked all kinds of questions on how you run a democracy. How did they get a democracy? They had referenda. They expressed a point of view. They chose a way to live.
Now they have to learn how to apply that way to live.
What could be better than to come here? We are a democracy. We do have differences of opinion. We do exchange in a logical and, I hope, intelligent approach in the bigger picture, not to mention distinct society. We are distinct and some of us are more distinct than others, never mind language. What is so terrible if you speak one language, two languages, three languages, four is even better.
We may or may not reform the Senate, but for goodness' sake the bottom line is that this countiy is too precious and too well perceived by everyone around the world, by those who are knocking to get a visa to come in here, who want to immigrate to Canada. We are having an argument. Let us settle it once and for all. Let us learn how to respect our differences, never mind tolerate them. Let us respect them. Let us rejoice in them.
The diversity of this country is the strength. Our unity is what is important and also in the long run that Canadian people recognize how lucky they are and they will express their will to live together. We have to have a proper mechanism.
Government Orders
As this bill goes to committee to be adjusted, to be fixed in a sense so that it will be on a proper open and fair procedure, I hope that good judgment on the part of this government will recognize the very serious responsibility it has and meet the concerns of all sides and many of the backbenchers, even on the government side, particularly around spending limits, advertising procedures and regional double majorities. The whole process needs to be tightened up.
As a Quebecer, as an Yvette, I do not want to have to see the breaking up of family ties and the bitterness that stays for much too long. This question is one we can discuss in an agreeable way. We do not have to be disagreeable. We can exchange on these differences but give us the mechanism and the tools to do it fairly, openly, tolerantly. It should always be perceived as such.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak, even if only for 10 minutes, on Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
This is a complicated bill. There are many details in it and there are also many flaws in it. The biggest flaw probably has been the lack of consultation between the government and the parties, that is, the consultation which broke down just in the last stage of the process when this bill was being drafted and when certain matters were overlooked. They were presumably not left out deliberately.
My NDP colleagues have touched on several of those already and I wish to concentrate on only three. The first flaw that I wish to mention is the lack of the double majority principle. This was the principle that was agreed to by all parties unanimously in the report that was tabled last June from Beaudoin-Edwards.
I quote from Hansard, page 10848:
We recommend that a federal law be enacted to enable the federal government at its discretion to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal whether to confirm the existence of a national consensus or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolution.
This is the next part that I wish particularly to point out to the people of Canada. It was agreed further that:
The referendum should require a national majority and a majority each in the four regions-Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and the west.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
The government party in the discussions agreed to that principle but has not written it into this referendum. There has been some suggestion that there might be a declaration by the Prime Minister but that would not have the force of law.
I am very concerned that in our country, as wide as it is with so many different peoples in it, we should not allow for some of them having reason to feel that they have been trampled or steamrolled over.
This is true for the west, it is true for the Atlantic, it is true for Ontario but I am especially concerned for Quebec. I have only lived there for five years. I have lived most of my life in Ontario but two of my children have lived at least half their lives in Quebec and expect to live there for the rest of their lives.
It should not be forgotten that perhaps the most critical time for Canada's independence prior to the struggle we have over the trade agreements with the United States was back in 1776 when the rebels in the thirteen colonies thought they would easily liberate Quebec from Britain which had conquered it. The people of Quebec said no and they had good reason to say no.
There was an agreement that under Sir Guy Carleton, the governor, Quebec would have its own language, its own religion, its own civil law and generally speaking its own culture. In other words, though I do not think the term was used, Quebec should be a distinct society.
That was the deal. Quebec delivered on its side of the deal and therefore Canada was brought into being and we still have a country independent of the United States, more or less. There should not be any suggestion that the other parts of Canada wish to renege on that deal without which Canada would not have come into existence.
If, in this referendum, we seem to be rejecting the right of Quebec to a majority in control of the outcome of the referendum along with a majority for the Atlantic, a majority for Ontario-I am not particularly worried for Ontario-and a majority for the west which is very important to many of my friends in the west and especially for many of the aboriginal peoples who live in the western provinces and the Northwest Territories, there should be a majority for each of those regions.
Therefore, the referendum may not be seen as a victory of some regions over one or two other regions. They have to be recognized not just in the vote, the possible outcome, but in the way the structure of the referendum is to be interpreted.
The second matter which I wish to note is that 30 per cent of Canadians have had the experience of being designated as different, as being often ignored, because they are racially or ethnically distinct from the majority, particularly those who are racially distinct.
We thought we would never have a race riot in Canada. We had one in Toronto a couple of weeks ago. We saw the bitterness in Canada's major metropolitan cities between certain racial or ethnic minorities and the governments of those cities, including their police forces. The bitterness is something that has caused us all great concern and we should not appear to be overlooking those. Until this date the government has refused the request of those minorities to include in its proposals, or to agree in its proposals, an amendment to section 27, the multiculturalism section.
Those groups representing the 30 per cent have asked that we should add that the section requires also the promotion of racial and ethnic equality. Without that, that being denied as it has been until this day, the people of this 30 per cent are not at all sure they are being included as equals if we will not guarantee it in our charter.
Therefore I would hope before the question is worded there will be some consideration given to that 30 per cent of the people of Canada.
The final matter I am concerned with, and it has been spoken to by some of my colleagues, is there must be effective equality in principle in the funding arrangements. There are only going to be two sides, yes and no. There may be many opinions on the yes side, many opinions on the no side, variations of yes or no, but it comes down to putting your "x" in one box or in the other.
If the rich are allowed to use all the force of their dollars on one side of this equation it will be a sick joke and it will be seen as a sick joke by the large majority of the people of Canada. It would be divisive to allow the rich to buy this referendum according to whichever side suits it.
May 21, 1992

It would be seen as a surrender of constitutional power to the power of the dollar, that is to the power of millions and billions of dollars. Most Canadians who are excluded from the prime ownership of the means of production in Canada have only their individual vote and a relatively trifling amount of money with which to make a campaign of this sort. It is important that this referendum should be so constructed that it is clear the primacy is given to one person, one vote, rather than to one dollar, one vote, because we know where the huge billions of dollars are concentrated in this country.
These are three amendments I sincerely hope will be adopted in the committee meetings over the next week. It is our caucus' intention to vote in favour of this in second reading but only because we hope the government will listen to reason and adopt amendments such as these in order to make the referendum a fair one for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1 p.m. I do
now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Canadian Medic-Alert Foundation has proclaimed May to be Medic-Alert Month.
The Canadian Medic-Alert Foundation is a non-profit organization that has been dedicated to protecting Canadians for the past 30 years. It now has nearly 700,000 members and some 42,000 Canadians join every year.
People join for three main reasons: diabetes, allergy to penicillin and allergy to sulfadrugs. Health professionals have access day and night to a telephone service where
they can obtain information to ensure that patients receive proper care. Medic-Alert never fails in this task.
I am therefore very pleased to point out this special day and month, to pay tribute to this excellent organization, and to express my support for Medic-Alert publicly.


CFB DOWNSVIEW
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Simple fairness demands that Marcel Masse, the Minister of National Defence, either justify or reverse his decision to close the supply depot at CFB Toronto Downsview in my riding and move its function to Montreal, a move which will cost an admitted 330 direct jobs and maybe more.
The minister claims that efficiency and effectiveness justify the change, but a secret government study made public shows that this solution is, in fact, more costly. The minister calls the study outdated and I ask the minister to prove it.
The minister clearly wants to give priority to building up his own region. He has said as much. But to use his cabinet muscle and national responsibility to impose more expensive solutions on the military is surely an abuse of power. If he cannot justify his decision, he must reverse it.
He must reply to the demands of chairman Alan Tonks of metro Toronto council who has written to him on this subject.


CANADA FITWEEK
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's Fitweek is May 22 to May 31. The first day of activities of Canada's Fitweek is Sneaker Day, May 22. That is the day when all Canadians are encouraged to wear their sneakers at home, to work, to school, or anywhere in their communities.
Over 540,000 people are going to participate. There is going to be a walk around the grounds of Parliament Hill for staffers on that day.

May 21, 1992
I would like to invite all members of this House to participate by wearing their sneakers and by getting involved in local activities.
Sneaker Day is a partnership of Fitness and Amateur Sport and the provincial and territorial governments.
Canada's Fitweek is the ideal time to enjoy the fun and ease of physical activity and to celebrate active living.


SOUVERAINETE QUEBEC INC.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, last night in Montreal, I had an opportunity to meet at least 125 company presidents who have decided to create a corporation called Souverainete Quebec Inc.
I was very pleased to learn that finally a group of business people has decided to screw up its courage, despite threats concerning federal government contracts, of course, and to get together to create a force to show Quebecers that business people can succeed in a sovereign Quebec and create a more prosperous, equitable and just society and more jobs.
That is what they said last night and they will tour Quebec to promote Souverainete Quebec Inc. I wish them much success.


PROUD TO BE CANADIAN PROJECT
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, across our great nation service clubs and the people in them are truly unsung heroes. No finer example of this fact can be found than the efforts of the Kinsmen and Kinette clubs across Canada, and especially in Dorchester, Ontario.
The Proud to be Canadian tour which is circulating peace tower flags for signature in communities from coast to coast is testimony to the Kinsmen and Kinette pride and dedication to Canada.
Yesterday, the Dorchester and area Kinsmen and Kinettes organized a highly successful Proud to be Canadian event with over 600 people demonstrating
their love and commitment for our country by signing a Canadian peace tower flag.
Congratulations to Dorchester, the Kinsmen and Kinettes, and especially all of those citizens for rekindling our pride in being Canadian.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: I will address this statement to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Four years ago, the federal Centre for AIDS began work on a special document "Ending the Isolation: HIV Infection in the Second Decade". This is a study on mental health needs of people infected with AIDS, as well as the victims and their families. There are no adequate words to describe their agony and pain nor the mental anguish of their families and friends.
More than six months ago, the minister promised this document would soon be released. He said: "It is in final production and should soon be on my desk".
I ask the minister to explain why this document is still in his hands and not in the hands of the people who desperately need it. If he really is committed to the social aspects of this disease, I urge him to immediately release this report.


CANADA FITWEEK
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the hon. member for Calgary Southwest in drawing the attention of the House of Commons Fitweek, which will run from May 22 to May 31.
The first day, May 22, is Sneaker Day, when all Canadians are asked to wear sneakers at home, at work, at school, or anywhere else in their community. Some
540,000	people are expected to be wearing sneakers on that day. All Hill employees will be invited for a walk around Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to do their share by wearing their sneakers and taking part in local activities. Sneaker Day is a joint effort of Fitness and Amateur Sport and the provincial and territorial governments.

Canada FitWeek is an ideal opportunity to experience the pleasure of taking part in physical activity and at the same time promote the benefits of active living.


LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Canada to take the initiative and ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. I believe that by signing Canada will send a clear signal to the world that international law is the way to protect our common economies and environment.
We will be the 53rd nation to ratify and we need 60 to bring the treaty into force. Canada needs to assume the leadership and open the floodgates. Others will follow.
We all know the sorry state of our cod stocks, the overfishing, the pillage of our oceans. Here is the legal mechanism that will enhance our sovereignty and lead to a stable, peaceful legal order to resolve fishery problems and issues of ocean ecology and economy.
I do not need to remind this House of the seriousness of Arctic contamination or the savage interception of our west coast salmon on the high seas. Provisions in the Law of the Sea Convention will protect our Arctic from pollution. It will also protect our west coast salmon. Let us delay no longer. Future generations will thank us.
Thanks go to the World Federalists of Canada who, with others, have pushed long and hard for Canada to fulfil our basic international obligation.


KAON PROJECT
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the recent political manoeuvring by the B.C. provincial Minister of Finance, Mr. Glen Clark, who has attempted to discredit the federal government's commitment to the KAON project in British Columbia.
The facts are very clear. In September of last year the federal government through the Minister of Science, committed $236 million for the construction of this project as well as to provide for one-third of the operating costs, an offer that the province has not yet responded to.
By refusing to indicate what share of the operating costs the province is prepared to assume, and by refusing to supply information for the OECD science ministers meeting this weekend, Mr. Clark is jeopardizing the whole KAON project.
It is a shame that Mr. Clark has not spent as much time stating the province's commitment to KAON as he has attempting to discredit the federal government which remains committed to this project.


WESTRAY COAL MINE DISASTER
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, when the whistle blows in coal towns, everyone feels the fear. When the whistle blew for Westray, we held our breath. We watched. We waited. We prayed. We hoped against hope for a miracle that did not come.
But now we are angry and we are asking why. Why once again did the whistle blow in a Nova Scotia mining town and herald death? Why were jobs more important than safety? Why did the mine open against the advice of federal experts? Why in the knowledge that the Foord seam was the most dangerous on earth did both governments rush to finance and guarantee Westray? Why did coal miners have to take such risks?
Will this be the last disaster? Will it be the last time? Or will the people of Nova Scotia's coal towns still live in trepidation waiting yet again for the whistle to blow?


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Statistics Canada was the bearer of good news for communities along the Canada-U.S. border, including my riding of Sarnia-Lambton.
Statistics Canada reported that same-day trips to the U.S. in March fell by 0.3 per cent. This represents the first monthly year-over-year decline in March since 1986.
What has contributed to this result? Factors like the decline in the value of our dollar, more aggressive retailing practices by our retailers, some rationalization of prices and greater enforcement by Canada Customs have no doubt had a part to play.

May 21, 1992
5. o. 31
Are we looking at a trend? Is cross-border or same-day shopping running out of steam? To me, it is too early to tell. Yes, this is welcome news, but one month does not constitute a trend.
Like my local retailers, I will reserve judgement and will anxiously await reports from Statistics Canada in the ensuing months. I know we will all be working toward maintaining this important trend.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration talks about living up to commitments already made on section 26 fee payers option funding.
The minister is not keeping his commitments to provide training. Thousands of workers who have spent hours in meetings with CEIC counsellors on planning and training programs, who have received verbal assurances that they will be able to go for training, are now being told in light of new restrictions to this training support program, they will not be able to receive funding.
Even though the minister constantly emphasizes the importance of training, his actions speak to the contrary.
I call upon the minister to reallocate funds from within the UI portfolio to provide for all the training needs of all unemployed workers.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Government of Canada would like the public to believe, Canada has not taken a leadership role on items at the earth summit such as climate change, biodiversity, post-summit funding, or the dumping of radioactive waste in the oceans.
Instead of caving in to pressures by the United States administration, the Canadian government should take the lead. With Japan and certain European nations it should pledge to negotiate after Rio the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent; ensure an
agreement on biodiversity; protect the oceans from radioactive dumping; ratify the Law of the Sea; and take steps at home and abroad to establish sustainable fishery, forestry, agriculture, trade, energy and waste management practices for generations to come.


MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS MONTH
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, May has been designated as Multiple Sclerosis Month by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada to highlight the concerns of those who live with this disease, their families and their caregivers.
Multiple sclerosis is the most common disease of the central nervous system affecting young people in Canada.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada supports excellence in research into the cause, prevention, treatment and cure of MS through more than 100 local chapters in communities across the country. Volunteers provide valuable services to Canadians affected by this terribly debilitating disease.
I take the opportunity now of recognizing and saluting the volunteers and the members of the MS Society of Canada. I encourage my colleagues and all citizens to support the carnation fundraising campaign which supports the work of this most worth-while society.


OLDMAN RIVER DAM
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, reports are out that the Federal Environment Review Panel has recommended the Oldman River Dam in southern Alberta be shut down.
We are told that the panel's report said the Alberta government did not do enough to protect fish habitat and preserve the lands of the Peigan Band.
The provincial government is not the only government that stands condemned. The federal government failed to do a proper environmental assessment in the first place. It has damaged the credibility of the environmental process and has compromised many Albertans on both sides of the issue.
May 21, 1992

Now the minister has sat on the report for over a week. He owes it to all Canadians to tell them what his intentions are. What is he going to do about the report's findings and recommendations?


