1992-11-26

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning with some reluctance. I do not believe that the behaviour of a legislative committee chair has been brought to the attention of the House before.
I want to say that the hon. member for Ontario, who is the chair of the legislative committee for Bill C-91 looking into the Patent Act is, of course, the Speaker's delegate appointed by the Speaker, was not elected, and reports through the Speaker to the House.
This chair is charged with maintaining the same role in committee as the Speaker is in the House. He must remain impartial. This is important. He must sustain the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority.
Very briefly I want to refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, section 168, where it
says:
Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality.
It is with a heavy heart that I have to report to the House that last night, and also this morning, the chair of the legislative committee spoke in a very partisan way to the media about the proceedings of the legislative committee regarding Bill C-91.
The fact that he spoke to the media is perhaps open to some question but that he made a number of comments-I will not read them out to the House this morning-that were very partisan, very critical of certain
members and very critical of the opposition's role in the proceedings, is not carrying on the tradition that we have come to know and respect in this House through you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask if you would review this situation. It is most unacceptable. Because of the now common use of time allocation and closure, much of the important debate on bills goes on in the various legislative committees since it does not occur in the House.
Therefore to maintain the impartiality of the chair, as you do in this House, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps even more critical than ever considering the need for open debate and the chair ensuring not only the will of the majority but the fact that the role of the opposition is recognized.
I wonder about the appropriateness of the member for Ontario continuing on in that role because of this breach of impartiality.
I would ask that in order to enable that committee to proceed as a legislative committee ought to proceed, you look into this matter at your earliest convenience.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that my friend from Kamloops said this was a very unusual thing to be doing. He is seeking to do in the House what ought to remain within the committee.
I do not think it is appropriate to comment on the substance of what he is alleging. What is before us is whether it is appropriate for you to deal with the conduct of a legislative committee. As the House is well aware the committee has been striving to deal with this legislation for a number of days now and is encountering what I can only describe as filibustering from the other side.
To come to the heart of the matter, the problem is not time allocation. The problem is the committee dealing with the issue of the bill before it. On the matter that my hon. friend has raised I would just draw his attention to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 760(3):

Point of Order
The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent
for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees.
Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.
The matter begins and ends there.


Mr. Speaker:: I may not need very much more advice on this matter, but I will hear from the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, let me confirm what my colleague from the New Democratic Party has said concerning the behaviour of this particular committee chairperson.
The parliamentary secretaiy opposite has made a timely intervention but the only appeal that we have is to you, Mr. Speaker, who presides over this Chamber. As indicated previously, this particular chairperson is a delegate of yourself.
I hope you will reflect on the comments which have been made with regard to this particular chairperson. The activities that are taking place in the committee are highly unusual in view of the large number of witnesses which have been requested.
I do not want to get into a substantive debate on that particular point, but I think the Chair should make a careful examination as to exactly what is taking place in this particular instance.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has raised a matter rising out of a legislative committee and he has cited to the House some appropriate procedural law with respect to the role of the Speaker. He has reminded the House that particularly the chairman, who is the subject of this intervention is, of course, appointed by the Chair.
However the hon. member for Kamloops has restrained himself, and I think properly so, from getting into substantial debate here on the floor of the House as to what was said. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has also constrained himself and I appreciate that. I thank him for not getting into the substance of the debate.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has pointed out that generally speaking the Chair does not interfere with the
affairs of a committee. I understand because I have been apprised of this and I thank the hon. member for Kamloops for saying that the matter has been at least partially raised in committee this morning.
The proper course is for the committee to deal with it further if the committee so wishes. I would hope that the matter would be satisfactorily resolved there. At least for now that is where I am going to leave it.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is normal practice in the Chamber that when a member's behaviour is brought up on the floor of the House, that member be notified and generally would be present. I think the record should show that the member in question is not present and has not had an opportunity to make comment, if that member feels aggrieved in some way.


Mr. Speaker:: That certainly is the usual custom and I thank the hon. member for reminding the House of it. However, in view of what has been said and in view of my response, that is where the matter should be left at the moment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pursue this matter but I want to seek clarification.
Since the matter was raised earlier today in the committee at the appropriate place, and the chair of the committee simply ruled out any further discussion, I take, not from your ruling but from your suggestion, that this ought to be pursued in the committee as opposed to the floor of the House of Commons. If we still have a grievance with the Chair that is the place where it should be raised. Is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops is correct. I have been apprised of how far it has gone in the committee. It is up to the committee and up to members to decide whether they wish to take it any further in the committee. For now that is where it should be left.
Again I am very conscious of what the hon. member for Calgary West has said. Ordinarily, if we were going to get into the substance of the complaint, I would not have proceeded without the chairman being here. Under the circumstances that is where we ought to leave it for now.
November 26, 1992



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday November 25, consideration of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 2. The vote on this motion will apply to Motions Nos. 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 2 lost. Therefore Motions Nos. 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are declared lost as well.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Gagliano:: Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for applying the vote just held to Motions Nos. 7, 21, 27, 44, 49, 57, 58, 68, 74, 91 and 92.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's suggestion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consequently Motions Nos. 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 48, 51, 53, 55, 60, 62, 64, 66, 72, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87 and 89 are lost as well.


Mrs. Venne:: Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote during the previous vote, and I simply want to say that on the other votes I intend to vote the same way as the Bloc Quebecois.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's vote will be added to the list.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 7 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 21.
The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was
negatived on the following division:
November 26, 1992

Government Orders
	(Division No. 340)	Lopez MacKay	MacDougall (Timiskaming) Martin (Lincoln)
		Mayer	Mazankowski
		McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
		Merrithew	Mitges
	YEAS	Monteith	Moore
		Nicholson	Oberle
		O'Kurley	Paprosld
	Members	Reid	Reimer
		Ricard	Richardson
		Saint-Julien	Schneider
Althouse	Angus	Shields	SiddonArseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Sobeski	SoetensAxworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bellemare	Sparrow	StevensonBevilacqua	Blackburn (Brant)	Tardif	TetreaultBlaikie	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Thacker	ThompsonBoudria	Brewin	Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)Caccia	Clancy	"Rimer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourtde Jong	Dingwall	Van De Walle	VezinaDuceppe	Duhamel	Vien	VincentEdmonston	Finestone	Weiner	WhiteFoster	Fulton	Wilbee	Winegard -110Funk	Gaffney	Gagliano	Gardiner	PAIRED MEMBERSGauthier	Gerin	Harb	Harvard	Karpoff	Keyes	Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso)	nil/aucun	Lee	MacAulay	
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Marchi
McCurdy
Milliken
Murphy
Nystrom
Peterson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stupich
Venne
Wappel
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-67
MacLellan
Manley
Marleau
Mifflin
Mills
Nowlan
Parent
Pickard
Riis
Rompkey
Stewart
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Whittaker