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed with last Friday's determination by the United States Department of Commerce that Canadian stumpage charges constitute countervailable subsidies.
Further and even more astonishing is the inclusion of Canadian log export controls as a countervailable subsidy.
This determination of log export controls as a countervailable subsidy comes despite the fact that the United States has the same kind of export controls on its logs.
Canada is taking this determination to a binding binational review panel under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Our Prime Minister was forceful in bringing this issue to the attention of President Bush. The Prime Minister did not mince his words and appropriately called this move harassment.
I am encouraged by the strong position taken by the Prime Minister and look forward to a positive and a fair conclusion to this protectionist determination. As a fair trader, we will turn our anger and frustration into action and we will be successful.


SALMON FISHERY
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, a month and a half ago, the hon. member for Skeena warned the minister of fisheries that the United States had served notice at our embassy in Washington that it will now violate the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty, that it had overfished Fraser River bound sockeye by 510,000 last year, and it intends to do it again this year.
American fisheries and processors have formed a coalition and have mounted a huge "Salmon for Washington" campaign. This group's demands on the Pacific
Oral Questions
salmon treaty renegotiation is over 9 million additional sockeye enter U.S. ports annually.
This means at least 5,000 new American jobs at the expense of Canadian fishers. The impact on the Fraser River salmon fishery and Canadian workers will be devastating. The minister must give us his assurance that he will be tough minded in renegotiating a treaty, and he must assure us that he will not allow U.S. fisheries to violate the existing treaty.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['I would like to know which rules are guiding this place. When the Prime Minister calls me a hypocrite it is okay. When somebody else does it it is not okay.']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw the Prime Minister in Washington. He tried to be firm and decisive. However, at no time did we hear the president of the United States say that his Department of Commerce would drop trade actions in connection with Honda, magnesium and softwood lumber.
If no real progress was made yesterday in Washington, would the Acting Prime Minister not agree that the Prime Minister's conference in Washington was merely an exercise in public relations?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best way of answering and responding to the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is to quote from the press conference that was held by the Prime Minister and President Bush when President Bush stated: "I told the Prime Minister who forcefully presented Canada's case that I would work with our administration to see that these disputes receive the proper high level consideration before they go to some form of action".
I think that is a pretty clear indication of the intention of the President to take action as a result of the very vigorous representations that the Prime Minister made.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, words and words.

May 21, 1992
Oral Questions
We are used to the Prime Minister stretching the truth when he is in Canada. There is a little bit of blarney all around, but we thought that when he is in the United States representing Canada he would act as a Prime Minister representing Canada abroad.
Yesterday on a TV program in the United States the Prime Minister, talking about his political opponents, said that they "do not like the United States, do not like trading with the United States and want to build a great wall of China around Canada".
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Is it because we are standing for Canadians and the interests of Canada that we in Canada are opposed to the Americans?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think what Canadians are really asking, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and his party, is to stand for something.
We do not know what they stand for. One day they are for free trade and the next day they are against free trade. One day they are for the GST and the next day they are against the GST. That kind of confusion will get the Leader of the Opposition nowhere.
When you go representing the country internationally, as he is aware I am sure, you have to stand for something and you have to represent the principles that we, as a government, stand for.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government talks about standing for Canada. They should realize that in the last poll only 4 per cent of Canadians agreed with their position on the free trade agreement.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When will this government understand that friendship is friendship but business is business? Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians that he will ask the Prime Minister to apologize because he treated them as anti-American just because 96 per cent of Canadians do not agree with the Holy Ghost, the Prime Minister of Canada, when he is abroad?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can talk about all the puffery but the facts
are still very dear. Merchandise exports to the United States have gone up by 12.3 per cent since the implementation of the free trade agreement. In March we achieved a record level of $117.4 billion in exports to the U.S. on an annualized basis.
In terms of merchandise imports, again demonstrating the strength of the Canadian economy, imports rose by 6.2 per cent. Quite frankly, the over-all aggregate trade with the United States is in fact increasing. That is the only trading area where trade is increasing with Canada. It is decreasing in other areas, increasing with the United States, which again demonstrates the importance of the free trade agreement.



Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was wrong yesterday. Canadians like Americans. What they do not like is this government.
The U.S. entered the recession six months after we did. It has already come out of the recession while we remain mired deep in the soup. The Americans have created 947,000 jobs since November. We have lost
141,000	in the same period.
How, given the difference in prospects between our two countries which is unprecedented in recent history, can this government continue with an economic program that has failed so miserably to create jobs and to give Canadians hope?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member has recognized that Canada is a trading nation, thus we trade to survive. Our growth and our prosperity will come through trade. That is why I am encouraged, as I am sure he should be encouraged, that our trade with the United States has risen by 12.3 per cent since the free trade agreement came into effect.
As a matter of fact, in March we recorded $117.4 billion worth of export sales to the United States on an annualized basis. In the budget we took steps to improve the competitiveness of our manufacturing and processing sector. We took steps to improve the competitive environment, the investment environment, so we can be more competitive, so we can take advantage of these new trading opportunities. We are all encouraged by the fact
May 21, 1992

the United States economy is in fact strengthening and that is positive news for Canada.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the same minister. The minister's mantra is as inaccurate as it is boring.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, this country is going through its longest period of economic stagnation in 30 years. Last week, I met former employees of Sidbec; two weeks ago, it was former textile workers; a month ago, former workers in the pulp and paper industry. All these people are in their fifties and have been laid off for good. I will ask the minister the question they asked me: Where will we find jobs in the future?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged on many occasions in the House the difficult period that Canada is going through, and Canada is not alone.
The hon. member will know the anticipated growth for all the OECD nations is something in the order of 1.6 per cent or 1.7 per cent for 1992, which is hardly robust. They also indicated the high levels of unemployment will persist in all the industrialized countries, I think something like 30 million unemployed people, and that is a challenge for all governments, including this one. It also is compounded by the fact we are going through a structural change in terms of our economy.
As I indicated in the House yesterday, I find the Conference Board of Canada's projections overly pessimistic. I think that view is shared by the business community, at least in Ottawa. I quote from The Ottawa Sun today: "Area businessmen said they were surprised and angry at the board's latest economic forecast". They said that messages like the one the Conference Board is sending out contribute to consumer pessimism rather than confidence.
I think there are a number of positive indicators which indicate that the economy is strengthening. It is not robust. It is not as robust as the hon. member would like to see it, nor is it as robust as I would like to see it.
Oral Questions
I think he would agree with me that the fundamentals are right. Interest rates have fallen again today. Inflation is at an all-time low. So we have the framework and the basis for sustainable growth and price stability.
That is what we are trying to achieve.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Conference Board of Canada predicted today that the growth rate of the Canadian economy would be the worst of the G-7 countries and our unemployment rate the highest and one of the worst in the western world. Nevertheless, in the midst of all this bad news, many jobless Canadians are now receiving letters from the federal government, letters like this one, telling them that they will no longer have funds during the waiting period necessary to obtain training under section 26 of the act.
Will the federal government provide the necessary funds for this program so that the unemployed can have the training they need to get a job?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should recognize and admit that the additional funds provided under section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act throughout the country, and especially in Ontario, have tripled this year.
It is true that unemployed Canadians ask for this additional training so that they can hold new jobs with greater skills. Do not believe that we are insensitive to this demand.
But I would ask the hon. member to consider that the federal government alone provides 76 per cent of all the funds to train Canadian workers. The provinces want jurisdiction over worker training, but they spend only 24 per cent of all the funds allocated for this purpose in Canada.
We are now looking at our own budget in Employment and Immigration to see how we can accommodate the increased demand from workers-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt you. The hon. member for Yukon.

May 21, 1992
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this is the government that has created the level of unemployment that we have and refuses now to help those people who want to have training so they can get a job. This government refuses to put additional funds into a program that works, one that helps sustain Canadians. That is a responsibility that this government should be undertaking.
I would like to ask the minister of revenue this. The minister of employment has said that it is a question of budgetary funds. I would like to make a suggestion to the minister of revenue as to where he might find some of those funds.
Twenty-one years ago the former Liberal government introduced measures to provide a tax-free holiday on private trusts for some of Canada's wealthier citizens. Some estimates have put the total value of $70 billion on those private trusts.
As the minister knows, that tax-free holiday is about to end. In view of the need that we have for further training and in view of the needs we have in Canada now, will the minister tell this House that he will not allow this tax-free holiday to continue for Canada's wealthier citizens and put that money to use to train some of the unemployed and those who need the funds for their future.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, you know I am getting a little sick and tired from the New Democrats going on and on and on-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: -about tax-free holidays which do not exist, about the fact that large corporations are not taxed, about the fact that the tax system is unfair.
This government has been bringing in tax reform, broadening the corporate tax base, bringing in more corporations to pay further taxes, closing loopholes left, right and centre that the Liberals opened up under the Leader of the Opposition when he was finance minister, and bringing in accelerated tax collections. One thing we will not do is take away the incentive for Canadian businesses to continue to expand and create jobs and opportunities for Canadians.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue.
Hospitals are closing across the country and food banks are opening across the country. I have simply suggested to the minister that he has the opportunity to close a tax loophole on the private trusts of Canada's wealthiest Canadians, where the wealthiest Canadians can put in funds that are not taxed. They have had a 21-year tax holiday.
Will the minister stand here and say that he is prepared to close this tax loophole on Canada's wealthiest citizens to provide the services needed for those many Canadians who are in need at this time?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, those loopholes were closed two years ago. Those corporations were put on a taxable basis and the hon. member knows that.


WESTRAY COAL MINE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada was intimately involved in seeing that the Westray coal mine received $85 million in loan guarantees and $8 million into interest buy-downs.
Yesterday in Washington the Prime Minister, when asked whether or not he was aware of the serious safety problems plaguing the Westray project previous to federal funding approval, stated: "Of course not, of course not."
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Who should Canadians believe, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who informed this House that all of the cabinet was aware of the safety problems at the Westray coal mine?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague, the member of Parliament for Central Nova, back to the House. I think he would like to know that yesterday the questions on this subject were responsible and not very partisan, out of respect for what his constituents are going through.
In answer to my hon. friend's question, the Prime Minister made it clear that this particular mine is regulated as to its safety and health regimes by the
May 21, 1992

province. Because of that, the province is going to be conducting a thorough judicial inquiry and we are going to co-operate with that inquiry.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in 1987-88 at a time when Devco had excess capacity, the national government supplied $85 million in loan guarantees to a private company to compete against its own national Crown corporation. Furthermore, the company had a sweetheart deal, known and supported by Ottawa, to guarantee that company $14 million a year for 15 years whether the coal was mined or not.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister choose to reward his political friends instead of abiding by safety and sound public policy reasons?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this government believes in regional economic development. We have stood by projects which will lead to regional economic development especially in regions that have high unemployment.
We are veiy proud of that record. We have been able to encourage regional economic development in various parts of Nova Scotia. What we cannot do is simply say that the coal business is just for Cape Breton. We cannot say that. I do not think the hon. member means to suggest that.
What we did with this particular arrangement was to help guarantee a loan that the Bank of Nova Scotia put in place for the Westray mine. The loan was guaranteed by the federal government for 85 per cent of the losses. Our involvement was purely financial, but we went beyond that.
We made sure the contract with Westray that the Bank of Nova Scotia was putting in place included periodic reports on the compliance of all the regulations of the province in order to satisfy ourselves that the contract would ensure that the provincial regime for safety and health was in place. We received regular reports that this was the case. Therefore it is quite appropriate that questions on this will be handled by a provincial judicial inquiry.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the minister for small business has just said
Oral Questions
and he said seven times yesterday that the government depended on mining consultants to do studies to determine if the safety regulations were being complied with.
Evidently the government has placed a great deal of confidence in these consultants' reports. Will the minister make these reports public today?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, yes, we will be open with Parliament. Those reports will be forthcoming. We are assembling the documentation and the information to bring to the House and, of course, we will comply with the requests from the judicial inquiry.
I would like my hon. friend to know, however, that the regulation of health and safety is a provincial matter. It has a regime in place to do that. It is not the federal government's responsibility, even though we informed ourselves on a regular basis that this contract was in compliance.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said that the government gave an $85 million guarantee to Curragh Resources on the basis of these consultant reports that the safety requirements would be complied with and that they would be available.
It is not the responsibility of the Bank of Nova Scotia to look after the safety of the miners. The minister said these reports were complied with. Evidently they are with the government. There is no reason why we cannot have those reports today. Either they exist with the federal government or they do not. If they do, make them public today.


Thomas Hockin: My hon. friend has just asked a supplementary without listening to my answer.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Hockin: My answer was very clear. Those particular reports will be tabled and made public. We will co-operate fully with the House. But he must remember that the province of Nova Scotia has the day-to-day responsibility for health and safety. This is why there is a judicial inquiry and that is also why we as a government will be co-operating with that judicial inquiry.

May 21, 1992
Oral Questions


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Westray affair.
The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware of yesterday's report that the shredders have been busy at the office of Westray Coal. Further to these reports, I have a copy here of a Westray Coal interoffice memo on security procedures which instructs all employees on shredding procedures and use of cellular phones.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering the seriousness of this tragic matter and the need for all information to be both secure and available for scrutiny by both the Nova Scotia inquiry and this Parliament, can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that the RCMP has been instructed to seize and secure all Westray files and are these files now so secured?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that he is quoting, at best, hearsay comments from the leader of the NDP in Nova Scotia when he talks about shredders. He does not know if that is true or not. But he should know that question should quite properly be asked by the leader of the NDP in the Nova Scotia legislature.
As a participant in a financial transaction, we guaranteed a loan. On a monthly basis we fulfilled our concern that the health and safety requirements were being followed. That is the federal government's role. The role now is for the judicial inquiry to inquire into the kinds of questions he is asking.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member asks the next question, I listened very carefully to that one and the answer when the minister responded. I want hon. members to keep in mind-and the hon. member is pursuing a serious matter-that the administration of justice is a provincial matter. I think that if there are further questions to the federal government as to why it has not or has done something with respect to the RCMP it may very well be out of order.
I caution the hon. member, but of course I will hear his question.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I fully accept the comments you have just
made, but I would also point out to the government that when it makes a major investment and guarantees 85 per cent of a $100 million loan in a project which ends up sacrificing the lives of 26 Nova Scotia miners, there is no limit to public responsibility.
I would be quite happy to table the document to which I have referred. Further to that I have a question for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
Yesterday the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tburism told the House that the federal government was relying on mine inspections done for the Bank of Nova Scotia for its information on safety. Our latest information is that Associated Mining Consultants did not do comprehensive mine inspections but rather relied on safety inspections done by Westray itself.
Can the minister confirm this and will he table in this House all of the inspection reports he claimed the federal government received from the Bank of Nova Scotia, which to remind the minister, was covered to the tune of 85 per cent of any loans extended to Westray under the provisions of this cosy deal with the federal government?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend characterizes the loan to Westray as a cosy deal. The federal government has also made a very substantial loan to Cominco in his riding. It is also a mine. Does he call that a cosy deal as well?
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
Yesterday the minister stated in this House: "We would not have put our Westray guarantee in place unless there was compliance with the health and safety requirements of the two departments which were going to administer it for the province, for the Government of Nova Scotia". We know that the government's own agency, Devco, told it Westray was not safe.
What specific assurances did the province of Nova Scotia provide to convince his government to disregard the concerns of its own Crown corporation as to the safety of this project?
May 21, 1992


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is perpetrating an exaggerated fiction from what Devco said in 1987. What Devco did, and let us be blunt about this, was analyse the impact of Westray on its market share in the coal business. Of course it was concerned that some of its market share of Nova Scotia Power business could be taken by Westray.
Therefore, Cape Breton members of Parliament were very concerned about this and so were Devco employees. This was outlined in great detail in the Devco report. There were a few very brief references, just a few sentences, concerning possible safety concerns. But as Teresa MacNeil, who was the chairman of Devco, said at the time, the over-all thrust of the report was about business, about market share, about economics and there was only the briefest reference to safety. Of course the safety concerns expressed were to be dealt with when the mine was put in place.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is for the same minister.
Yesterday the minister told this House that the concerns we had originally with Westray were basically business and economics. But on both counts, safety and economics, Devco told the government: "Don't do it".
I ask the minister again, given the safety concerns, given the economics, why did the government fund this project?


Thomas Hockin: The federal government gave a loan guarantee to a bank loan which helped fund the project. In fact, it is a loan guarantee on the Bank of Nova Scotia bank loan, plus an interest buy-down that we put forward. That is what the federal government did.
Why did we do it? The answer is very clear. It was for regional economic development. There was high unemployment in the member for Central Nova's riding, there is high unemployment in the Stellarton area. There is a long history of a productive seam of coal. They wanted to participate in the production of coal for NSPC as well as for other customers. This was an opportunity to create 240 direct jobs and of course a multiplier of two or three or four times that.
Oral Questions
It was done for regional economic development reasons and it was a very stimulating addition to the region's economy.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
For most of yesterday the minister, in reviewing the Hansard, spent the day telling the House that safety was the responsibility of the Bank of Nova Scotia. He spent most of today suggesting that safety was only the responsibility of the provincial government.
I want to remind the minister that the Bank of Nova Scotia had at risk exactly $15 million. The Government of Canada in financial terms had at risk $85 million. But the coal miners had at risk either their future prosperity or their very health and safety-tragically, in the case of 26 miners, their lives. Those miners counted upon governments, federal and provincial, because they did not have a union, to ensure that this project was safe, to ensure that given the history of the Foord seam it could be mined safely.
What did this minister and this government do to ensure that when it put $85 million into reopening the mine, a mine that could not have reopened otherwise, that the operation would be safe? What was done?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, to ask the same question as all previous members have with a higher decibel of sound does not make it a different question. The question is the same and the answer is the same.
We guaranteed the loan and, when we did, we satisfied ourselves that the provincial regime for the regulation of health and safety would be in place and indeed the provincial regime across all regulations that affect a mine would be in place.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that answer is not acceptable.
I want the minister to understand that everybody in Canada knows, and in particular those in Atlantic Canada, that this mine could not have opened without the direct involvement of the federal government. Everybody knows there were large question marks about this mine and many people strongly recommended against it,

May 21, 1992
Oral Questions
but it was opened anyway with $85 million of federal loan guarantees.
It is quite reasonable, rational and fair to ask this minister: What did the government do to assure itself that the mine was not only economic but that it was safe for miners to go down into? Those miners had only governments to depend upon before they went down into that pit. What did this government do?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said yesterday. When you are a bank-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are not a bank; you are a politician.


Thomas Hockin: -and you put forward $100 million you have depositors' money on the line. You are going to make sure that the mine is not going to be closed because of some explosion or that the mine is not going to be functioning because of some tragedy. So the bank made sure that the safety and health regulations-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister is answering a question and I am sure that members would wish him to continue.


An hon. member:: No, he is not.


Mr. Speaker:: He may not be giving the answer somebody wants but he is on his feet answering the question, and I know that hon. members would give him the courtesy to complete his answer.


Thomas Hockin: The first thing is that the bank wants to protect its investment and it cannot protect its investment unless it is complying with all regulations put in place by the province. Part of those regulations are health and safety. We as the federal government wanted to make sure that this was also the case so we received on a regular basis the reports from independent mining consultants-they are virtually monthly reports-to make sure this was the case. This is what the federal government should do.
We cannot supersede the provincial regime for health and safety. The provincial regime is there, but we can do what we can under our contractual arrangement with the bank to which we were giving the loan guarantee.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has labelled President Bush as a father of free trade. Canadians reject the deal and the parents.
There are 70 American steel trade actions pending against numerous countries, including Canada.
The Canadian steel industry is depressed. Canada is a fair trader. The American share of our market has increased from 7.3 per cent to 16.3 per cent since 1988 and the free trade agreement.
Was steel on the agenda yesterday as indicated and, if so, did the Prime Minister come away with any assurances for Canadian steel producers?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in constant touch with the Canadian steel industry about a supposed charge against the Canadian steel industry. We have not got that.
What the Prime Minister told Mr. Bush yesterday, one of the very important things he told Mr. Bush, was that Canada's exports to the United States today are at an all-time high thanks to the free trade agreement despite its problems.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the minister has been speaking to the steel industry; he would not get the information that he has received.
The issue will test yet again the credibility of the Prime Minister. He spoke yesterday of American trade harassment and unfairness that is hurting Canada. President Bush said: "We have agreed today to be sure that some of these disputes can be avoided".
Given the fact that these trade actions are imminent, this is a test case. Could the minister ensure us that this is a top trade priority and the Prime Minister will report to the House as soon as possible that any American trade action against Canada is off?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Canadian steel industry will be doing with the support of the Government of Canada if there is a dispute lodged against steel
May 21, 1992

is to ensure that the Canadian steel industry responds in kind, and we will launch an unfair trade practice against the United States.


HOG INDUSTRY
Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As the minister well knows, one of the longest running trade disputes between Canada and the United States is the dispute over American duties on Canadian hogs.
Yesterday the FTA binational dispute settlement panel ruled that the American commerce department's justification for duties on Canadian hogs was inadequate. I have had calls from producers asking me just how optimistic they should be, given this ruling.
What will this ruling mean to the Canadian hog industry and future trade between Canada and the United States?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right in drawing to the attention of the House the ruling by the binational panel which was established under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
That panel has said that the department of commerce in the United States was not, in its mind at this time, able to justify the amount of countervail that it has applied to Canadian hogs. It has given it 60 days to justify that.
The other important part is that it shows that Canada alone, of all the countries in the world, because of the free trade agreement has a binational panel impartial to rule against the political machinations of the department of commerce in the United States.
I take it as being optimistic that it was not able to justify its countervail, and we believe that we will again prevail in this case.


WESTRAY COAL MINE
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for
Oral Questions
Small Businesses and Tourism whose best defence of the Westray deal so far is: "The bankers made me do it".
I want to ask him to tell the House not what the bank did or what the bank's interests were in this matter but what did the government do to protect the real risk here, some human lives.
Why does he not, just for his own good and the government's, quit this Pontius Pilate act and tell us-


Mr. Speaker:: I want to make it very clear that in a 45-minute Question Period every question can be on this matter, but questions are going to have to be put in such a way that is appropriate with the decorum of the House.
The hon. member will complete his question and do it properly. I am sure he will.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the government's own agency told the minister, told the government, that this was not a safe undertaking.
Why was that advice ignored, I ask the minister? Was the urge here to be in sync with the political agenda of the provincial Tory regime three days before an election? Was it because the Prime Minister intervened in this matter, as the premier said, that this went ahead despite advice to the contrary?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, in fact the report from Devco to which he refers argued that this would be a bad idea for economic and business reasons for Devco and for Cape Breton coal mining. That was not a surprise to anybody because in fact it is true that the Westray activity would take some market share from Devco.
There was a very fleeting reference to safety but it was not a major part of the report.
This was three years before the Westray mine even began. Of course the very general and brief references to safety were more than accommodated by the construction of this mine and the procedures put in place.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about fleeting references to safety. Is he telling us that those references, however fleeting, were dismissed as not being central to the government's concern?

May 21, 1992
Oral Questions
What was the government's concern here? Was it to satisfy some political debts in Nova Scotia, or was it to ensure that not only was work put in place but that safe work was put in place and that lives were protected?
Does the minister see that as one of his priorities in his present position?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, of course safety considerations are paramount. It just was not mentioned very much in the Devco report of 1987. That is the point.
The province has a regime in place that must be followed by this particular mine.
What the hon. member is trying to do is to drag in all sorts of other extraneous political concerns, and I would remind him what the Reverend Angus MacLeod said two days ago. He said: "Let us put aside unnecessary controversy. It is not a time to try to score points for any side. Let us allow the judicial process to proceed".


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is responding for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Today our Prime Minister in speaking at Johns Hopkins University says: "Rarely in history has there been such a victory for an idea, the idea of democracy".
Despite the fact that he acknowledges that history will judge us by our response to the challenge, we see in the former state of Yugoslavia where new states are struggling to achieve democracy that the process is falling apart.
Only a token cell of 100 UN peacekeepers are able to remain in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, because of unjustified violence. Yet Canada maintains diplomatic relations with Belgrade and refuses by action to convey its condemnation of the current violence in Bosnia.
For the sake of over one million refugees and our peacekeepers, will the government address this issue today to take the necessary action to signal that we cannot allow any further deterioration in Yugoslavia?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been
answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs just a few days ago.
It is entirely inaccurate to say that Canada has not taken any action. We have taken measures against Serbia. We have supported the temporary suspension of Yugoslavia from the CSCE. We have not accepted the Serbian claim to the continuing state of the old Yugoslavia. We have restricted trade measures on Serbia.
We have not recalled our ambassador for the reasons the Secretary of State for External Affairs said several days ago, and they have not changed. We need someone on the scene who can report to us and who can carry out our instructions and our concerns.
We are greatly concerned at the events in Yugoslavia. We are doing everything that could be expected of a liberal democracy to assist in that situation, including sending peace troops over to a situation where there is not even peace to enforce.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, a year ago our Prime Minister signed a convention on the rights of the child promising "to take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children affected by armed conflict".
A hundred thousand of the innocent victims in Bosnia today are children under three years of age.
What is Canada doing to ensure that the required humanitarian assistance is reaching these innocent victims?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we together with every other civilized country of the world are doing all we can to exert pressure on Serbia in connection with the women and children held hostage by Serb gunmen the last two days in Sarajevo.
On May 20 the Canadian chief of staff of our UN peacekeeping force said: "To impose peace in Bosnia would require a military force equal to that used in the war against Iraq".
What is the hon. member opposite suggesting, that these kinds of measures be taken? What is her solution? What more does she want us to do than to exercise our support, with every other civilized country, to try to
May 21, 1992

persuade the Serbians to act in a civilized manner in connection with Bosnia.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Minister for Science was heard by a number of my caucus colleagues, including myself, to say: "Don't be such a hypocrite". As you know, Mr. Speaker, the use of the word hypocrite has been banned since 1958.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor on a question of privilege.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, by far a more offensive word that I did not repeat and I will not repeat was used in this House. The minister himself knows what he said and what we all heard is an obscenity and we ask that the minister withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised on a question of privilege an alleged comment by the hon. minister. Perhaps if the minister wishes to reply I will hear it.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you and this House, I withdraw.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what kind of double standard we have here. The Prime Minister of Canada has been known to use the same language and was not obliged to withdraw. I would like-


Mr. Speaker:: The matter has been raised. There was more than just the word hypocrite alleged. The hon. minister has withdrawn and that is the end of it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my regular weekly question to
Business of the House
the government House leader. In asking this question I beg the opportunity to ask him how we might facilitate the business of the House in subsequent proceedings when we return, but I am wondering if he could indicate what the business will be for tomorrow.
Second, the government House leader did in fact share information with us concerning amendments to Bill C-81. Will we now have an opportunity to see the written legal opinions in order to consider them at length?
Finally, as the House leader knows, I wrote to him on May 13, 1992 with regard to documents surrounding the Westray incident and I am wondering if he could indicate to the House when these documents will be tabled.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, today, to our disappointment, we had to move time allocation on second reading of Bill C-81, the referendum enabling legislation. That will be the business for today.
The hon. member is barking from his seat, apparently not interested in this report. If he can talk his colleagues into being quiet I will tty to continue.
On Friday the government will call Bill C-59, the National Parks Act. It is my understanding there is an agreement among the parties to proceed with all three stages. We will also deal with Bill C-41, the Energy Efficiency Act, for debate at report stage and Bill C-45, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, for debate at report stage and third reading.
The House is adjourned next week. For the week of June 1, the priority will be to complete Bill C-81. As the hon. member knows, if this is not done expeditiously, this important tool to keep the country together will not be available for use.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am surprised. Tear, tear.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Never, never. You are a bullshit.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please withdraw that statement.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You are full of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will not recognize the hon. member for the rest of the day.

May 21, 1992
Business of the House


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Shefford's respect for democracy is plainly obvious and his concern for the country, of course, we know.
I expect that in future votes on this issue we will make a distinction between the votes of the Bloc Quebecois and the votes of the opposition parties.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that a very high priority of the government, because of the timing, is Bill C-80 dealing with the Children's Special Allowance Act. It needs to be passed in order for it to come into effect.
In terms of the question of the Westray documents, as my colleague the Minister of State for Small Businesses has indicated, all the materials are being collected. I can assure the hon. member that all those materials will be presented just as soon as they have been collated.
He will understand that whenever documents involve other parties, we need to get their agreement to table them. There is no difficulty getting the agreement but it is a process that takes some time. It is being worked on expeditiously and I expect we will be able to present those documents to the House and have them available for other parties very soon.
The legal opinions are by way of letter to the deputy minister of justice who asked for these for support. The deputy minister of justice will be available for participation before the committee and will have these with him. In the meantime, I am certainly prepared to have members who are interested come to my office and read the document there, that is no problem. I hope they understand that the nature of the correspondence is such that I cannot distribute it broadly.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would like two clarifications, one from my hon. friend the government House leader. As a result of the motion passed earlier today, Bill C-81 will pass second reading later today and will then be referred to a committee.
I wonder if my hon. friend would indicate whether the government would be open to the consideration of televising that committee since the House of Commons will not be sitting next week.
I would also like to confirm a point that the government House leader made a week or two ago that during
the committee period of this bill because it is so important to the future of Canada, there would be a willingness on the part of the government to consider amendments that normally may be considered beyond the scope of the legislation.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping there is recognition of the necessity for dispatch and the necessity to have a clear indication for the Chief Electoral Officer of the intent, if not the final completion, of the bill and that necessitates acting very quickly. I anticipate that the committee will be meeting this afternoon, perhaps tomorrow morning, and speaking as one potential witness, perhaps Saturday and Sunday. Frankly I believe there is no benefit to the ultimate goal of Canadian unity to try and schedule ourselves around the interests of a viewing audience.
That being said, I will wait to hear what the committee recommends in respect of how they might proceed.
In terms of amendments, as I have indicated privately in meetings we have had, yes, we are prepared to look at amendments that are appropriate and improve the bill but I am hesitant to say amendments that go beyond the scope of the bill. The hon. member can understand my concern.
This is, very simply, enabling legislation, it is not-bind-ing, it is not compulsory. It is nothing but enabling legislation for a plebiscite. Hence I cannot immediately respond positively to the suggestion we use it to amend some other acts that really do not have anything to do with what we are trying to accomplish in this bill. With that qualifier I will certainly listen to any suggestions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, is the government House leader indicating it would be up to the committee to decide whether or not it would be appropriate to televise the proceedings? After all, I think we all agree the people of Canada would like to view the deliberations around this important issue.