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 21 lost. Consequently Motions Nos. 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 and 42 are declared lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 27.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 27 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 44.
The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was
negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Members
Alt house	Angus
Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare
Bevilacqua	Blackburn (Brant)
Blaikie	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boudria	Brew in
Caccia	Clancy
de Jong	Dingwall
Duceppe	Du ham el
Edmonston	Finestone
Foster	Rilton
Funk	Gaffney
Gagliano	Gardiner
Gauthier	Germ
Harb	Harvard
Karpoff	Keyes
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacAulay
MacLaren	MacLellan
MacWilliam	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
McCurdy	Mifflin
Milliken	Mills
Murphy	Nowlan
Nystrom	Parent
Peterson	Pickard
Rideout	Riis
Rocheleau	Rompkey
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	Stewart
Stupich	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne	Volpe
Wappel	Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-67 Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
Bertrand	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquifcre)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)
Cole	Collins
Cook	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dick
Dobbie	Domm
Dorin	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fretz	Friesen
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de- la-Madeleine)
Greene	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Hawkes	Hicks
Hockin	Hogue
Holtmann	Homer
Jacques	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Lewis	Loiselle
November 26, 1992

Government Orders
Lopez
MacKay
Mayer
McDermid
Merrithew
Monteith
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Reid
Ricard
Saint-Julien
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Thrdif
Thacker
Thorkelson
TUrner (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle
Vien
Weiner
Wilbee
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski
McDougaU (St. Paul's)
Mitges
Moore
Oberle
Paproski
Reimer
Richardson
Schneider
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vezina
Vincent
White
Winegard -110


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 44 lost. Consequently Motions Nos. 46, 48, 51, 53 and 55 are declared lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 49.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 49 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 57.
The House divided on Motion No. 57, which was
negatived on the following division:

November 26, 1992
Government Orders (.Division No. 344)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Angus
Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare
Bevilacqua	Blackburn (Brant)
Blaikie	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boudria	Brewin
Caccia	Clancy
de Jong	Dingwall
Duceppe	Duhamel
Edmonston	Finestone
Foster	Fulton
Funk	Gaffney
Gagliano	Gardiner
Gauthier	Gerin
Harb	Harvard
Karpoff	Keyes
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacAulay
MacLaren	MacLellan
MacWilliam	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
McCurdy	Mifflin
Milliken	Mills
Murphy	Nowlan
Nystrom	Parent
Peterson	Pickard
Rideout	Riis
Rocheleau	Rompkey
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	Stewart
Stupich	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne	Volpe
Wappel	Whittaker
Young (Acadie -Bathurst)-67 Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
Bertrand	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)
Cole	Collins
Cook	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dick
Dobbie	Domm
Dorin	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fretz	Friesen
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-fles-de- la-Madeleine)
Greene	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Hawkes	Hicks
Hockin	Hogue
Holtmann	Horner
Jacques	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Lewis	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer	Mazankowski
McDennid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Merrithew	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Paproski
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Shields	Siddon
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thacker	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Thrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	White
Wilbee	Winegard -110



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 57 lost. Consequently Motions Nos. 60, 62, 64 and 66 are declared lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 58.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 58 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 68.
The House divided on Motion No. 68, which was
negatived on the following division:
Althouse
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Boudria
Caccia
de Jong
Duceppe
Edmonston
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gauthier
Harb
Karpoff
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
MacLaren
Mac William
Marchi
McCurdy
Milliken
Murphy
Nystrom
Peterson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stupich
Venne
Wappel
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-67
Anderson
Atkinson
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Cole
Cook
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Desjardins
Dobbie
Dorin
Epp
Feltham
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Gustafson
Hawkes
Hockin
Holtmann
Jacques
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Larrivee
Lewis
++YEAS
Members
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Blackburn (Brant)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brew in
Clancy
Dingwall
Duhamel
Finestone
Fblton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Gerin
Harvard
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Manley
Marleau
Mifflin
Mills
Nowlan
Parent
Pickard
Riis
Rompkey
Stewart
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Whittaker
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Collins
Cooper
Cote
Danis
Della Noce
Dick
Domm
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de- la-Madeleine)
Guilbault
Halliday
Hicks
Hogue
Horner
James
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Loiselle

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer	Mazankowski
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Merrithew	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Paproski
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Shields	Siddon
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tar d if	Tetreault
Thacker	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Timer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	White
Wilbee	Winegard -110



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 68 lost. I also declare Motions Nos. 70, 72, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87 and 89 lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 74.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 74 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 91.
The House divided on Motion No. 91, which was
negatived on the following division:
Althouse
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Boudria
Caccia
de Jong
Duceppe
Edmonston
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gauthier
Harb
Karpoff
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Marchi
McCurdy
Milliken
Murphy
Nystrom
Peterson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stupich
Venne
Wappel
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-67
November 26, 1992

Government Orders
(Division No. 348)		Lopez MacKay	MacDougall (Timiskaming) Martin (Lincoln)
		Mayer	Mazankowski
		McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
	YEAS	Merrithew Monteith	Mitges Moore
		Nicholson	Oberle
	Members	O'Kurley	Paproski
		Reid	Reimer
		Ricard	Richardson
Alt house	Angus	Saint-Julien	SchneiderArseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Shields	SiddonAxworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare	Sobeski	SoetensBevilacqua	Blackburn (Brant)	Sparrow	StevensonBlaikie	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Tardif	TetreaultBoudria	Brewin	Thacker	ThompsonCaccia	Clancy	Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)deJong	Dingwall	Tbrner (Halton-Peel)	ValcourtDuceppe	Duhamel	Van De Walle	VezinaEdmonston	Finestone	Vien	VincentFoster	Fblton	Weiner	WhiteFunk	Gaffney	Wilbee	Winegard-110Gagliano	Gardiner	Gauthier	Gerin	Harb	Harvard	PAIRED-MEMBERS	Karpoff	Keyes	Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	MembersLangdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)	Lee	MacAulay	nil/aucun	MacLaren	MacLellan	MacWilliam	Manley	Marchi McCurdy	Marleau Mifflin	Madam Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 91 lost.	Milliken	Mills	Murphy	Nowlan	Nystrom Peterson	Parent Pickard	The next question is	on Motion No. 92.Rideout	Riis	Rocheleau Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	Rompkey Stewart	The House divided	on Motion No. 92, which wasStupich Venne	Tremblay (Rosemont) Volpe	negatived on the following division:	Wappel	Whittaker	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-67	(Division No. 349)	NAYS	YEASMembers	MembersAnderson	Andre	Althouse	AngusAtkinson	Beatty	Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)Bertrand	Bjomson	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	BellemareBlackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais	Bevilacqua	Blackburn (Brant)Blenkarn	Bosley	Blaikie	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)Bouchard (Roberval)	Brightwell	Boudria	BrewinBrowes	Cadieux	Caccia	ClancyCampbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff	de Jong	DingwallChadwick	Champagne (Champlain)	Duceppe	DuhamelCole	Collins	Edmonston	FinestoneCook	Cooper	Foster	FultonCorbeil	Cot6	Funk	GaffneyCouture	Danis	Gagliano	GardinerDarling	Della Noce	Gauthier	GerinDesjardins	Dick	Harb	HarvardDobbie	Domm	Karpoff	KeyesDorin	Edwards	Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)Epp	Fee	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)Felt ham	Ferland	Lee	MacAulayFretz	Friesen	MacLaren	MacLellanGibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de- la-Madeleine)	MacWilliam	ManleyGreene	Guilbault	Marchi	MarleauGustafson	Halliday	McCurdy	MifflinHawkes	Hicks	Milliken	MillsHockin	Hogue	Murphy	NowlanHoltmann	Horner	Nystrom	ParentJacques	James	Peterson	PickardJelinek	Johnson	Rideout	RiisJoncas	Jourdenais	Rocheleau	RompkeyKempling	Koury	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	StewartLandry	Langlois	Stupich	Tremblay (Rosemont)Larrivee	Layton	Venne	VolpeLewis	Loiselle	Wappel Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-67	Whittaker
Government Orders



Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
RBertrand	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)
Cole	Collins
Cook	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dick
Dobbie	Domm
Dorin	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fretz	Friesen
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de- la-Madeleine)
Greene	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Hawkes	Hicks
Hockin	Hogue
Holtmann	Horner
Jacques	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Lewis	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer	Mazankowski
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Merrithew	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Paproski
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Shields	Siddon
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thacker	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Turner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	White
Wilbee	Winegard -110



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 92 lost.
\ English]


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think, Madam Speaker, you would find a predisposition in the House to take the votes just concluded and apply them in reverse to the concurrence motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the vote to be applied in reverse to the concurrence
motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Members
Althouse
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Boudria
Caccia
de Jong
Duceppe
Edmonston
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gauthier
Harb
Karpoff
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex -Windsor)
Lee
MacLaren
Mac William
Marchi
McCurdy
Milliken
Murphy
Nystrom
Peterson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stupich
Venne
Wappel
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-67
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Blackburn (Brant)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brew in
Clancy
Dingwall
Duhamel
Finestone
Fulton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Gerin
Harvard
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Manley
Marleau
Mifflin
Mills
Nowlan
Parent
Pickard
Riis
Rompkey
Stewart
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Whittaker

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, to the House the 15th and 16th reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
These reports concern meetings of a subcommittee on the southern region of the North Atlantic Assembly which was held in Israel September 9 to September 13 and a Rose Roth Seminar on Regional Stability in the Balkans which was held in Athens, Greece, from October 10 to October 15, 1992.


REPORT OF CANADIAN GROUP ON 88TH CONFERENCE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Group of ^Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at the 88th Interparliamentary Conference in Stockholm, Sweden, from September 7 to September 12, 1992.
* *
*



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-

[Stage Direction]
53RD AND 54TH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 53rd and 54th reports of the Standing Committee on House Management.

Routine Proceedings
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), these reports are deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


INCOME TAX ACT, THE CANADA PENSION PLAN, THE INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS INTERPRETATION ACT, THE TAX REBATE DISCOUNTING ACT, THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT AND CERTAIN RELATED ACTS MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Ihx Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Income 'lax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Tkx Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance
Act and certain related acts.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. McDermid for the Minister of Finance moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


AN ACT TO APPROVE, GIVE EFFECT TO AND DECLARE VALID THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AND THE GWICH'IN, AS REPRESENTED BY THE GWICH'IN TRIBAL COUNCIL, AND TO AMEND AN ACT IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-94, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Gwich'in, as represented by the Gwich'in Tribal Council, and to amend an act in consequence thereof.


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


BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION (GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS) ACT, 1992 MEASURE TO ENACT FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
John Horton McDermid: for leave to introduce Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. McDermid for the Minister of Finance moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-95, an act to continue the Farm Credit Corporation and to repeal certain acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Mayer for the Minister of Agriculture moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.

November 26, 1992


NOVA SCOTIA COURTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-96, an act to amend the Judges Act and other acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in Nova Scotia.


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


MARINE INSURANCE ACT
Thomas Edward Siddon: for leave to introduce Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Mr. Siddon for the Minister of Transport moves that the bill be now read a first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


MURAL CITY OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-378, an act declaring the city of Welland to be the mural city of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, with all this applause I am encouraged to proceed with the bill.
Routine Proceedings
Welland, one of the cities in my riding, features an amazing outdoor art gallery made up of 28 huge murals around the city, some as big as 20 feet by 40 feet. Every year we get bus loads of visitors, literally thousands of people regularly coming to Welland to see the murals.
It all started in the early 1980s when the city was in economic trouble and the downtown core was in decline. At that time a group of citizens formed what they called the promote Welland task force which was headed by Mr. Ken Jensen and Mr. John Van Kouten. Hundreds of volunteers, 12 committees and 17 Canadian artists later, and we have a unique Canadian project in our city and a dream which is fast becoming a lasting reality for all of us in Welland and in the riding.
I heartily recommend this bill to all my colleagues in the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Parent moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.
5k * s|e


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, could perhaps intervene in a situation which I think may require the guidance of the Chair.
The Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship has had in his hands for quite some time a report from the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. That report is entitled Paying too Dearly and is with regard to the Court Challenges Program.
Under the rules the minister has so many days in which to table a comprehensive response. However, as a result of the referendum and the House being closed and cabinet not being in session, the minister was unable to do that.

November 26, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I raised this matter last Thursday, October 19, in the House. The minister was present and gave an answer, and I am quoting from Hansard at page 13659:
Madam Speaker, consistent with the policy of the government and the House I am now waiting to consult my cabinet colleagues. The appropriate appearance will be taking place before a cabinet committee at a very early opportunity. I am now waiting for that appearance to take place.
I am seeking guidance from the Chair. I appreciate that the minister had difficulty. I think we have been more than reasonable in terms of allowing the minister to try to meet with his colleagues in order to present his report and thereafter his response to the House.
I do not seek a ruling at this point in time, but I seek guidance of the Chair in that it is in conflict with the Standing Orders as I read them. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could not undertake to come back to this House later this day to give us a specific day as to when the minister will give the response as he is supposed to under the provisions of the Standing Orders. I ask that of my friend and colleague, the parliamentary secretary.
At the same time I seek guidance from the Chair as to what the Chair might be able to do in terms of facilitating this process and receiving that important report.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify. I thought I heard my hon. friend say that the exchange between himself and the minister had taken place on October 19.