Harvie Andre: I will say this. I wish a camera were trained on some of the deliberations around this issue and the people of Canada might not have the same favourable impression that sometimes we think they have. As I indicated, that is up to the committee to decide.
May 21, 1992

Let us not suggest this is going to be a theatrical event for the television cameras. Remember what is at issue, remember what is at stake, and let us deal with it in a businesslike fashion rather than for the benefit of our audience.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I referred to a document, an interoffice memorandum for Westray Coal entitled Security Procedures and I would be pleased to table that document for the House and I now so do.
Further to the question of tabling-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A private member cannot table a document unless he has unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise two points on House business. I have refrained from speaking on the referendum issue.
There is a suggestion from the member for Kamloops which I understand, although I do not necessarily agree with the urgency and the dispatch that the government House leader mentions. We have all the government members around here under the Whip and I understand that because I have had nine requests to pair just today.
Why does the government House leader not have Committee of the Whole tomorrow on the bill and if there is a problem with voting in terms of second, third, or fourth reading, at least get rid of the bill and then have the final bill when we come back.
I do not see the problem with votes tomorrow. If we are really going to send it to a committee, forget about television. If you are really going to bludgeon it through the committee, which I sort of think is the intent in view of the allocation order today, let us have the fight tomorrow on the clauses. Quite frankly I am a member that will vote for the bill but I have a real problem with several of the clauses and the government is eventually going to have its say.
I throw that out in terms of House business as far as the referendum bill is concerned. Everything used to be
Business of the House
done in Committee of the Whole with fair dispatch when I came here many years ago.
My second question is the perennial one concerning the merchant marine. I know the government House leader has been trying. I am suggesting that if he cannot get a little more finite in the answer today with this week coming up, I will be on the government House leader with all the other little problems he has as a bird dog in heat.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that is a terrifying proposal.
In view of that threat, the bill will get beyond the Notice Paper the first week of June when we are back. The Department of Justice indicates it should have completed its drafting and I will be putting it on the Notice Paper June 1 and treating it will depend on agreements in the House. As I have indicated, we are anxious to proceed with it and I hope we can do that very quickly.
In terms of the Committee of the Whole, indeed that suggestion has been made and discussed. Unfortunately it requires a special order of this House. We were not able to secure agreement in that regard so we cannot proceed that way. I agree with the hon. member it would have been a better way to proceed.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I want to have the attention of the House leader who may be busy looking somewhere else in his impatience.
That is exactly the problem that we are going through at the moment. He is impatient. I, along with many colleagues, the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Churchill and many Conservative members, his own colleagues, work very dutifully on the committee of electoral reform. We have done so because we thought that we should work that way with patience with each other. He is so impatient that we are not sure-I am still on the same point-if it is worth at all sitting on any committee.
Many amendments are already ready. I want to be on record because I will not to be a member of the referendum but I certainly will attend. Many amendments are ready. Why do it behind the curtains? They are ready and they have been accepted at the committee on electoral reform. They would be ready immediately to be acceptable. Could we have the assurance of the House leader that at least a lot of freedom would be left to the members to accept very good amendments which

May 21, 1992
Business of the House
already have been accepted at the committee on electoral reform which you are expecting sometime in June.
At least if we have a public understanding, a public acceptance by you that everybody is impatient and defending Canada is absolutely important, nobody on this side will take any lesson from anybody as to the importance of preserving Canada. I assure you of that.
We would like to have some assurance that at least the committee will not function as a rouleau compresseur as we say in French. The minister, with patience, should just get up once in his lifetime and give the assurance to the House that nobody is going to be bullied. We do not accept to be bullied.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, you do not know how much I look forward to these lectures by the hon. member for Saint-Denis on decorum and behaviour. I especially like the part in which he talks about my being arrogant.
I wonder if the hon. members of the Liberal party would give me a chance to answer their colleague who asked for an answer.
On the question of electoral reform and the changes, as the hon. member has suggested, all members of the committee from all parties are working together to get changes to the Elections Act. As I have indicated to our members, and I presume similar indications from the other parties, a package of amendments which would be agreeable to the political parties in terms of amending the Elections Act is something that I as House leader would schedule and treat with dispatch to change the Elections Act. If these were possible to do, it would not preclude the Chief Electoral Officer's implementing them before the next election.
The hon. member keeps heckling me.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am not heckling.


Harvie Andre: I wish he would allow me to answer his question before he stands up and interrupts me.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, he may be heckled by some, but he knows that I have too much respect for the institution and for him as a responsible man.
I am not heckling. I am trying to get some answers. He knows that already these have been accepted by the committee. He knows that we know that most of these amendments will be acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer.
I do not like these secrets going around all the time. These are facts that he knows and he knows we know, so why should he beat around the bush all the time?


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as the hon. member from the Liberal caucus.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is my mistake. I thought the hon. government House leader had finished his answer. The hon. government House leader has the floor and then I will recognize the hon. member for Churchill.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member is sincere and he does want to hear the answer. The answer is that I am certainly agreeable to any amendments to the Elections Act which are agreeable to all sides of the House that we can put in place that the Chief Electoral Officer could implement in a way that would not cause the delay of a referendum or a plebiscite or an election.
However, what we are talking about in terms of the plebiscite legislation allowing the plebiscite to be held if a decision is taken on the basis of the Elections Act. If it is prudent to amend the Elections Act so that it could be implemented immediately, then let us by all means do that. Let us not confuse the two and attempt to use the enabling legislation for a plebiscite as a circuitous route to amend the Elections Act because they are quite different.
That is the only point I would make. It would be out of order and as far as I am concerned a total confusion to what the intent of Bill C-81 is, namely to use Bill C-81 to try to amend the Elections act. Amendments to the Elections Act to improve it in accordance with the recommendations of Lortie that have been agreed to by all sides of the House are certainly something I would be

in favour of and welcome and would proceed with expeditiously.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, again, without trying to create a long debate at this point, the government House leader should know that the Chief Electoral Officer was before the House committee yesterday. He indicated that he did not believe he could deal with further amendments to the Elections Act at the same time as he had to deal with the referendum legislation, in other words a number of clauses which are not controversial, including who gets to vote on election day. Right now we have a lot of urban voters left off voters' lists. It is a problem in each and every election. There are a lot of recommendations that could be put in place to make sure that people are able to vote on the referendum.
The only way those clauses will be in place for a referendum is if the government allows amendments which will be on the scope of the referendum bill in committee. If the government does not allow those amendments, those people will be denied the right to vote on the referendum and on Canada's future.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the plebiscite will be implemented, if we have one, using the rules of the Canada Elections Act. We can through the plebiscite legislation change some of those rules as they would apply in respect of a plebiscite. That is agreed and I am not adverse to entertaining amendments in that regard.
One has to recognize that does not change the Elections Act. We would have presumably the Chief Electoral Officer who, if he is being prudent, has to prepare for two different events, a plebiscite and a general election. He would have to prepare on the basis of two different rules, one that would apply in an election and one that would apply in a plebiscite. If that is no problem, I am not adverse to it.
Rather than go into all these details, which we could have done if we had agreed to Committee of the Whole, but the hon. member was one of those who was opposed to it, we should let these kinds of discussions go on at committee. We can discuss them. I have said publicly on several occasions now I am not adverse to amendments that will improve the act and let us leave it at that.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to remind hon. members that we have been on this weekly question for 20 minutes. May I remind the House that the bill this afternoon is under time allocation and time is of the essence. I will recognize the hon. member for Kamloops on that point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to the government House leader, he referred to the business tomorrow being Bill C-59, the parks legislation, and indicated that there was, after discussions with the parties, a willingness to proceed through all stages.
I simply want to indicate that is the case with our party, assuming that the minister is here to respond to questions and so on during Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the hon. member for Shefford rising to retract the remark that he made during Question Period?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to know which one you are talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think I should repeat it. The hon. member knows. If the hon. member would like to retract his remarks and also the member for Richelieu, whom I listened to distinctly. If you will both please as honourable gentlemen retract the statements you made.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I would like to know which rules are guiding this place. When the Prime Minister calls me a hypocrite it is okay. When somebody else does it it is not okay.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-81, an act to provide for referen-dums on the Constitution of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Murphy (p. 10955).
[Stage Direction]
May 21, 1992
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the hon. member retracting his statement? The hon. member said "bullshit" in the House and so did the hon. member for Richelieu. Would they both please retract that statement?


Jean-C. Lapierre: I was not talking about you at all. [Translation]


Mr. Plamondon:: May I have the floor, Mr. Speaker? I believe you referred to my using unparliamentary language. It was not directed to the Chair, nor to the member speaking on the other side of the House but was part of a private discussion here on our benches. However, if the Chair was disturbed by what it heard, I shall of course withdraw immediately, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, if it is the same word, I can withdraw the term I applied to the leader.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take a few minutes to speak to Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums or consultation on the Constitution of Canada.
This bill is an historic event, because its purpose is to help us reach a national consensus on the constitutional question. Let us consider the objectives of this bill. Clearly it is important to have legislation that allows this consultation to be conducted as effectively as possible.
The referendum process must guarantee the validity of the results while minimizing obstacles to the electoral process. The bill meets that objective by drawing on legislation that has already stood the test of time, the Canada Elections Act, and by making an independent party, in this case the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, responsible for the referendum process.
The bill's other main objective, which will be the subject of my speech today, is the fairness of the referendum campaign. Clearly, if the campaign on the referendum question is not fair, it will deprive the response to this question of any legitimacy it might have and make this an exercise in futility. Fairness is essential
to the campaign and must be reflected in the enabling legislation.
Fairness is a concept that is sometimes difficult to define but is always easy to recognize.
To our mind, a fair process is one that is not biased and involves equal opportunity. Of course the key to fairness is playing by the rules.
Bill C-81 covers all these aspects, for instance in its provisions on registration. No person or group other than a registered referendum committee shall incur referendum expenses during a referendum period that in the aggregate exceed $5,000.
This means that although all Canadians are urged to take part in the referendum and no one is obliged to do so through a co-ordinating committee any person who intends to spend more than $5,000 must register with the Chief Electoral Officer. This process, described in section 13 of the bill, is very straightforward.
The bill also contains provisions to ensure the fairness of the actual registration process. The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine applications for registration in the order in which they are received. There are provisions to prevent any confusion arising from the name of a referendum committee, as a result of similarities between the names of various committees or between the name of a committee and a federal or provincial party.
The rules for registration reflect two essential aspects of the referendum process: the obligation to report and transparency. The obligation to report sums of money over and above a certain amount spent by these committees is reflected in the provisions concerning auditors, chief agents and the keeping of books and records. Reporting includes providing detailed records of expenses incurred, contributions received and any other type of expenses.
Transparency is guaranteed by provisions in the bill that require disclosure of any contribution over $250 received from individuals, companies, unions, political parties or other groups.
Registered referendum committees and those who contibute to these committees will know in advance that contributions and expenses beyond a certain level will be made public.
May 21, 1992

These provisions are fair and do not restrict the participation of Canadians nor the expression of their point of view. However, they also make it possible for Canadians to know who is providing financial backing and guarantee that no one will be able to influence secretly the results of the referendum through massive contributions and spending. They are important because they ensure the public has confidence in the results.
I would now like to comment on an aspect of the bill I think is admirable and extremely fair. Free broadcast time will be available to both sides, so they can send their message to the public, at no additional expense, during prime time. Three hours during prime time will be allocated equally among registered referendum committees on both sides.
A broadcast arbitrator, an impartial officer appointed under the Canada Elections Act, will allocate the time available to registered referendum committees on both sides which applied for registration before the 27th day before a polling day and indicated that they wished to be considered for the allocation of free broadcast time.
As a guide to the broadcast arbitrator, the bill provides certain criteria. The arbitrator shall consider whether the allocation of broadcast time would be equitable, having regard to the different views expressed on the referendum question. The arbitrator shall consider the public interest and fairness,in the manner broadcasting time is allocated to the referendum committees.
Furthermore, fairness is included among the factors the broadcasting arbitrator must consider when determining the broadcasting time to be allocated to the referendum committees.
Section 24(4)(b) of the bill provides that the arbitrator shall take into account the fact that any broadcasting time shall "-be made available fairly throughout prime time".
On the same topic, I think it is also important to note that the bill requires names of any person or group making referendum advertisements to be indicated when the messages are broadcast.
All the measures I mentioned as part of this bill are intended to reflect and, in fact, achieve fairness and thus allow Canadians who wish to take part in this referen-
Govemment Orders
dum, if it is ever held, to make a free and informed choice.

Bill C-81 is a law that will entitle the government to hold a referendum or plebiscite or a general consultation throughout Canada on the question of the renewal of the Constitution.
This bill is a straightforward bill. It is a bill that should enable the government to have consultation. It is a bill that is important in the process of constitutional renewal and I feel that it is important for the House, important for all members of Parliament to support it at this time.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the government's referendum bill this afternoon.
I think it was on May 13 last year that parliamentarians and all Canadians found out in the Speech from the Throne that we would have a referendum bill. I must tell you that it is unfortunate that a year went by, more precisely, a year and two days, before the House was even presented with that bill. Nevertheless, I must say that I intend to support it on second reading. Why? First of all, the hon. member for Beausejour in a speech that he made in April 1991 was the first leader of a national party to call for a referendum to ratify a future constitutional agreement. I take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Beausejour, the Leader of the Official Opposition, on the initiative he took at that time.

I must say that more than one Canadian at the time was asking: "Why are you as a parliamentarian, why is your leader, and why is your party asking for this referendum?"
Our position remains the same. We are in 1992 and Canadians expect in this modem age to be consulted as to the ratification of a constitutional deal. It is the right thing to do. Our parliamentary system has evolved to such a stage that this is what is expected of all of us.
Of course some are going to ask: "Isn't that scary?" Well, probably the Magna Carta was scary at one time but we have evolved beyond that.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
Democracy was scary at one time. Giving the right to vote to those who did not have a right to vote previously might have been scary to some at one time, giving the right to vote to people who did not own property for instance, and so on.
Maybe all those things were scary to whomever at some point but our system has evolved, our system has changed, and we have now the institutions that we all know so well. One of the things that we now need in this constitutional debate is a referendum.
It was the Statute of Westminster of 1931 that gave this country its independence. It was on that day that we started to debate in Canada how to repatriate and amend the Canadian Constitution. It took 51 years in the great Canadian compromise before we could repatriate the Constitution. Unfortunately, even though all federal political parties at the time in 1982 were in favour of it, even though 74 Quebec federal MPs were in favour of the repatriation of the Constitution, because there was a separatist government in that province at the time the Constitution was not ratified by one province and therefore a certain political legitimacy to the whole process has been questioned since.

Tbday we have an opportunity to equip ourselves with a tool so that Canadians can express their opinion on the constitutional issue. The tool, of course, is a referendum.
As most hon. members already know, I was born in Quebec and spent much of my life in another province. I am a francophone in a heavily English speaking province. That is why it is important to remember that a referendum must not only express the will of the majority but also the will of the regions of our country, so as to avoid what some might call the tyranny of the majority.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, in his wisdom, as well as the hon. member for Papineau and all my colleagues, have asked the government to make the voice of each region count in the referendum. In other words, my colleagues in the Liberal Party and I are in favour of the double majority principle; this means that for the Constitution to pass, it must receive a majority of
at least 51 per cent throughout Canada. In addition, a proposed Constitution must have a majority in each of the major regions of Canada, the four regions designated in the British North America Act of 1867 and after. Some may say that there should be five regions instead of four, and so on. We could debate that at some point. At the present time, four regions are recognized. Let us hope that the constitutional agreement which I hope we will have soon between the federal government and all the provincial governments will not only be a unanimous agreement among them but will later receive majority approval in all provinces. There would be no need to ask whether there were a majority in all regions if we already had a majority in all provinces. But still we should have a guarantee of at least a regional majority. In any case, I would hope for more. Once we have that majority in all parts of the country, the various federal and provincial legislatures could pass the Constitution Act. I am sure that we could then put the whole constitutional issue behind us and concentrate as Canadians on making our country prosperous and improving the welfare of Canadians who gave us the honour and the privilege of asking us to represent them in this illustrious assembly.

Therefore, what I and my colleagues would like are a number of amendments to this bill in order to ensure such things as a majority for regions, to ensure that the question that will be posed later would be an exact referendum question, such that it is the appropriate one, to ensure that there is a limit on expenditures and, of course, to make the referendum compulsory upon an agreement occurring.
Of course, it is not necessary to have a referendum if there is no agreement among the first ministers. There will not be a question to put, but what I personally want and I am sure all of my colleagues want is an agreement between the first ministers. We want assurance that that agreement would go to a referendum, not a referendum if necessary but not necessarily a referendum. That is not acceptable in 1992.
We need more than that. We need assurances. Canadians really expect us to give them those kinds of assurances.
*y
May 21, 1992



I took a survey of my riding last year. I even tabled a copy of the survey I had taken of the people of Glengar-iy-Prescott-Russell in this House when we had the big constitutional debate. Some 500 people in Glengarry- Prescott-Russell took part. I shared the survey results with all hon. members. I even wrote a letter to all members of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, which dealt with the whole issue. I did that so hon. members and this House would have not only the opinions of committee members and of interest groups that appeared before the parliamentary committee but of the people of my riding or in any case a sampling of my constituents. I must tell you that our people in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell really participated and I want to congratulate them on that.
In conclusion, I would express the wish in this House today that all hon. members will vote for this bill on second reading and I would also hope that the government will be flexible and take account of the constructive amendments from the Official Opposition in this House. I hope that we will then be able to support this bill on final reading. But what I want more is to have a referendum passed by all Canadians so that we can finally unite our country.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate as, indeed, other hon. members have. I want to raise several matters that perhaps have not been raised sufficiently in the context of what I think is a very important augmentation to our democratic system.
The very fact that Canada has not relied over its 125-year history on the use of plebiscites and referenda must tell us something. In fact, even though we know that back in the 1970s Mr. Trudeau's government introduced legislation that would have allowed for a referendum, it did not in fact get approved.
Private members, including our own member for Toronto-Lakeshore, have proposed similar legislation and, of course, it was promised as one of the items in the Speech from the Throne a year ago. All of this indicates that we are on the edge of something that is in effect a significant departure from our normal traditions in this country, certainly nationally and even provincially.
Government Orders
While there have been instances over the last 125 years of plebiscites and referenda, they have not been used with any consistency. Anybody who has lived in other countries like Switzerland will know that referenda and plebiscites become almost a way of life when individual cantons on weekends will be invited to vote on just about every question from whether there is going be a park installed, the garbage will be picked up or anything else that might affect some kind of local condition.
However, that has not been a part of our political tradition. In fact I would have to say speaking in this House this afternoon that if I had been asked at any time prior to the last several years whether I thought referenda and plebiscites made any kind of sense for our democratic system, I would have said categorically "no". I do not know whether this is evidence of either old age or the willingness to change one's mind, but I have now become convinced that answer is no longer sufficient or acceptable. I am convinced for several reasons.
First, I want to say that as a member of two of the committees that have dealt with the Constitution in the last few years, the Charest committee several years ago and more recently Beaudoin-Edwards, there has been one message that has been there from start to finish and that is that on matters with respect to the Constitution of this country, it is no longer sufficient that heads of government or elected representatives by themselves make fundamental decisions about the nature of our Constitution.
I think we should acknowledge the fact that this is a significant departure from a previous era. In fact, I can remember no time during my time here as a member since the mid-1960s when there was any great public outcry or concern to be consulted.
First Ministers Conferences, conferences on the Constitution actually from the 1930s were held with frequency and abandon but never was there a clear-cut call for a ratification by some kind of public means.
However, since the Meech decision in 1987, the underlying message of the body politic in this country is: "We want to be consulted. We want to have some final say". Why is that? I think the reasons really flow from the events of the early 1980s. I believe that something fundamental happened to Canada when we patriated our Constitution and accepted a charter of rights.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
For the first time in our history for more than 100 years, we said that this Constitution of ours, this charter of ours now belonged to Canadians, not to parliamentarians, not to heads of government, not to provincial premiers, parties and municipalities, but to Canadians.
Therefore, the underlying weakness if I can put it this way, of pretty well all the constitutional agreements that have gone on since then was the belief that governments by themselves could then make significant decisions. Too much criticism has focused in some ways on the substance of what went wrong with Meech and too little on the process.
The lesson we have learned is that Canadians must and will be consulted. I say frankly that I am not really too concerned as to whether or not we find such unanimity in the country in the next month, that there will be no need for a referendum. That is because I believe in the final analysis, and this will be the happiest of stories, that if there is an agreement by first ministers, heads of territorial governments and aboriginal leaders on a constitutional package, it may still be important and significant that Canadians from coast to coast to coast say Amen to that package.
What I am concerned about is that we provide the process for Canadians to participate in an understandable, fair and reasonable fashion. That is not going to be an easy exercise.
I want to caution members on all sides that we tried to establish or design so restrictive a piece of referendum machinery that it fundamentally will fail even before it gets used. I do not even, at this stage, feel very happy with the word referendum. It smacks too much of some kind of absolute, binding decision coming from the body politic.
I think the first time out we should back off a little bit and think of it more as a plebiscite, more as a means to do something with Canadians that will allow them to take greater ownership both for the present constitutional package and indeed for the whole ongoing process.
I am not one of those who believe that we are going to resolve all of these constitutional issues this week, this
month or this year. Nobody should inflate the expectations to that point.
There are several critical aspects that must be resolved having to do with finally letting Quebecers feel a full part of this Constitution, resolving some of the regional tensions particularly with respect to institutions in the Senate for our friends in western and eastern Canada, and ultimately providing real justice for the aboriginal people.
How all of that gets defined in a package will be important. But let us not put a strait-jacket on the process because we are doing something, in my view, that has not been done before. In that instance, we have to maintain some kind of flexibility and freedom in the final legislation that is being devised.
I welcome its introduction here. I welcome the support from members on all sides. I hope we can keep that sense of flexibility and freedom to achieve what is our ultimate purpose. That purpose is to allow Canadians to come to some point of real consensus this year, in 1992, about our Constitution and about our countiy.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up where my friend who holds the neighbouring riding of Rosedale left off.
I too agree that this is a whole new journey for each and everyone of us. We would have to say that there is one exception here. That is the member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. He should feel very proud today of the fact that he has worked from the very beginning to develop a package which would ultimately end up as a piece of national legislation. It is so rare that a sole member of Parliament has the capacity and the skill to do that. He deserves a lot of credit.
I also have to remind the House that my leader a year ago brought up with force this idea of getting into a plebiscite discussion or referendum debate. I share the view of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who said: "I wish we had a little bit more time than three or four days to iron this thing out".
I am going to approach this from a totally different point of view in my community.
May 21, 1992

Even though this is called an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, I am going to title the exercise in my community the "Campaign for Canada".
Really what this legislation is all about is making sure that ultimately, at the end of this exercise this nation stays whole, that we are able to somehow crush the separatist, divisive forces that exist, not just in the province of Quebec, there are some of those forces that exist in other regions.
It is our responsibility as national members of Parliament to make sure that the next 90 days of our lives are ones where all of us, no matter what political stripe, are campaigning for Canada.
In my riding I will make sure that this legislation is handed around for everyone to read it. We will understand what it is all about.
I would like to make a couple of recommendations to the Chief Electoral Officer. One is in the process of setting up for this plebiscite that he make sure he has the resources to get everyone enumerated. I am sure the member for Rosedale would share this point of view. In my riding in downtown Toronto close to one-third- maybe that is a little high-but well over 25 per cent of Canadian citizens were not enumerated in the last election. That kind of thing cannot happen.
There is an opportunity for us here. There is not a partisan contest going on. We must make sure that every Canadian who is eligible to participate in this plebiscite is properly enumerated. I would counsel the Chief Electoral Officer to please make sure that he has the necessary resources to do that.
Of course, I support the amendments that my party is promoting having to do with making sure that we have a guideline on spending limits. We do not want another situation like the last election where an organization such as the Business Council on National Issues went out as a third-party advertiser and literally bought full-page ads promoting its point of view on the free trade agreement.
If it had not been for my leader's debating skills at that time, the right hon. John Turner, I am sure that I probably would not even be standing here. Those third-party advertisements in print and in radio especially were very forceful and put a lot of confusion into the marketplace.
Government Orders
Of course, the other thing has to do with the double majority. We must make sure that we are sensitive to every region in this country.
We in the Liberal Party have a very strong view that we have a double majority. There is no possibility of one particular region of the country imposing its will, or three or four regions ganging up and imposing their will on another region.
I want to go back to the exercise. In my particular riding even though we have limited resources-we are not the government-I have rented a tour bus for the next 60 days. It is the kind of tour bus seen outside here when students come to visit Parliament Hill. It is not a new one; it is old. It cost us about $3,000 for two months. We painted on the side of it "Campaign for Canada".
We also put on it "Mobile Riding Office". In the baggage or luggage compartment we have put our Government of Canada material. It is information and facts about Canada, about our regions, about various services and programs that the Government of Canada provides for citizens.
What we aim to do during this referendum period is to go around to every part of our community. We will go right to the seniors' homes and park there for a day. Then each and every one of the senior citizens in that home can have any questions answered or obtain any updated material on the Government of Canada or facts about this plebiscite.
We will do the same thing with the local collegiates. Sometimes the hours of school do not coincide with our static constituency office, the permanent constituency office, but our mobile office will pull right into the collegiates.
That is the kind of thing constituents want to see right now. They want to see some excitement in this country. Rather than sitting back letting the constituents come to us, we are going to be on the road going to them.
We can put a spirit of campaigning for Canada into this referendum rather than just focusing on the substance, on the i dotting and the t crossing.
Going back to the comments of my friend from Rosedale, consider the process of getting everyone involved. Everyone then feels a part of it. They feel that they have been brought up to date on all the aspects of the proposals and thoughts that various groups have in terms of amending our Constitution or things that we should be doing to galvanize the will of this country.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
That will be the process the committee in our riding will use. We will have the "Campaign for Canada" bus and we will have it operating seven days a week. As time goes on, if it has enough appeal, we may even attract or influence other colleagues to do the same thing if it works well for us. We have to get Canadians excited again. We have to get Canadians feeling good.
If there is one thing that I feel positive about in terms of this legislation, it is that this is not going to be a situation where the Conservative operation is running with a particular point of view and the Liberal operation with another.
There is one campaign once this enabling legislation is put through. It is a campaign for Canada. It is a campaign to blow out of this place anyone who wants to divide, split, or harm the economic fabric, the social fabric of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this referendum legislation. I hope this can be an experience where we galvanize as one force and have a profound effect on the spirit of all Canadians.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and speak this afternoon on this referendum legislation.
Like the rest of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I agree with the concept of consulting with the people. Therefore, we agree with the concept of a referendum in principle, if the concept of a referendum is to consult with the people, to hear their ideas, but also to consult with them so they may have the opportunity to influence the decision-making of their government. It is a method of ensuring that they are heard and heard clearly where they stand on constitutional issues.
The constitutional debates in this country in the last three years particularly have been such that they have driven people apart instead of pulling them together. They have created distrust in their governments and in their politicians instead of giving them more confidence that there is leadership. I am hoping that the concept of a referendum can be used in a manner that not only enhances the feeling for Canada but the feeling that Canadians have a stake and a say in their country.
Prior to being elected I was involved in senior management in a number of organizations. Often we had to make decisions that affected employees. We could go through a consultation process with the employees, but we found out very quickly that we had to be clear with them as to what was the process: were we there to hear their ideas but still make the decision, were we there to receive their direction and incorporate it into our decision, or were we there simply to try to convince them of our position? If we were not open and honest with our employees, the consultation process could backfire. It could do more harm than good, and we could end up with employees who were angry, disgruntled and felt that they had been manipulated.
There is great danger in this referendum bill that that is what will happen with the Canadian public. If the referendum goes forward and Canadians feel that it has not been fair, that it has not been open, that it has not been an honest process on which they were consulted or on which they were allowed to make a decision, they are going to be disillusioned and angry.
I am concerned that this referendum process has had a very rocky start when one judges it against the concept of fairness, honesty and openness. We have had a last minute introduction in the House and now an insistence by the government that it be pushed through without proper opportunity to debate or to take a look at it. It is only reluctantly that it has even agreed to allow it to go to committee next week.
We have had the government withholding legal opinions that it says is the basis for its spending decisions. There is no openness or a sharing of trying to involve all members of the House.
The House leader stood this afternoon to try to make sure he was not backed into a comer where the committee would be televised. Those are the various things that make Canadians wonder whether this referendum is in fact a method of true consultation or if it is just another attempt by this government and a cynical Prime Minister to manipulate the public.
There are three or four specific points about which my colleagues in the NDP have made motions and that must be changed in this legislation if it is to be viewed by the Canadian public as being an open, fair and honest process.
May 21, 1992

There must be spending limits on the campaign. Average Canadians will not accept the fact that their voice will not be equal to the voice of the wealthy and the powerful. They will not accept the fact that because they do not have hundreds and thousands of dollars to spend they are not equal to the wealthy, to the multinational corporations, to big business and big organizations. Therefore there must be spending limits.
The average Canadian wants to know this referendum is not going to be bought but it is going to be honestly debated on an equal footing.
There must be an interpretation of the results of the referendum that every Canadian knows is fair and honest. They must know that before they start participating. They must understand if we in western Canada vote yes it has some significance. We not going to be simply ignored by the Prime Minister. Those in Atlantic Canada have the same commitment as do those in central Canada and Quebec. All Canadians in every region must support this interpretation.
There must a feeling of fairness and openness in the drafting of the question. That is why we are insisting on an all-party committee that jointly drafts the question. If Canadians feel this is another one of the manipulations of the Prime Minister and if he puts a question they do not believe is a fair, open and honest question, the backlash against this government and against Canada could do irreparable harm. In fact, it could destroy Canada at the very opportunity when we have a chance to unite the country.
Dealing with the whole question of the campaign, it must be viewed by Canadians as fair. We should take the opportunity to incorporate some of the proposals made by the electoral reform commission and properly define electoral expenses so that people cannot do polling that is not considered an expense, so that people cannot use volunteers, slick advertisers and marketing people and say they are not an election expense, so that there is a proper enumeration, particularly in my riding of Surrey North which is the fastest growing riding in Canada with
10,000	additional households. People must be assured that it is fair.
In closing let me say that we support the idea of a referendum. Unless it is a fair, honest and open referen-
Govemment Orders
dum it is going to destroy Canada rather than unite Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I could not give the hon. member more time. That is what happens in this place when you are having fun.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, I am telling you nothing new when I say that Canadians and Quebecers no longer have any confidence in this government. Because they no longer believe in this government, they will not play this phony game that is being proposed to them to solve the constitutional problem.
I recall that two years ago that I no longer believed in this government. I no longer had any confidence in the ability of this government to act honestly, openly and credibly and I gladly and proudly quit the Conservative caucus.
I left it because, as I told you then, this government had lied to the people since 1984 by saying, for example, that it would reduce the deficit to zero, when in fact it doubled it and that it would solve the constitutional problem in a way that Quebec could come back with honour and enthusiasm. Obviously that was false. It broke that commitment in May or June 1990, although it had said that it would make a very big effort, not just any effort, a very great effort to make all our institutions more democratic. I honestly took it at its word. I believed that the government was telling the truth.
In August 1988, just before the election campaign, the Prime Minister said: that he supported the principle of popular financing for political parties. He added: "The example of Quebec, where citizens finance political parties, is good for democracy and it is the way it should be." Four days before the election, on November 17, 1988, the big headline of the day on the front page of La Presse was: Mulroney promises popular financing of political parties. He said: "It is unthinkable to finance an election," and the same goes for a referendum, "with big corporations and unions to the detriment of ordinary citizens, because it unbalances the whole process". The promises he made from 1984 to 1988 got him 63 seats from Quebec in the 1988 election, including my seat in Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.