David Charles Dingwall: November 19.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: November 19, of course, because the House was not sitting on October 19. This was precisely one week ago today. It would not be unreasonable to give the minister a little more time.
I am aware there are numerous meetings of cabinet going on. I believe there is one going on today. I have no idea whether or not this matter is on that agenda. However I will undertake to my hon. friend, the opposition House leader, to make inquiries and to get back to him just as soon as I practically can.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the response of the hon. parliamentary secretary. I would imagine that he will come back to the House as soon as possible, as he has said he would. I am sure the hon. opposition House leader will get the answer that he is expecting shortly; if not, I am sure he will bring it that to the Chair's attention.
In the meantime I do not think the Chair has to interfere at this point, but we will be waiting patiently for the parliamentary secretary's answer.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague opposite for the undertaking, but I do want to share with the Chair that time is of importance here. Although we in the opposition have been very reasonable in awaiting this particular report from the minister's office, we are not prepared to allow this matter to go on for an indefinite period of time.
The parliamentary secretary quite categorically said that he would get back as soon as he could. I would like the parliamentary secretary to be a little more specific as to what the earliest time might be. I clearly got the impression, not a statement, from the minister's intervention on November 19 that we were just around the comer in terms of this report being tabled.
Madam Speaker will know that this House is due to adjourn on December 11. There are many bills which have to come before the House. There is an economic statement. This is a very substantive report with regard to the Court Challenges Program and we believe that the minister ought to respond immediately.
I just give notice to the Chair that this is in breach of the Standing Orders. The parliamentary secretary should take the House into his confidence and tell us when the minister will report to the House. Earliest time is just like saying the cheque is in the mail. I am not prepared to accept that.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, we can debate about words. The phrase that I actually used in responding to my hon. friend, and I chose it very carefully and I thought with maximum helpfulness, was that I will report back to my hon. friend and to the House just as soon as I practically can. I cannot do better than that.
November 26, 1992


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
-	CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce a petition signed by many residents concerning child poverty. In November 1989 this House expressed its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and also committed itself to seek the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
The petitioners are calling on the government to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I have before me a petition which reads as follows. The petitioners point out that the greatest challenges facing our society are not only political and economic but also social, for example, poverty, unemployment, abuse of the elderly, women and children.
They say that we need the humanities and social sciences to solve these problems. They also indicate that the government's proposal to merge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council is an inappropriate setback. They ask that this decision be postponed and in-depth consultation undertaken.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents. Pursuant to Standing Order 36, it has been certified correct as to form and content.
This petition is presented with sadness and also a degree of frustration because I know it was signed by many in anger. In memory of Ryan Garrioch, the signatories from Innisfail, Red Deer, Blackfalds and Sylvan Lake call on this Parliament to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquent act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from people in Manneville, Sainte-Gertrude, Launay, Malartic, Guyenne, Lebel-sur-Quevillon and Val-d'Or in Abitibi. The petitioners say that violent movies on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they incite more violence.
They mention that all toys which incite violent games are unacceptable and should not be made. They also say that the freedom of the press to report acts of violence should be limited and that information on violent acts which is repeated too often on all television stations and on radio can incite others to commit the same acts of violence.
Therefore the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to legislate on the above-mentioned points to eliminate violence in our society in order to protect our children more and give all our fellow citizens a better quality of life.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, this is another petition in the growing number of petitions that I have submitted recently regarding the proposal by Multinational Resources, a company which has intentions of damming a portion of the flow of the North Thompson River and diverting that flow into the California water market.
The residents of Falkland, a community in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap, are concerned about the impact of this water diversion proposal. They urge the government to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh waters to be dammed and diverted into U.S. and possibly Mexican markets and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Madam Speaker, I have the privilege to table a petition in the House today regarding the question of water exports. It relates specifically to a project in northern British Columbia, a proposal to divert a portion of the water from the North Thompson River into what is referred to as Kinbasket Lake for eventual piping out of the Columbia River into California.

November 26, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Water is the life-blood of our country. These Canadians are expressing their concerns about these water export and diversion proposals. They call upon the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed and diverted to the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and present a petition. It is signed by people from all over the province of British Columbia and throughout Alberta who are concerned with the intention of the United States to divert water from Canadian rivers into the United States for use in the San Diego, California, area and other parts of the United States and northern Mexico.
They are concerned that these diversions have not been specifically prohibited either in the free trade agreement or in the proposed North American free trade agreement. They ask this government to specifically and categorically state that it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed and diverted into the United States of America, and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. One is signed by approximately 300 petitioners from Moosomin, Saskatchewan, Vancouver, B.C., and Oko-toks, Alberta.
These people are very disappointed that this government in its ideological frenzy gunned down the most cost effective and socially useful housing program this country ever had, the co-op housing program. They are calling on Parliament to recognize housing as a shared provincial-federal responsibility, to support the federal non-profit co-operative housing program and to maintain the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by approximately 600 residents of my own constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River. These people are surprised that the drug multinationals should be in a panic thinking that perhaps President Clinton will bring in a drug program much like the Canadian one. Therefore they want the puppet regime opposite to move quickly in the
Canadian generic drug industry and Canadian drug plans.
These people are calling on parliamentarians not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 passed in 1987 so that Canadians will have the full benefits from lower priced generic drugs and so that provincial and private drug plans can service Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees or provide less coverage.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who point out in their petition that crimes of violence against the person are intolerable and constitute the most abhorrent crimes that society faces.
They point out that sentencing for crimes of violence does not appropriately reflect society's abhorrence toward violence in order to act as a true deterrent and to protect the public by removal of the offender from society.
Therefore they are asking Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent and that Parliament amend the Criminal Code of Canada accordingly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my second petition points out that progress toward true equality for Canadian women continues to be very slow. They are asking the government to introduce legislation that would end wage discrimination in the federal Public Service.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on another matter, the residents point out again the very sad fact that over one million young Canadians live in poverty and that the government should take action immediately to ensure that all children have an opportunity to live a full and complete life beyond the element of poverty.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, petitioners from western Canada and throughout the prairies, British Columbia and the Yukon are pointing out their deep concern with a company's intention to divert water from the North Thompson river at Vale-mount, British Columbia, in an effort to divert the waters into the San Diego basin in California to sell it.
November 26, 1992