Government Orders
I call that electoral manipulation, actual election fraud and dishonest. Today they are trying to go even further than that by holding a phoney referendum based on a phoney bill. The process that has been going on here for three days is a monumental farce. They want to silence all hon. members by having less than 10 hours of debate on something as important as a referendum on the future of Canada and Quebec.
That is unacceptable. This lack of will, fair play and honesty towards all the citizens of Canada and Quebec is of course the reason why Canadians no longer trust this government today. Quebecers no longer believe in it. Less than 15 per cent of the people today believe this government because it lies to them every day. It is a government that says absolutely anything.
Nevertheless, I remind you that just in terms of the democratic process, the Prime Minister, as I told you, promised popular financing on November 15, 1988. A general convention of more than 1,000 Conservative Party members voted unanimously in favour of it on March 25, 1988. The by-election won by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean in June 1988 was another obvious demonstration of the popular financing that Prime Minister Mulroney still approved of throughout the 1988 election campaign.
At the first proposed public consultation since the 1988 general election, a referendum, how can the government suggest that companies will be able to form as many committees as they want and give as much money as they want and, even worse, that some funds will never be accounted for, that there will be no disclosure and that none of the fundamental rules of the electoral process recognized in all civilized, democratic countries will apply? How could we have reached such a point in Canada today?
Are we so afraid of talking about the real issues? The real issue today is the constitutional problem. The real issue is the future of Quebec, because Quebec wants to be sovereign. Is Canada prepared to use any completely undemocratic means to try to come up with something else and think that Canadians and Quebecers will go along with it? It is utterly impossible! It is unthinkable.
Personally I am not against a referendum bill. It would be normal for a government to have that kind of tool, to
follow very well established democratic rules that correspond pretty closely to those that apply in an election. But holding a referendum only on the Constitution is a different story. Passing special legislation to hold a referendum on the Constitution is a lie and a joke. That basically is what offends me.
If the government had tabled a referendum-bill, based on democratic principles, that could be applied to the Constitution or other qestions, eventually, like the legislation we have in Quebec, with some nice, clear-cut rules, an umbrella committee for the yes side, and another one for the no side, a ceiling on contributions, no union or corporate contributions, complete disclosure of all donors and a number of other democratic measures, of course I would have supported it. I think, however, that Quebecers should realize what this government is trying to do.
By the way, I see only one Quebec member of the Progressive Conservative Party in the House right now, one out of 54 or 55.1 can tell that particular member that there are no -


Mr. Weiner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is entirely uncalled for to mention the presence or absence of members of this House. There is nothing wrong, either way. However the hon. member just said there was only one Quebec member in the House, but I also happen to be a member from Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has been around here for a long time and he realizes that he should not be saying who is in the House and who is not in the House. There are television cameras outside. There are committees meeting. I will recognize the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


François Gérin: After the next election we will not have to count to see how many Conservative members are left in the House. There will not be any left, and that will take care of that. I suppose it would be the same, whether they come from Quebec or Alberta. I am just joking. I do not know that much about Alberta. In any case, we will take care of Quebec.
May 21, 1992

Government Orders
The important thing today is to talk about why Quebec refused to join the rest of Canada to deal with the constitutional question. We have to remember what happened in 1981 when tactics were used that led to some very serious problems, and then from 1987 to 1990, we had Meech Lake, which fell through. We should remember that the biggest problem was the general attitude in English Canada.
Everything started in the fall of 1989 with New Brunswick. Mr. MacKenna started it. Remember Sault St. Marie and how people trampled the Quebec flag. Remember Clyde Wells, Filmon and Carstairs. And above all, remember Mulroney's attitude in this debate. Basically, that is what we have to deal with. We don't need a referendum on the Constitution.
Quebec asked for an agreement that would allow it to live like the society it is. Let us see some proposals, not just another strategy. The Mulroney government promised to table offers that would be satisfactory to Quebec. It should stop beating around the bush and table those offers. It should stop this endless series of committees. Do you not think we are fed up, Mr. Speaker? We had Charest, and after that Beaudoin-Ed wards, Dobbie-Castonguay and then Beaudoin-Dobbie. We had government committees, we had the Spicer commission, we had the PC caucus from Quebec which made two or three futile attempts. We had constitutional conferences. We had ministers conferences. We had first ministers conferences. And thousands of officials wasting their time discussing the Constitution, at our expense. And the result was zilch. Today they want us to believe that a Canadian referendum with patently antidemocratic rules will make the difference.
We must realize that we cannot deal with the real problems today because we are still stuck with the constitutional question. If we had resolved the constitutional question two years ago, we would have had all this time to talk about the recession, the decline in our standard of living, the rising deficit, taxes, unemployment, school dropouts, and the monumental failure of this government to run the country. Instead of that two years after -


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has now expired.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is a serious one. I am sorry that the time is so limited and I am sorry that the government has reverted to its usual technique of using closure in debate on a matter as important as this.
The government was urged by the Official Opposition to bring this bill in months and months and months ago. This has been a policy of this party for some time. The government made a promise, through the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, to introduce this bill months and months and months ago. Instead, it dilly-dallied and shilly-shallied and gave a lot of mum-bo-jumbo, broke its promise to the opposition and held it up. Now it brings it in. Last Friday it was introduced and it is screaming and ranting that if we do not pass it right away we are going to somehow damage the fabric of this country. It is saying that we have to pass this bill, flawed as it is, and get on with it.
I take strong exception to this disgraceful approach of the government to the House. The debate can go on in a Tory caucus and once it is settled there the rest of us are supposed to bow down and worship and just accept whatever the government passes out. I will not do so.
I object to the government's dealings in this matter. It is wrong.
I want to look at what the government House leader said the other day in his speech and it was clearly wrong. He said: "The Canada Elections Act legislation, which enjoys the great respect and confidence of Canadians throughout the country, would provide the basic framework under which any referendum would be held. The Chief Electoral Officer would have the same responsibility for the conduct of a referendum as he has for the conduct of a general election". In other words, the government House leader was suggesting that somehow this bill and the Canada Elections Act are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let us look at the changes the government made in the Canada Elections Act to determine the bona fides of what the government House leader was saying because somehow he was suggesting that he was being aboveboard and honest with Canadians in his dealings on this bill. I suggest exactly the opposite is so. What he did was

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
say that this is just like the Canada Elections Act when it is not.
Let us look at the insidious changes that are proposed. First of all, the method of appointment of enumerators for the enumeration of the people under the Canada Elections Act is that each of the parties that came first and second in the previous campaign appoints one enumerator in all urban polls so that there are representatives of both parties going door to door to select the names of the persons to go on the electors' list.
This bill changes it for the referendum. What does it change it to? It changes it to the appointment of the enumerators by the returning office. Who appointed all the returning officers? Almost every position in Canada has been filled by a Conservative appointee. Everyone knows that Tory hacks have been given the job. I am not saying that is wrong. I am just saying that is the fact. Those people are all being asked now to appoint all the enumerators, not the usual pattern of one from each party. That is what is going on.
Then, get this. If that is not pernicious enough, the list that is drawn up for this referendum campaign will then be used in the general election by section 38 of the bill. In other words, there will not be an enumeration during the general election. The enumeration done by a pile of Tories during the referendum campaign would be used in the general election.
I admit that the government House leader has recanted from this nonsense and has agreed that he will make some changes in the bill to reflect this fact. I am pleased to hear it because it is an absolute scandal. Never before, in years and years of electoral history in this country, have we had an enumeration conducted by one party. It has always been done by two and that is the way it should be done in this case.
The government House leader had the gall to stand in the House and say that somehow this bill was fair and equitable and it is not. It is manifestly unfair.
That is not the only thing. The current Canada Elections Act provides that-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a little confused. The hon. member seems to be speaking against the bill, but his leader said he would support it. I would like to know whether he intends to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but that is not a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I hope that is not taken off my speaking time.

As I was saying, under the current Canada Elections Act, deputy returning officers are appointed by the returning officer. The DRO then appoints poll clerks. For some time we have been trying to get a change in this and we are on the verge of getting one through the committee that is working on electoral reform so that there are representatives of both parties appointed to work the polls to make sure that it is done fairly.
The government members appear to co-operate on this. Was it in this bill to make that change? No, it was not. The returning officer will make the appointments as has been done under the current Canada Elections Act. If this bill was fair and above board, why was that change not included in the bill?


Dennis Joseph Mills: It was a mistake.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Under the terms of this bill, the Chief Electoral Officer is given power to make regulations to give effect to the bill and to make necessary adjustments with the Canada Elections Act. Listen to what the government House leader had to say when he introduced this. He said the Chief Electoral Officer:
would be responsible for making the regulations under the
Referendum Act to adapt the Canada Elections Act process to a
referendum just as he has the responsibility for making the
regulations to adapt the Canada Elections Act to a general election.
He has no such power to make regulations. That statement was patently false. There is absolutely no power in the Chief Electoral Officer to make any regulations under the Canada Elections Act for any
May 21, 1992

purpose. Here the government House leader, who supposedly knows about these matters, made this outrageously wrong statement in his introductory remarks.
Here we have unprecedented powers being given to an officer of Parliament who will be left to run a referendum campaign receiving advice from the minister to whom he has to account. He has to account to someone for some purposes to a minister. Who will tell him how to run the election? No doubt this minister will. He is well-known to be arrogant and a bully. He will bully the Chief Electoral Officer. This should not happen. This power should not be granted without some checks and balances and the proper check is to have the regulations brought to this House.
What happens? The bill says you do not have to bring them for scrutiny under the regulations act. Thke a look at the bill. I urge hon. members to read this bill. That needs to be adjusted.
The government commissioned a report on elections in this country that cost some $18 million. The report dealt with issues such as who has the right to vote in elections. There are several outstanding charter claims on this very issue that have been litigated in the courts and that are currently outstanding.
One of them is the right of inmates and prisoners to vote. That issue is still unresolved. It is waiting to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Two high courts of appeal decisions have given inmates the right to vote. You would have thought that in dealing with legislation in a referendum, the government would have brought these forward and said we have to deal with these now because all these people currently have a right to vote. The act is completely silent on this issue.
Where is the leadership? Where is the thought? After spending $18 million you would think it could come up with some ideas, put them in the bill and try to deal with it. We have a committee working on it but the evidence we now have is that committee cannot get anywhere because the Chief Electoral Officer could not implement changes in the Canada Elections Act while he is having to deal with the referendum.
It has to be dealt with in this bill. The government must have known that when it introduced the bill last Friday and it failed to deal with the issues.
Government Orders
These are serious omissions. This bill has been introduced by a government that does not know what it is doing. We always have said that and it is made manifest by the very flawed nature of this piece of legislation. While we may end up supporting the thing because it has to be done, we all recognize that, the fact is we are going to be pressing for some very significant changes in committee.
I hope that hon. members on the other side will support the very sensible changes. I see a member who will support it. I am sure the minister of homelessness will do his best to do so as well.
I urge him in cabinet to get after his colleagues and say: "Fix this bill. Do not introduce such trash in the House. Get it right the first time so that it is something close to what we as Canadian legislators can expect from a government which is expected to show leadership and which has had years and years to draft this bill".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Ottawa Centre-it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast-Canada Assistance Plan; the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex-Beef industry; the hon. member for Victoria-National Defence; and the hon. member for Algoma-Denison Mines.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to discuss the bill that deals with the question of the referendum.
It was our leader, who in last years called on the government to introduce legislation that would deal with the question of referenda. At that time, he promised the government to go full out, he as well as every member of his caucus, in order to defend the interests of Canada and the unity of Canada.
At that time, the Leader of the Opposition called on the government to move on this issue on a non-partisan basis. He called on the government at the time to take the approach of consultation with the opposition.

May 21, 1992
Government Orders
Unfortunately, while the government dragged its feet before it introduced the bill that would deal with the question of referenda, it did not really go through the proper consultations, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands has raised so eloquently, about the different flaws that existed in the legislation. If the government had taken the time to do the consultation with the opposition, I am sure many of those issues would have been resolved prior to the introduction of the bill.
Having said that, I will be supporting the bill, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands indicated, with reluctance. Simply put, it is because no one wants to be put in a comer and blackmailed that if you do not support the legislation you are working against the unity of Canada.
In our caucus and in our party we support the idea as well as the principle of consultation with Canadians. Our leader has in the past promoted, still is and will always be promoting the question and the issue of consultation with Canadians.
In my riding I have many distinguished constituents who have been working tirelessly on this question of the Constitution and the question of consultation with Canadians. In particular, I would like to mention one of the outstanding leaders in the community, Gail Stewart, and her group of constituents who lately produced a newsletter called "O Canada: Dare to Dream, Shaping Our Future Together".
This organization is a non-partisan, apolitical organization with one purpose in mind and that is to save and preserve Canada as we know it today. Here is what it has written in its latest edition, March 25, 1992, volume 1, No. 3:
It's not too late to change the debate. It's difficult to think clearly about the constitutional debate. There are so many proposed amendments, so little time to consider them, so much going on behind closed doors, so much at stake.
Also, the debate is taking place in a global setting where ecological and environmental problems threaten our future. These realities must surely bear on the shaping of a constitution, yet they have been overlooked.
The process is changing-let's take the next step: instead of negotiating, why not work together?
I want to congratulate my colleague from Kingston and the Islands who specifically was stressing the question of working together and the point of working together with all sides of this House, with those who believe in a United Canada, those who believe in a fair Canada.
I want to spend a few minutes putting my own feelings on this issue. It is a feeling which is echoed so eloquently by my constituents in their latest bulletin. We have to start looking out to see our position on the international scene, rather than focusing on issues that are local. We have to focus on issues that unite us, rather than focusing on the issues that divide us.
There is nothing wrong with having a constitutional debate, a constitutional discussion. It is extremely important for any nation to have those kinds of debates providing at the end we come out of those debates united, as one force and as one unit.
While this year we will be celebrating Canada's 125th birthday, my constituents and I echo the sentiment that we have to put more emphasis on this issue and as well we have to recognize the fact that Canada did not start only 125 years ago. Canada started over 10,000 years ago with our native Canadians.
Those elements which were echoed so eloquently by many Canadians across the land must be recognized not only in our Constitution but as well in our daily lives.
We have to focus on a common history in order to talk about a common future. Your Honour probably knows that if you study history in British Columbia nowadays, you might not be reading the same material as a student who is studying in Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. We do not have as yet a common basis so that every Canadian will learn the same things when it comes to the history of this country.
Citizenship-and I see the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism here-is not taught as widely as it should taught be in Canada. We are not putting enough emphasis on teaching Canadians about what it is to be Canadian. The whole debate on division of powers has to be changed so that we can talk more about the division of responsibilities. When we get to the point where we start talking about responsibilities rather than talking about powers, the debate and the tone of the debate will change tremendously.
May 21, 1992

While it is extremely important to build on the good things we have, we have to look ahead and see our place in the world. If we look at Canada as it is right now and at the latest survey of the United Nations, we find that Canada has been identified as the number one country in the world in which to live and raise a family.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is something that every single Canadian in every part of our country has to be proud of. It is my wish that one day every Canadian will have the chance not only to visit every part of Canada and to see how magnificent this land is, but also to go abroad for one week or for one day, as a matter of fact, and I would challenge them to tell me that there is any place, anywhere in any part of the world, they could identify as home other than Canada.
I know this because I have travelled from one country to the next and I know that we live in the best country in the world in which to raise a family. I say it and I knew it even before the United Nations came up with their survey because I like many other Canadians immigrated to this land, to this country, because we knew then, we know now and we will always know that the opportunities available to us in Canada would never be available to anyone anywhere else in the world.
For example, when I came to this land I was illiterate-I did not speak French or English-and I was able to build a future. I was able to bring my family and was able to build a future. I look around me and I ask: Where else in the world would I as an immigrant be given the same opportunities I have been given in Canada? Nowhere. I am sure my colleagues from Kingston and the Islands, Calgary and Edmonton would agree with me that this is a land of opportunity.
Why we want to turn around and screw it up, why we want to turn around and sell out the best nation on earth, is beyond me.
I can only speak for my constituents on this issue, but I am not interested in seeing money being distributed to anybody who has anything but the interests of a united, fair and equitable Canada at heart.
I will be supporting the bill with reluctance because there are many technical components in it that have to be addressed. It is my hope that with the expertise of
Government Orders
many members of our caucus, in particular the member for Kingston and the Islands, the House leader will sit down with the member as well as members from the other political parties to iron out those difficulties so we can come up with something that everybody will be proud of.
On a final note, the government has to keep in mind one thing. This is an issue on which every member of this House who believes in Canada has to work collectively on. It must remain a non-partisan issue in our minds. We cannot play partisan politics on this issue. Otherwise we will lose a lot.
The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister have to share the same platform so that they can promote Canada, the unity of Canada. As well, every member of this House has to be given the opportunity to do the same. We must because it is out duty and responsibility to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
nil/aucun
Allmand
Andre
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare
Bernier
Bevilacqua
Blackburn (Jonqui&re)
Bourgault
Browes
Callbeck
Catterall
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Clifford
Comuzzi
Corbeil
Cote
Crawford
Darling
de Cot ret
Desjardins
Dionne
Domm
Duplessis
Fee
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Gauthier
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Greene
Guamieri
Harb
Anderson
Assad
Belair
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjornson
Boudria
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cooper
Corbett
Couture
Danis
DeBlois
Della Noce
Dingwall
Dobbie
Dorin
Edwards
Ferguson
Flis
Foster
Gaffney
Gibeau
Gray (Windsor West) Grey (Beaver River) Halhday Harvard
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. [Translation]
The next question is on the main motion. 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 will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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



[Stage Direction]
Members
nil/aucun
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.25 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Tkinity-Conception) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should implement immediate compensation to address the plight of those Atlantic Canadians affected by the reduction in northern cod who will have lost their jobs but who are unable to qualify for unemployment insurance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the motion today to discuss-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Hon. members, please, we are in private members' hour. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has the floor.


Fred J. Mifflin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As much as I appreciate being recognized and being able to speak, I hate it when I have to get up following a vote because it takes about five minutes for things to settle down.
I hope the impact of what I have to say is important enough that members will pay attention. It is a problem with a human face on it. It is a problem that I consider

May 21, 1992
Private Members' Business
my top priority as the member of Parliament for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception and God knows, I have others both as a member representing a constituency and as a federal member with all the other problems we have in this country.
I am very pleased that I am allowed to bring this to the attention of the House. It will point out a number of Canadian families, in this case in Newfoundland, who are, to use an expression, one that is well used and perhaps sometimes not well understood, in dire straits, in desperate conditions, close to having no hope, despair, despondency, lack of respect for themselves, demoralization.
These are harsh words. For the people who I represent here today these are harsh times. It requires some harsh measures.
I do not know what it is I have to do as their link between what they need and what they cannot get. God knows, I have tried enough in this House to get the attention of the ministers responsible. I have written letters, I have presented motions, I have made statements under Standing Order 31,1 have asked questions, I have had meetings. I have not been able to achieve what it is I want.
I am at the point where this is a personal wish, a personal thing. It is personal because I consider I am very close to the people who are in need. They live close to where my home town is. Because of that perhaps I know them better on an individual basis than I would if my riding was in another part of Canada.
It is an area that has been affected by an action taken by the government. My motion is, again, to remind the House:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
implement immediate compensation -
That is immediate compensation.
- to address the plight of those Atlantic Canadians affected by the reduction in northern cod who will have lost their jobs but who are unable to qualify for unemployment insurance.
I am referring to the fishing industry. The federal government is responsible for managing the fishing industry, and those people involved are affected by the actions in this management area by the government. It is
my thesis, and I am joined by many in making the conclusion, that therefore the government is responsible for the plight of the people involved and for taking measures to rectify the situation.
I am referring to the plant workers. This morning there were a total of 70 families who were affected. They are on the Bonavista Peninsula. The plant is the FPI plant in Port Union, Newfoundland. The immediate areas affected are Catalina, Bonavista, Melrose, Ellis-ton, Newman's Cove, Amherst Cove, Birchy Cove, Port Rexton, Trinity and about 70 communities.
As you get further from the tip of the peninsula, the communities are affected less. It goes as far as Claren-ville, which is 100-odd kilometres away from the plant itself, which is the distribution centre for the area. It is suffering businesswise because of the decision.
The processing plant, because of the northern cod reduction, was shut down on February 21. It is three months since this has happened. I want to go through very briefly the chronology of what has been involved. I will stick to the action that I have been involved in but I know other members, particularly members from Newfoundland and other members from Atlantic Canada, have been equally persistent for their constituents in areas where this has happened to them.
We will hear some of these examples this afternoon. The plant closed on February 21. I understand that it takes time to develop a compensation program. I understand that, but how long does one have to wait for compensation? We are three months into this now. While I asked the first question two days before the plant closed, I did not really expect to have somebody waiting with a compensation package.
The response of the minister of the day, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, ended up by saying: "We are ready to help and do what is possible to alleviate the problem and we will keep on doing this". That gave me some hope.
The day the plant closed, I directed a similar question to the minister of fisheries and asked him about a compensation package. The minister responded: "When we have established exactly what the consequences of this decision are, if there is need for any additional assistance programs it will be forthcoming".
May 21, 1992

Later in that response, the minister said: "When we know later in the year exactly what the effects are, other programs if necessary will be put into place".
My hopes were still up on February 21. On March 17, having heard nothing from either of the ministers involved, I then went on the offensive again and spoke in this House for four minutes on the necessity, the pressing need for compensation for those involved.
I discussed the life of a plant worker, a fisherman, and an operator. I talked about the kind of salaries that we were looking at and the difficulty they were experiencing then, one month into the lack of compensation. These are people who last year were employed or were covered by unemployment insurance, or were covered by an emergency response program.
This year because the plant closed earlier with very little notice, they had only two or three weeks of work. Through no fault of their own, they could not qualify. As of February 21 they were using their savings, capitalizing on what food they had stored-a roast of moose, some saltfish-and that was one month into the desolate situation that I am describing.
Now, a processing plant operator does not make a lot of money. The average income in my riding is $23,000. That was the latest figure I had. The average in Newfoundland is $32,000 and the average in Canada is $46,000. These workers make anywhere from, depending on their seniority and the kind of bonuses they get, $17,000 to $23,000 a year. If my research serves me correctly, that is pretty close to the poverty level in Canada. So you do not start out with very much. If you have to go on unemployment insurance, if you are covered by unemployment insurance, your income can range from $14,000 a year to $19,000 a year. That still is not a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, as you know.
In this case, at one month-where I left you in my presentation in the House-these people had no compensation, no visible source of income.
The next date I want to bring to your attention is April 27. In the meantime I have met with officials. On March 16 I met with the director general of unemployment insurance, or the regional director in St. John's for employment and immigration, and I discussed this problem with him to see what solutions may be forthcoming, along with other problems of course. On April 271 found
Private Members' Business
it necessary, because I had no response from the government, to make another statement in the House of Commons in this regard. In the meantime I wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I have yet to receive a reply.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, if you can follow the chronology, on April 27 at about that time, I was in my riding and I visited some of the families and spoke with some of the people involved, and actually went and ate, had meals, with some of the families. I do not think they would be ashamed because of the circumstances which caused me to rise to my feet and talk in public about this for me to tell you that they get up in the morning and they have no jobs to go to. Their breakfast is a cup of coffee, a cup of tea, in some cases maybe a glass of cold water, home made bread made from purchased flour, ingredients that are still within some range or left over from the days when they had work, sometimes without butter, some partridge berry jam that was picked the year before. Their kids go to school, they come home for lunch and it may be bread, maybe butter, maybe a can of beans put on the stove and boiled, shared with the family. The kids go back to school, they come back from school and for supper, maybe there is some meat left over. There may be some more canned food left. This is one day into the second month of this situation that I am trying to put a human face on.
In the second month their pickups are being repossessed, their cars are being repossessed. They are not brand-new cars. They are not big cars. In some cases they are 10, 12 years old, but they still have payments to make because they cannot afford to pay cash for these vehicles.
I am asking the government to put a human face on these families which need compensation because of a management decision, albeit necessary, by the government of the day, which happens to be on that side of the House. On May 8, which was not too long ago, I found it necessary two and a half months into this difficult situation to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration about this. Although he was not here at the time, I was pleased that he was represented by the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration. I was beginning to take some hope from the sympathetic look and response she started to give, but I lost hope when she said:

Private Members' Business
We could, of course, look for a way out in conjunction with the private sector. A variety of programs exist within the department, as we have said time and again, to help workers find new placement and to help companies forced to proceed to massive layoffs carry out studies and assess what the future holds for them.
What good does that do? I spoke to some of the families involved after that intervention and they could not believe their eyes or their ears.
The minister went on to say in response to my supplementary question:
It is important to sit down with the employer and the worker and figure out precisely what their needs are for the future.
I can tell you what their needs are for the future. I have been telling this House and the government since February 19 what their needs are. Their needs are some money, some income, some subsistence to put bread and butter and something a little more than bread and butter which the average Canadian has become accustomed to, on their table. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. I do not think I am asking for very much. I do not think it is very difficult for the government to find this money. I do not care where it gets it. I know it is strapped for money.
We are talking about $2 million or maybe less. The only recourse for these people other than to have me get up and plead their case, and others who will plead when I sit down, is to apply for social services. I am saying that all Canadians, not just Newfoundlanders, have respect. They do not like to apply for social assistance. When they are strapped, they have no alternative.
Social services pays them $7,200 a year maximum for a family and that is about one-third the average income in my riding, one-quarter the average income in Newfoundland and one seventh the average income in Canada. Most of them have not done that yet, because they have self respect. Some of them have had to do it.
I am hoping that within a couple of days, tomorrow, Friday, the end of this week, there will be some compassion and benevolence. I do not like to use those words. I do not like to beg. I am not used to begging. The people I represent are not used to begging. They have not begged me but they have asked me, implored me. They are desperate and I am close to desperate also. I am not
saying this to take credit for the effort but I do not know where else to go.
On May 8, when I finished speaking in this House and got the response to my question, I then wrote to the minister. I said: "This is a serious situation. It needs immediate response". It is now May 21 and I have not even had a phone call. No response. I do not know where to go. If I thought doing a handstand in this House, other than provoking the leader to ask me to behave in a more responsible parliamentary manner, if I thought that would get some action from the government, I would do it. I know you would not agree with that, but when a person is desperate they resort to desperate means. I would bring my guitar and sing a song if I thought that would help.


An hon. member:: You can do it.


Fred J. Mifflin: The Speaker says I can do it. His background I guess in athletics would probably want him to see me do it.
Having been challenged, I am not sure it is the kind of thing I would want to do anyway.
The point I am making is what can I do to get attention? I am not looking for media attention. I am not looking for attention from anybody. I want action. I want some results. I want somebody from that side of the House to say: "We believe you have a problem. We believe those 70 families on the Bonavista Peninsula have a problem because the government reduced the northern cod quota, because there was not much there to begin with because the foreigners all caught it, because the government has not the political will to do something about it. It needs to take some action".
I do not mean action of the Rio conference at which there are 30,000 people and 75 heads of state and the thing goes on for a week or so. The last time that was tried was down in Dartmouth a week ago with no results. They say you have to go to the countries. The countries say you have to go to the European Community.
We are not going to make too many points with that crowd that way.
Until we see some political will to do something that will cause the northern cod to increase, to have a quota that is reasonable that will allow the plant to open, which is what these people want and is what I want, let us have a bit of compassion.
May 21, 1992

Private Members' Business
I know there are members enough for that. I do not name them because I do not operate that way. I have spoken to members on that side of the House. They understand where I am coming from. They would like to do something and I will ask those members to go to their ministers and tell them the situation, how desperate it is, and that a member of Parliament is pleading their case and is looking for compassion, benevolence, help. I will put any name to it and accept it as long as the compensation is there.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here this afternoon and be able to participate in this debate that has been initiated by my friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, the neighbouring constituency to mine in that part of Conception Bay where the ridings come together.
It would be trite for me to say unfortunate, but the particular situation that my friend talks about is exactly that. It is a situation that unfortunately to some extent we are all confronted with one way or the other. Those we are most familiar with have been affected the most by the decisions as he says, albeit necessary, that have had to be taken to properly manage our fisheries so that in the future we have a resource that is of value to all of the families and the communities that he talks of; not only the community of Catalina and those communities in that area, but the communities that exist all through Atlantic Canada, through Quebec and different parts of the country.
He talks about compassion and benevolence. While he seeks compassion and benevolence he would be the first to agree that he is not saying they are lacking. I do not have that many fishermen in my constituency; about 300. I see exactly the same situation that he sees.
The minister of fisheries has about 1,200 fishermen in his constituency. He has seen the fish plant in the town of Trepassey with upward of 800 people close down. He has seen a number of other smaller plants in his constituency close down.
There is not a man I have met in politics, and granted I have been associated with him for well over 17 years in politics, who has more compassion and inclination for benevolence as a personal commitment. It is the way he conducts his life.
As minister of fisheries it has been damn difficult for him. He is someone who we all agree has displayed a commitment to try to make it better within the constraints of the capacities of science and within the constraints of the fiscal capacity of the government.
Just last week the minister met with the fishermen and the union from the south coast in St. John's. Not completely satisfied with the results, he has dispatched his senior fisheries advisor to go to the south coast to personally do an assessment of what is happening. That reflects the type of commitment that the minister of fisheries has in dealing with these things.
He was in Grand Banks two weeks ago and met with the community. I talked to the mayor of Grand Banks 10 days ago. He was delighted with the visit. The minister has been able to save a number of fish plants except the one in his own riding, the one in Trepassey. He and I share responsibility for the city of St. John's. He has worked very hard to try and save that fish plant in St. John's.
How do you approach these things? As members in this House know, the government has taken a multi-faceted approach. We talked about dealing with the overfishing problem. We have had many debates in this House and a number of the members I see here participated with me and with other members in an effort to bring some focus to this issue and that process is ongoing.
We must clearly deal better with our capacity in science and that is something that a considerable amount of resources have been expended on. We are finally involving those people to participate in the resource so that there is a resource there that is predictable, that is definable and that we can better manage. The whole concept of underutilized species product development diversification is another that we have expanded into in which there is much more work going on in small communities in Newfoundland and Labrador to big market development and promotions through Asia and Europe, something that we all benefit from.
What does it matter if we do not have fish? It does not at lot. We must act to make sure that we have fish down the road. There have been a number of communities through Atlantic Canada and into Quebec that have been affected by a lack of fish and the inability to catch fish because limits have been put in place. What happens

Private Members' Business
to them, as my friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception asks? What are they supposed to do?
We all know there has been an investment of almost $600 million to deal with fisheries adjustment in Atlantic Canada. It has taken on a number of combinations and permutations. One of the initiatives that is underway now that I think is particularly important and would be endorsed by all of the members of this House is the task force on incomes and adjustment that is being headed by Richard Cashin, the President of the Newfoundland Fishermen's Food and Allied Workers Union in St. John's. Forty-five million dollars have been set aside for pilot projects in this area.
The approach here is to take this on in two phases. The first phase would be an interim assessment of the resource, the industry and those employed in it. The second phase would be to prepare for the minister and the government a set of recommendations on an adjustment strategy and recommend communities in the region that can and will be helped.
There have been a whole series of short-term measures and emergency responses to particular problems like the one that my friend has spoken about. There have been programs for catch failure. There have been programs designed to respond to ice conditions. There have been very specific programs put in place to provide for training for those people who have been laid off from fish plants.
In my own constituency of St. John's East in the community of Belle Island we have been able to develop a heavy equipment program. That has come from the commitment of the faculty of the community college there and of the community.
The great advantage is that we have been able to solve two or three problems at once. Most of the people who have gone through that program have been plant workers who had been laid off in closed fish plants.
We get the benefit of the heavy equipment program on Belle Isle, the community with a 70 per cent unemployment rate, a community that was abandoned in 1965. Now we are beginning to see some real initiatives there. At the same time, we are training plant workers who have been laid off.
It is the community-based approach that has evolved from the old IAS strategy supported through Community Futures, that has developed as we have committees in place to bring together, not only the training needs and employment opportunities, but the economic diversification opportunities.
For the last three years we have seen and I am directly familiar with emergency response programs. For instance, in the community of Cupids we were finally able to open up a channel and put some cribbing into a small boat basin, a pond as we call it. We have that facility but more important, last year we had a number of people who were able to get employment through that program.
We have seen it in other communities. I use it only as an example of good work and creative responses.
There are people who do not always get taken up. There are safety nets which we hope will deal with these. So many have been taken care of. In times of hardship and difficulty the likes of which many of us have never seen before and have only heard about, the concern that my friend expresses on behalf of his constituents is one that all of us feel.
Frankly, be they fishermen or be they farmers or people laid off in manufacturing industries, in communities that depend on the manufacturing sector, the compassion that he talks about and that he displays is one that many of us have and share. That is why we have evolved the programs that we have. That is why so many of these things have been put into place. That is why the government continues to respond in many different ways to make sure that we have a fishery in the future that can support our communities and our individuals.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, do I have 10 minutes or are we only going until six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We just go until six o'clock on Standing Orders. I regret it is only after supply motion that we could take the whole hour.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to an allocation of time for the committee stage of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
May 21, 1992

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage of the bill.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this matter on behalf of the Official Opposition.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, you said it ended at six o'clock. We have a couple of minutes left. On a subject of this importance I would have thought that we would have gone right to the wire, even if it ended at six o'clock. I see that with three minutes to go we are into other subjects.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Your colleague has just raised another point of order.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to be brief.
In view of the importance of this motion, it is imperative that we look at the reality.
The reality is there are a number of people, a number of families, in dire straits, in dire need. It is not time to talk about training programs, it is not time to talk about anything else. It is time to talk about the need. These people do not qualify for training programs. They do not qualify for unemployment insurance. What they are looking for is some emergency assistance.
The government has seen fit to find emergency funds in other areas of the country for other reasons. It found funds for the gulf war, a very important issue.