They feel that water ought not to be sold like fish or wood. They point out a renewed interest in the North America water and power alliance and the fact that a firm has just announced its intention to hold hearings in February in California and later in the state of Texas to renew interest in the United States to divert Canadian water to the United States on a grand scale. They are simply pointing out that they oppose this approach. They oppose this project and are asking the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed, diverted into the United States, and to state clearly that our rivers are not for sale here in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the other questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Horton McDermid: that Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Madam Speaker, I rise today with not the easiest job in the world but one that is very necessary. That is to proceed now with third reading of Bill C-63.
I say that for a couple of reasons. Hon. members are all aware of the government announcement in February
Government Orders
1992 in the budget that a total of 46 government agencies, boards, commissions, corporations or advisory bodies would be eliminated or consolidated or perhaps deferred or privatized.
This bill, the Corporate Dissolutions Act, is the first legislative measure giving effect to this commitment. It dissolves six agencies: the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Law Reform Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council.
In order to fully understand the rationale behind Bill C-63 it is very necessary to look at the bill in the broader picture. By this I mean looking at it in terms of the principles that underline the government's decision to restructure and streamline its own operations. This bill is part of the government's initiative to streamline government. In the consolidations leading up to the budget Canadians told us they wanted government to be leaner, more efficient and less expensive, and we have responded.
The government has taken a hard look at how it can eliminate overlap and duplication in its own operations. Bill C-63 is part of this initiative. This bill is also consistent with the thrust of the Nielsen task force which was set up shortly after our government came into office in 1984.
I firmly believe, as do my colleagues on this side of the House, that governments have a fundamental obligation to ensure that their financial resources, the taxpayers' money, are effectively employed. Like the private sector, government must also ask itself tough questions about whether it can afford to do everything it does now. The slow economic growth this country is experiencing has put substantial pressure on the deficit. The recently released numbers for the fiscal year just ended show a deficit of $34.6 billion, the highest in six years.
While the government managed to maintain operational surplus revenues less program spending of $6.6 billion, the interest charges we must pay on the debt are more than six times greater than that surplus; they are $41.2 billion. The total debt itself stands at $422 billion.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
The burden of debt has grown from the legacy we and all Canadians inherited from the previous government. Since 1984 we have run an operational surplus of more than $20 billion. All the growth and the debt since then have come from compounding interest charges on the debt we inherited.
Clearly measures must be taken to reduce spending and bring our fiscal situation back on track. The savings we will see from the winding up of these six organizations are only small steps in that direction, but they are necessary and very important steps.
The critics of the actions called for in this bill have not really offered very many meaningful alternatives and the public is tired of hearing politicians and interest groups say: "Do not cut here", because the bottom line ends up not cutting anywhere.
If we enjoyed better economic times than we do currently, or if we had inherited a sounder fiscal balance when this government came into office in 1984, an argument could be made to keep these organizations in operation. However, at a time when businesses across Canada are having to make hard decisions about the priorities in their operations, the government cannot hold itself aloof or exempt.
When Canadians in every part of the country are forced to make tough choices as they balance family budgets in the light of financial hardships, we cannot pretend that government need not make difficult choices as well, It is this understanding of the financial reality facing Canadians that has led us to put forward Bill C-63.
Simply put, Canada can no longer afford to maintain these organizations given our heavy national debt and the high taxes this brings with it. This is doubly true when the key activities these organizations perform can be and will be addressed by existing departments and private sector resources.
In context Bill C-63 is clearly not an arbitrary measure. It is part of a long-range strategy by the government to reduce its size given today's fiscal realities.
The government believes that Canadians generally will welcome the initiative that we will save taxpayers dollars by eliminating functions that are not essential and by reducing overlap and duplication wherever possible.
My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, in his speech to the House yesterday outlined the savings we expect. Let me just recap the numbers. For the full 46 agencies and bodies we are eliminating, restructuring, deferring or privatizing, including the six covered by this legislation, the saving will be $22 million this fiscal year. This will increase to $71 million in 1993-94 and the total saving over the next five years is estimated to be in the range of $310 million.
The organizations affected by Bill C-63 have all given valuable services to the people of Canada. No one is denying that. I know that many Canadians have been wondering what happens to the invaluable work that was being done by these organizations and also how the tasks performed by these organizations will be continued.
The assets of each organization being wound up are being transferred to the appropriate department or other body. This means that all valuable files and the resource libraries established over the years will be maintained. The bottom line is the government has made sure that these valuable resources are kept intact.
As well the activities performed by the organizations being wound up have been reviewed. Those that are consistent with the government priorities and that are not being performed by other government organizations will be continued.
Already ongoing projects have been taken up by the department or organization best able to see them through. In fact, in many cases public policy actually can be better served by organizations that balance competing interests within themselves, rather than by single interest agencies.
This is particularly true at a time when funds are scarce and people in every sector need to pool resources and work together rather than compete against one another. It makes little sense to incur expensive managerial and administrative costs by dividing functions among individual agencies simply because of different interests.
We deeply regret any personal dislocation that has come about by the phasing out or elimination of these organizations but government and those who work for the Canadian taxpayer cannot expect to be immune to economic reality. Every day the business sector and its employees face the obligation to increase efficiency and at the same time make every effort to control costs. It is high time that the government did likewise.
November 26, 1992

I should put this another way. I want to emphasize that this legislation is part of a wide-ranging commitment to reduce the burden of government on this economy. This includes ensuring that taxpayers receive optimum value for the resources they entrust to us.
To deliver this value, we have to recognize that government agencies and organizations must be judged by tougher, more competitive standards than was the case in past decades. If we do not accept this obligation, then we as elected representatives are failing in our duty to all Canadians who must work in a tougher and much more competitive world in the 1990s. I urge my colleagues to give speedy passage to this bill.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague opposite in his listing of the reasons the government has felt it necessary to dissolve these sue agencies. He has referred to other agencies that were listed and enumerated in the throne speech and which the government feels at this time it must dispense with.
I cannot agree that it is appropriate or even that it is cost saving in the end to do this. I have reasons for saying that it is not going to save us very much money.
The government believes and has characterized this initiative as one which will streamline and reduce government and which will save money. It is really killing off agencies that would have continued to provide very important functions to the Government of Canada.
I want to point that the government is coming to this House and saying that it must dispose of agencies and the initiatives it manages and co-ordinates. At the same time the government is doing that, it is sometimes coming to this House-and sometimes not-and embarking on new initiatives just as costly but all in the same realm.
The one which comes to mind immediately is the government's so-called prosperity initiative on which there are millions of dollars being spent, not just on substance because prosperity cannot be implemented by
Government Orders
legislation or by policy. This is something that the people, the country and the communities generate. The government is also advertising hand over fist to show Canadians that prosperity is attainable, that they can be a part of it and let us all join together to produce it.
That kind of prosperity initiative is one of several which have been announced this year. This is at the same time as the government is saying it has to get rid of the Economic Council of Canada which has itself recommended initiatives similar to the prosperity initiative. It just does not make sense to me that the money the government wants so badly to save and the streamlining it wants so badly to implement are counterbalanced by increased spending and less streamlining embarking on all these new initiatives.
I do not see the cost saving. What I see is that the government has saved enough money by killing off these agencies in a way which will enable it to spend funds and create new initiatives of its own. Keep in mind that all of the agencies which are being killed off here were initiated just prior to the date in 1984 when this government took office.
One element of the initiative I want to make sure is on the record at third reading is the disturbing procedure of the government in embarking on the streamlining, on the killing off and the dissolutions without the authority of Parliament.
It is clear from the statute that this bill does not ratify previous actions of the government. This bill does not say we agree that the government should have killed off or dissolved this agency. It says that the government may dissolve the agency and wrap up its affairs. In fact the bill authorizes the minister to do the things necessary to wrap up and dissolve the agency.
What we found here over the last few weeks, in fact since the end of June, is that the government has already wound up the affairs of these agencies. It has terminated employment. It has terminated leases. It has liquidated equipment and inventory. It has done all of the things that would be done upon a dissolution or wind-up and it has done it all without the authority of this bill.

Government Orders
I do not understand why we are even going through this exercise if the government is so embolden that it would take on an initiative and complete a task before the authority has been given by this House.
In any event, I could ask what would happen if this bill were not passed or the act never proclaimed. What kind of a situation would we be in then? Canadians would be entitled to ask and be entitled to accuse the government of acting without legal authority. While I am reluctant to say now that the government has acted unlawfully, it has certainly acted without law. The law simply was not in place and it is still not as we debate it now.
A theme that has dogged this debate and one we cannot lose sight of is that most of the agencies the government is dissolving were providing a type of advice, guidance, direction and research to the government that we characterize as independent.
These agencies were set up to provide independent, non-governmental advice and direction to government. It was done because it was recognized that a lot of times in government once a decision is made or once a high official has some idea in his or her head, that is precisely what is going to happen.
There is ex post facto a desire on the part of the bureaucracy and the minister to justify, after the fact, that everything has occurred exactly within the mandate and the prescription of what was originally ordained. A lot of time government digs itself a great big hole trying to justify what the minister has decided one, two, three or four years ago. For that reason the government of the day, pre-1984, recognized that independent advice and research were extremely healthy and maybe even integral in assisting the government to make decisions on epolicy, marshalling resources and spending taxpayers' dollars effectively and efficiently.
In the natural course of things there is not enough incentive on the part of public officials, bureaucrats and administrators to provide advice and leadership to a department in a way that could be seen as being adverse to the views of the minister or the people who are higher up on the ladder of authority in the department.
Once a chunk of the department begins its work and starts down the road in a certain direction, it does not have a hope in hell of changing direction because everybody in the system is going to say: "Yes, minister,
we are heading in the right direction and I am doing my job. We are a great team". In the worst case scenario the unfortunate minister has no idea what is going on and does not realize things are heading in the wrong direction because he has not had good, independent advice.
Another problem occurs if we dispense with all the independent advice giving, the independence and objectivity. Let us get rid of it all and let the government and the officials proceed on their own. The public has a problem as it monitors what government is doing. Parliament monitors government and asks: "Mr. Minister, what advice are you getting on this? What are you doing? Ten times out of ten the response is: "I am sorry, I cannot tell you what we have recommended to the minister because it is confidential". Advice to ministers is guarded and secret, therefore the public does not get a chance to know what advice is given. The debate is all behind closed doors.
Through the use of independent agencies there is an opportunity to see some of the advice the public sector is receiving. I want to give an example because I think it is a good one. Just recently the Economic Council of Canada, one of the agencies that was being dissolved on April 29 this year, concluded a study on a topic of extreme importance to Canadians at this time. I am sure everyone in this House will agree it is a matter of extreme importance. It had to do with making recommendations for a coherent education system which would link employers, schools and governments, boost the standards and produce graduates better equipped for a more competitive work world.
Those words reiterate what we have been hearing from the government. I do not know who put the words together first, but this was an excellent report on our national system of education, its effectiveness and its cost-effectiveness. That independent report stated the system then in place was a failure. Those are the words. It said: "This is a sign of failure". I could not imagine an official of the minister's department publicly releasing a document that said: "This is a sign of failure". It simply would not happen. I hope I have made the point here that it is only through independent advice giving agencies the public has an opportunity to see the ebb, flow and interplay of ideas and initiatives government will undertake.
November 26, 1992