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.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the minister made the point that the parties could not agree on a Standing Order with respect to debate and therefore he is moving this motion under Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2).
I am told that nobody on behalf of the government consulted with anybody in the Official Opposition, so it seems to stretch credulity to get up and say agreement
Adjournment Debate
could not be reached when the minister with a straight face never even bothered to speak to anybody on this.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a debatable motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT

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

David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, after that performance it certainly makes all of us over here wonder what kind of people we are dealing with on the government side.
On April 8 I asked the Minister of Finance if he could possibly see his way through to ending the benign indifference with which he has treated the provinces, his fiscal partners in this country. There does not seem to be any such thing as a have province at the moment.
The current recession has affected every single province adversely. Ontario, which was long known as a prosperous economic engine of Canada, has been dealt extremely punishing blows by a combination of high real interest rates and an uncompetitive exchange rate in the Canada-U.S Free Trade Agreement.
In my own province of Alberta about 80,000 people in the oil and gas industry have lost their jobs since 1986, largely because of unprofitable conditions in the industry. About half of the industry work force is now out of the industry.
Those conditions have been exacerbated by Ottawa's obsession with monetary policy, a deflationary direction that has been continued by the current Minister of Finance with the result that 110,000 of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs in March and April alone this year.
The oil and gas industry is the engine of growth in our province, the province which is also the home of the finance minister. Currently there are 432 drilling rigs available in Alberta but only 132 of them are in use, leaving 300 idle. A firm's rigs utilization to break even should be at about 55 per cent and 65 per cent to secure a reasonable rate of return.

Adjournment Debate
Statistics Canada estimates that the oil and gas companies will cut capital spending by 14 per cent this year and $5.7 billion in 1981 to $4.98 billion. The biggest cut will occur in the exploration and development drilling which will fall 17 per cent from 1991 levels to about $1.9 billion.
These are statistics which the government says translate somehow into afterward picture. I can guarantee those people opposite that these facts indicate no such thing. They mean that 46,000 people are unemployed in my city of Edmonton. There are 28 per cent more people living below the poverty line this year than last year.
It means 98,000 food hampers were distributed to men, women and children in Edmonton last year. The Canada Assistance Program is a shared cost fiscal agreement between the federal government and the provinces. In the 1990 federal budget the government decided the so-called have provinces should be limited to a 5 per cent increase annually in their entitlements under CAP until 1992.
The 1991 federal budget extended this unilateral action until 1995. This type of fiscal terrorism is just one way the current government is sowing the seeds of division in our country.
I said that the minister is playing shell games with provincial transfer payments and I repeat the allegation today. Can the minister or his agents give this House an indication as to what concrete steps they have taken to co-operate with Ontario, B.C., and Alberta in order to come to a reasonable agreement on increases in CAP transfers? If no such assurances are given, can we assume this government is presiding over the destruction of federal-provincial fiscal relationship? Have they no sense of responsibility, no sense of Canadians as a national family, no ability to see Canada as a single great nation?


Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the government is very much aware of the fact that the slowing down has deeply affected some Canadians. However, the social safety net in Canada, which includes the federal unemployment insurance program as well as the various welfare programs cost-shared by the two levels of government, is especially aimed at helping Canadians through such hard times.
The federal government has clearly increased the amount of assistance provided through these programs, and that has helped make the situation easier to bear.

The total amount of federal UI program benefits going to unemployed Canadians has grown at an average rate of 8.8 per cent per year. Furthermore, the federal share of social assistance payments to the needy has gone up from $4 billion in 1984-85 to $6.6 billion in 1991-92.
Federal expenditures in these two programs will grow by 10 per cent, which means that in 1993 the funds available will grow by $2.3 billion over 1991-92 to help the needy and unemployed through these programs.
In putting a ceiling on payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, we are simply asking the three fiscally stronger provinces, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, to help contain the federal share of welfare costs to increases of 5 per cent per year.
The federal deficit control plan is already making its impact on the Canadian economy in the form of lower inflation rates and lower interest rates.
In conclusion, this government believes that the best income security for Canadians is a job. Our record speaks for itself. Since 1984 over 1.3 million jobs have been created. The number of persons living in low income as defined by Statistics Canada dropped from 4.4 million in 1984 to 3.8 million in 1990.
An effective healthy economy that provides jobs for Canadians will mean that fewer and fewer Canadians will depend upon welfare and UI.


BEEF INDUSTRY
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 6,1 asked the Minister of Agriculture why Canadian consumers are not being informed that the imported beef they are buying in Canada may well be cheap, tough U.S. cow beef. This is no roll beef or ungraded beef coming in mainly from the United States.
On April 12, 1989,1 first raised this issue in the House during Question Period. At that time one million pounds of this product per week were coming into Canada. The minister at the time responded that there must be a need for this product or it would not be coming in. Two years later it was not one million pounds per week but it was 3 million pounds a week coming into Canada.
May 21, 1992

During this time five beef packing plants closed in Ontario and others across Canada, and the Ontario and Quebec feed lot industry is put under further pressure.
Finally in March 1991, after two years of pressure the minister responded: "I have instructed my officials", to take the necessary steps to require the United States, whether with graded or ungraded beef, to identify it for consumers. We believe Canadian consumers have the right to know the exact grade and origin of their beef, and we are going to ensure that happens". That was in March 1991.
The regulations have been changed but they only require the container to be marked as ungraded and not the meat. This is a fraud because Canadian consumers still will not know the grade of product they are buying.
Further to this in his answer on May 6 the minister stated that Canada is working with the United States to harmonize our inspection systems. This is clearly unacceptable.
As was shown on ABC Prime Time Live on April 30, the United States streamlined inspection system is a disaster. The plants have their own inspectors and carcasses that have fallen on the floor or are contaminated with faeces are allowed to pass after they wash off the faeces. These conditions are deplorable and are even worse in the poultry industry according to media reports from within the United States.
I ask this government again: Will it ensure Canadian consumers and producers that our health and inspection standards will never be compromised, and that we place the health of our people first and foremost; that it will bring in regulations that will require that all imported meat must be clearly marked with the Canadian grade equivalent and the country of origin in a manner that is clearly visible to Canadian consumers.
Finally, I am appalled that in the midst of all these pressures some of the few remaining feed lot operators are still waiting for their third and fourth quarter payments for 1991 under the tripartite stabilization program. How can our Canadian producers compete under such conditions?
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. colleague's concerns.
On April 5, 1992 a regulatory amendment became effective requiring imported beef to be clearly identified with the grade of the exporting country if the product was graded or to be marked ungraded if that were the case. In essence, all beef entering Canada must now have this labelling requirement clearly indicated. This regulatory amendment is enforced at all federally registered establishments in Canada.
The requirement for beef grade identification at the consumer level is one that is within the jurisdiction of our colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Canada. It is my understanding that retail guidelines have been issued by my hon. colleague to ensure that labelling and advertising requirements relating to beef are clearly understood by all sectors of the Canadian meat retail industry.
In addition, Agriculture Canada will be participating in a meeting with officials from industry and C&CAC, as well as the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food, to determine what action can be taken at the provincial level to further inform the consumer of the considerable progress that has been made in regard to better informing the Canadian consumer.
Continued efforts by both the department and all those affected will assist the consumer in making an informed choice when selecting beef at the supermarket. Under no circumstances will the Canadian government allow our inspection system or the quality of our products to be compromised in any way. We know that prime time television on April 30 did a program which was somewhat sensationalistic, and inaccurate statements were made on that segment about the U.S. beef industry. It is damaging to the meat industry whether it be in Canada or in the United States, and it did not serve the Canadian producers of beef in any way.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no points of order heard during the late show.

May 21, 1992
Adjournment Debate NATIONAL DEFENCE


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I will proceed on this point and try not to intervene in your difference of opinion with the member from Kingston.
On March 9, 1992 I asked a question of the Prime Minister, which was eventually answered by the Associate Minister of National Defence, on the issue of a new version of Star Wars, this one going under the unlikely and implausible name of GPALS which stands for Global Protection Against Limited Strikes, once again an acronym designed to lull the public into thinking that what we are talking about here is something benign.
What we really have here is the American space military complex coming up with another version of the Strategic Defence Initiative, an idea touted by President Reagan, an idea which was at the time bizarre and expensive, and which is now being recognized as a bizarre, expensive and gross waste of human and financial resources.
The SDI proposal, the Star Wars proposal, depended on having an enemy, and the enemy was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has now collapsed so the same industry has to come up with another idea in order to keep itself going, in order to suck public funds primarily out of the American taxpayer, but as well out of the world economy, and they are coming to Canada to try to sell this project to the Canadian government.
The project finds a new enemy; this time, fortunately, they have Saddam Hussein and they have the example of the Scud missiles. So they come forward touting this idea that maybe we should invest billions of dollars in trying to set up a space based defence against ballistic missiles, not coming from the Soviet Union across the pole or elsewhere to North America, but they conjure up the idea of ballistic missiles coming from places like Libya or Iraq to cities in North America. They build on the fear that was generated during the gulf war of scud missiles, a fear generated by Saddam Hussein and now being exploited by the purveyors of this bizarre idea.
I call on the government to ensure that while it seeks information about this, it is made clear right at the outset that Canada is not going to spend one dollar of Canadian taxpayers' money on this bizarre scheme; second, that we recognize it will not provide an ounce of protection against scud missiles or ballistic missiles; third, that it is a breach of the anti-ballistic missile treaty in which Canada and the international community has a critical stake; fourth, that because it involves putting weapons in space it goes directly counter to Canadian policy promoted at the United Nations.
Whatever information we seek about this bizarre proposal, we make it clear at the outset that we will have nothing to do with it and we urge the American government to have nothing to do with it, and we make that plea on behalf of the Canadian people.
In 1985 the external affairs and defence committee came out against Star Wars. It should not be necessary for us to do that again, and I call on the government to make clear its opposition to this ludicrous proposal.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, we all know that while attention to the cold war is quickly fading, the recent gulf war demonstrated the real threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems.
In response to this concern, the Prime Minister outlined Canadian initiatives in a speech in Washington this morning. This speech in turn followed upon an exhaustive program outlined by the Prime Minister and the SSEA in other speeches in February 1991.
It is in this broad context that the ballistic missile defence must be considered. While recognizing the need to respond to threats Canada also wishes to ensure that any proposal in the area of ballistic missile defence is stabilizing in nature.
We therefore welcome the fact that the U.S.A. 1991 missile defence act prudently stipulates that the initial U.S.A. BMD system should not contravene the United States anti-ballistic missile treaty with the former U.S.S.R. or authorize the deployment of weapons in space.
Moreover we have welcomed the broad co-operative approach the United States government has taken, particularly the ongoing U.S.A-Russia dialogue and the program of consultation taking place with other interested countries.
This is all taking place against the historic co-operation between the United States and Russia in reducing their nuclear arsenals. We hope all these activities will permit new co-operative approaches to common security-
May 21, 1992

Beyond these general points, Canada has not taken a decision regarding possible participation in the proposed U.S.A. BMD programs. We have indicated our willingness to engage in consultations with the United States concerning the details of the American proposal and its implications for Canada.
The views of other countries will also be of interest and this process is likely to take some time. Canada has long enjoyed a close bilateral defence relationship with the United States, particularly in NORAD, and ballistic missile defence is not a NORAD function.
Any changes to NORAD's mandate would have to be the subject of negotiations between the United States and Canadian governments and neither side has indicated any intention to reopen the agreement which, under its present terms, was renewed for five years in May 1991.


DENISON MINES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on March 10 I put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration because at that time we had received an announcement that Denison Mines in Elliot Lake would be laying off 1,000 workers during the ensuing few weeks.
This represents a tremendous blow to this community of some 13,000 people. Over 80 per cent of the mining labour force has been laid off in the last two and a half years. Earlier in 1990 there were some 2,400 people laid off at the two operating mines, Denison and Rio Algom in that community.
I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration what action would be taken because the government has been providing very substantial funding for the 2,400 who had been laid off previously. I am told that in the 1991-92 fiscal year some $2.3 million had been provided for adjustment and training of workers who had been laid off.
I have been advised by the Community Futures officer, Mr. Craege McQuarrie, last evening that their estimates now will be only some $600,000. What the government should be doing is increasing the last year's funding by some 50 per cent rather than cutting it by 75 per cent as seems to be the case.
The minister was quite forthcoming in his response in the House. He said: "I know this is a serious blow to that community and I am ready to work with the hon. member and officials of my department are ready to sit down with those people to see how we can help them adjust to the situation in question". I hope this evening
Adjournment Debate
the parliamentary secretary will be able to come forward and say yes, the minister was not talking through his hat. The minister meant what he said in the House on March 10. He is committed to providing the additional funding that will be required for training, for not only pre-vocational training at the high school level, for the literacy training at the elementary level, but also for the community college courses and the skill courses.
This is a community with many thousands of men and women who require this kind of training and upgrading. The government talks about providing increased training and adjustment funds but, there have been serious cutbacks. We only have to listen to Question Period to know that there have been serious cutbacks.
We want the government to live up to the commitment that the minister made in the House a few weeks ago and say that it will provide these additional training allowances and support programs to help adjust the lives of these miners who were laid off at Denison Mines and Rio Algom Mines during this past couple of years.
It is not only important that the funds be provided but that they be provided in a flexible way so that people can receive the assistance they need and get it in an orderly way so it does not turn their personal lives into turmoil, as has occurred in many cases in the past.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, Employment and Immigration Canada offers a wide range of programs and services to assist unemployed individuals in the Elliot Lake area.
These programs and services have proven very successful throughout the country in helping unemployed individuals and communities facing economic difficulties.
Through the Canadian Jobs Strategy, Employment and Immigration Canada provided the Elliot Lake region with more than $8 million in assistance in 1989-90 and another $8 million was budgeted in 1991-92.
Last year the Canada Employment Centre staff was increased in Elliot Lake to provide additional counselling services in the areas of training and mobility to meet the needs of the laid-off workers at Denison Mines.
There are several programs and committees in place now to deal with the recent lay-offs at Denison Mines. The joint consultative committee is up and running, the Community Futures Program is already in place and a Canada Employment and Immigration Centre joint planning group made up of regional Canada Employment Centres and adjustment services staff has been established.

May 21, 1992
Adjournment Debate
In addition, a community training co-ordination committee was established to priorize needs and to make decisions as to training purchases. Obviously the tripling of the fee payer program funding in Ontario by $125 million will benefit unemployed workers in Elliot Lake who need retraining. EIC is providing assistance to the Elliot Lake area and, as in the past, we will help the laid-off workers adjust to this difficult situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 22, 1992