We are simply going to be without it in relation to the work of the Economic Council of Canada, the Law Reform Commission, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, and the other agencies we are dealing with here.
The government has said it wants to be more efficient and it can do that by dispensing with these agencies. I do not see the rationale or the linkage. I do not understand how it can become more efficient by getting rid of the agencies that provide it with an objective road map of where it wants to go.
The government has said these agencies do overlapping work of other agencies or other non-governmental organizations. That may be true in some cases, but maybe it is more appropriate to say the other non-government agencies may also be overlapping the work of these agencies. In this debate the government has not given examples of the overlap, so we are unable to judge just how important the fact of the overlap is in the government's decision making.
In relation to the Law Reform Commission, for example, let us say there is some overlap in the work it is doing. Let us say the justice department, a university faculty of law, or some other agency, is doing work that is overlapping.
That is a possibility, but if that is the case then almost every other developed and lesser developed country in the world has the same darned problem. As we look at dissolving the Law Reform Commission we could only find two other countries that did not have a law reform commission or similar body. I think they were both in Africa. One of them was Zimbabwe.
We are going to get rid of overlap while Zimbabwe perhaps never had overlap. I do not think that is a great club to be in. All of the other nations of this world recognize how important it is to have a law reform body as a guide light, as a road map to the future in terms of legal reforms.
This government has said it is getting out of business and privatization seems to be the theme. With what we are seeing here, I say to this House the government is getting out of government. It is getting out of essential aspects of modem day government, the facilities by which we use independent advice.
Government Orders
Every one of these agencies has facilitated the decision-making process of government. Drawing an analogy between government and a ship at sea, if I were a captain of a ship I do not know why I would throw my most effective, objective navigator overboard. I would want a navigator on my ship who was not going to say yes to me just because I was the captain. I would want a navigator who would tell me if I were steering a wrong course, and do it boldly and objectively.
I feel that is what the government is doing by ditching the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, the Law Reform Commission, and the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. It does not want to hear objective navigators any more. It just wants to hear its own advice. It will decide what it is going to do. It will make the decisions. All of the bureaucrats do their best from inside the cocoon of government to advise the decision-makers in government what is going on. It is just not enough in this very complex world.
There will be others here today who will rail against how government has grown out of control in terms of its size. I hope the members of this House will listen to those who objectively and calmly tell the government these agencies help government and have not made it grow out of control. They may actually add some efficiency to government.
At the end of the day I hope the bill will not be adopted by the House. I say this knowing in almost every case the government has already killed, dissolved, sold off, or liquidated the agency involved. We cannot even get them on the phone.
One individual, I think in the Ministry of Science and Technology, indicated they did keep their phone number because they were legally advised to keep the agency alive until Parliament passed the bill. It was heartening to hear that, but none of the other agencies could be reached. They were gone. The leases were expired. The furniture had been moved out.
The cost savings hoped for by the government perhaps have not begun quite yet. It probably has to settle some leasing arrangements with landlords. It is starting to save a little bit of money, but it is embarking down the path of losing the independent advice these agencies have so well provided the government, in some cases for 30 years. I will close here and hope members will vote against this bill.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-63, which is the government legislation to wind up the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Law Reform Commission of Canada, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development and the Science Council of Canada.
I had an opportunity yesterday to speak on what it meant for Canada to wind up some of these commissions, institutes and councils. As I said last night, there are six ministers who used to receive advice from these institutions. I find it strange during this debate not a single one of them has held a press conference. It seems to be standard for the government to hold one at a $500 a plate dinner, or somewhere outside the House. Not a single one of them has come in and spoken in the House to explain to Canadians why this institution or that institution is no longer necessary.
Last night members on the government side suggested institutions such as the Law Reform Commission were no longer necessary because the justice committee of the House of Commons was going to be taking on this enormous task. Yet no money has been proposed to go to the justice committee. The library of the Law Reform Commission has not been transferred into the custody of the justice committee of this House.
The government members on that committee have not suggested a timetable or a way of dealing with the duties that were performed by the Law Reform Commission. I suggest that is a fraudulent argument being used by the government side in terms of the Law Reform Commission and the other five agencies.
In terms of the arguments we have just heard this morning, the Neilsen task force was to restructure and streamline government, make it leaner, more efficient and end duplication. I think in a matter of minutes I can lay all of thbse arguments entirely to rest. In each single instance of these institutes, commissions and bodies that gave independent advice to government, this government has not moved to replace them or make other arrangements with bodies that could at least be considered arm's length or potentially independent.
Instead as in many other cases with this government, it pork-barrels contracts in each of these initiatives out to friends of the party.
When the Prime Minister has $500 a plate dinners in Toronto; they have a list. Who is on the pork-barrel hit parade just phone them up. You need 500 donkeys, you phone 500 donkeys who had their snouts in the trough. You say-we gave you a contract for $50,000, we want you to buy a table, 10 seats at $500. This is called legitimate fund raising now by the government while it is in office.
The argument that these bodies, some of whom received a couple of million dollars, had a couple of dozen bodies doing research and so on for their institutions-the Science Council of Canada at $3 million, the Law Reform Commission at $4 million-the government claims there just is not that kind of money around any more.
Let us take a look at what the Auditor General had to say. He has now concluded that the prison built in the Prime Minister's riding at a cost of $68 million was totally unnecessary. This is not NDP research, this is not Liberal research, this is not the prisoners' complaints bureau of Canada. It is the Auditor General. He said it was unnecessary. We argued in this House that it was a bad location. We received phone calls and letters from people in the criminal justice system who said it was crazy.
I raised last night the movement of the immigration headquarters to Vegreville, Alberta. People who are actively involved in immigration issues in this country know that the overwhelming majority of immigrants that come to Canada come in through Vancouver. They come in through Montreal and they come in through Toronto. Why would any government in its right mind withdraw all of those positions from those offices, slash them by 10, 20 or 30 per cent and move them all to Vegreville, Alberta, in this day of high technology?
Computers can talk to each other. All the people do not have to be in the same lunch room, in the same building in Vegreville so that they can do all 400,000 immigration applications for the whole of Canada. It is pork-barrelling at its very worst. It is just like the penitentiary built in the Prime Minister's riding.
November 26, 1992

This is an incredibly old-fashioned pork-barrelling attitude, that you have to bring the bacon home. If you are in trouble politically, you have to build a prison or you have to open a new UI centre or you have to do this or you have to do that. This has to be stopped.


An hon. member:: We can't afford it.


James Ross Fulton: That is right. The government cannot have it both ways. We know it is going to fill the hotels in Vegreville and God bless the owners of the hotels. They will make piles of money because all the families who are involved in immigration cases will have to go from Montreal to Vegreville. They will have to go from Vancouver to Vegreville. Lawyers involved in getting access to cases will have to go from wherever they are, from Edmonton, Moose Jaw, Quebec City, or St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vegreville, rather than having immigration officials available in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Prince George and Prince Rupert the way they are today.
It is an act of madness and I hope Preston Manning gets on it pretty darn quick, pointing out that this is not just your average pork-barrelling activity. This is stupid: s-t-u-p-i-d. You do not move people from all over the country to a given location to protect somebody politically-
I have never asked for such a thing in 14 years. I cannot imagine that the Deputy Prime Minister is such a cock-a-doodle-do that he has to have it. He is a good speaker. People trust him in Alberta so far as I know. Does he need a chunk of pork that fat and that thick?
Let me tell you what else the Auditor General had to say about this government. He told it years ago to do something about the purchases of the Department of National Defence bullets. What did the government do? It bought 12 million bullets that will not fly straight. That is typical of this group over here.
It cannot go in and audit and say: "Stop buying crooked bullets", but "get rid of the Science Council, get rid of the Law Reform Commission. We cannot have independent bodies; no, of course not". In the Ministry of Employment and Immigration 800 bureaucrats were cashed out, given $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 to just go home and smoke rope, read the newspaper, have a couple of cool beers and then the same department hired
Government Orders
them all on again. The minister has not fired a single person for it.
I tell you, Madam Speaker, if I were the minister responsible, there would be heads lolloping down the street in this city for that kind of crap. We have to get rid of the Science Council they say.
What else does the Auditor General have to say? There is $3.5 billion in loan guarantees and in other aid that Ottawa provided on Hibernia, on Lloydminster's bi-provincial heavy oil upgrader and Regina's new heavy oil upgrader.
What does he conclude about this brilliant cabinet? This is $3.5 billion. We are talking about $3 million to wind up the Science Council of Canada. The government chops it off. There is not $3 million, but on $3.5 billion the Auditor General for Canada says that the cabinet made all of these financial arrangements "without having any clear idea what economic benefits the megaprojects will yield". Just dump'er down the hole, eh? They will get headlines for a while. What is a few billion of the taxpayers' dollars? What is a few billion? The government never bothered to assess whether anything at all will come back out of it.


An hon. member:: What is the return to the PC Canada
Fund?


James Ross Fulton: What about the debt? The Tories love to travel around and say: Debt, debt, debt. It is all the Liberals' fault; debt, debt, debt. He points out in 1971,13 per cent of every dollar in this country went to payments on the debt.
What is it under the Tories? It is 33 cents and it will be 34 cents before the end of this year. They will go out and cackle and gaggle during the next election: "Oh the debt, the debt, the debt". The debt doubled under these donkeys. The Tories will probably try to blame it on the NDP. They will say: "Oh, it is the New Democrats. They forced us to do it. We had to get rid of the Science Council of Canada to deal with the debt".
Just while I am speaking, the amount of money to pay on our debt will be as much as would have been required to keep the Science Council of Canada for a whole bloody year. However these guys over here have wax a foot thick in their ears.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
Let us take a look at a couple more. "Wealthy exploiting GST loophole". This was raised in the House yesterday by my friend from Newfoundland. He pointed out that you would need 35 children under the age of 18 to comply with the tax requirements to get your GST kickback.
More than 12,000 Canadians, making more than $100,000 were found by the Auditor General to be getting GST rebates. They do not have 35 children under the age of 18. They very cagily move their money out of the country. They make certain deals out there. They do not have to pay any tax on their profits outside the country and then they bring the money back in and of course they get their GST rebate anyway.
The Minister of Finance says: "No, no, the Auditor General does not have accurate figures on how many hundreds of millions this involves". The reporters who are not dumb walk across the street to see Mr. Desau-tels, the Auditor General, and they say: "The Minister of Finance says you do not have accurate figures on Canada losing a couple of hundred million a year". The Auditor General says: "Of course we do not. That is a very conservative estimate". He cannot get the accurate figures out of the Department of Finance because this is for all these rich monkeys, right? They make more than $100,000 a year. They hire a tax lawyer. The tax lawyer says: "Do this and that in Florida. Do this and that in Georgia. Hide your cash here. Hide your cash there. Make sure you go to these $500 a plate dinners. Make sure you stay on the right side of the governing party. Make sure you do that and nothing will happen".
That is hundreds of millions. They are losing hundreds of millions, and they are cutting the Science Council of Canada at $3 million a year because it was giving independent advice and we know why. This is politically motivated by the hatchetmen, the Praetorian Guard, as my friend from Winnipeg pointed out last night, who now surround the Prime Minister.
I honestly believe now that my friends on the government's side, most Tories have nothing to say about government policy. They come in here and try to defend it once in a while, but not very well. They try, but they know they do not have anything to say. Most of them were surprised when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance announced that these institutions were being cut.
They went: "Oh, my God, they are really doing that". Then they realized: "Oh, we are part of the zipped lip party. Keep that lip zipped. Zip that lip. Do not talk about anything. Be quiet in caucus and quiet on the street. Be quiet in the riding. Do not let anybody know that it is out of control".
There is this little group across in another building running the whole damn country. One day they say: "We have to have 10 nuclear submarines, $100 billion. We got to get up there. There are polar bears eating too many seals. We got to get up there. Away we go. Get these nuclear submarines fast".
Canadians go: Could it be true? The government realized that Canadians did not want nuclear submarines. We do not want them in B.C. Every mayor, every MLA and most MPs say: "Get them out of here. We do not want the American ones. We do not want anybody's".
Finally the government says: "Okay, we will not do the nuclear subs; we will do $4.4 billion in helicopters". I reminded the House last night about these helicopters. Since then I have spoken to reporters and they still cannot believe it. My friend behind the curtain cannot believe that any government that is reasonably rationally sane would buy $4.4 billion worth of EH-101 helicopters so that we can look for those nuclear submarines out there. We are not sure whose. I guess the American ones because they will not tell us where they are. They are our ally.
These helicopters cannot land on the frigates. The decks are the wrong size. They do not have enough fuel capacity to do long offshore work so they are no good for offshore fisheries work. They cannot look for subs. They cannot land on the frigates.
The public needs to know once again they cannot be used for search and rescue. They have 160 knots down-wash. Can you imagine. You are hanging on the edge of a mountain. Your plane has crashed. There you finally see it, search and rescue, there is the DND coast guard. Ah, they are coming to save you. They are coming to save me. One hundred and sixty knots downwash, that is more than 100 miles an hour. Have you ever stood up in a convertible at 100 miles an hour? Your eyeballs are in the hair at the back of your head.
November 26, 1992

You would be hanging on the edge of the cliff and whoops, down you would go. You are in the water. Your boat has sunk. Oh, fantastic, here comes the chopper. DND is going to save me. They pull over to pick you out of the water and it drives you 30 feet below the surface. Your last breath is under water. The incompetence goes beyond one's wildest imagination.
Let me give you a couple of other examples of the hundreds of millions that we are losing in taxes because this government will not collect from the wealthy. We lose billions from profitable corporations, from 12,000 Canadians who earn more than $100,000 a year. According to the Auditor General they collected the GST anyway even though they did not have 35 children under the age of 18 each. That was what was required if they were going to collect it.
Let us look at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Carelessness at Indian Affairs costs 10,000 jobs a year and $200 million a year for some of the poorest people in Canada. Do we have anything done in the Department of Indian Affairs about it? It has been told about this for years and years and years. Did it do anything? Talks have been held for the past 15 years.
You wonder why unemployment rates are high among aboriginal people and why they cannot get any income. The department still does not have in place a proper means of legally stopping people from stealing the wood off the reserves. There is no way of doing anything about it. Logging companies just pull up, cut the trees down, load them up and drive away. The bands cannot do anything because the lands are held in trust by the Crown and the Crown has not prosecuted a single case.
Let us take a look at military spending. The government says that there is not enough money for these six agencies and that it is going to slash another 40 more. What does The Financial Post say? "Almost every federal project to buy new military equipments studied by the Auditor General either went over budget or took longer to deliver than planned. A detailed study of just 11 procurement projects worth $5 billion found that none followed the management system". None, and the government is telling us that the Science Council of Canada with a $3 million budget, with people like John Polanyi, a Nobel laureate, giving independent advice to the government, is too expensive.
Government Orders
When the sacred cow, the Department of National Defence, is squandering billions, hundreds and thousands of millions, the government will not do anything or say anything.
Let us take a look at the Auditor General's report because we deserve to lay to rest this balderdash coming from the government's side that this is making the government leaner, that this is efficiency in getting rid of duplication.
The Auditor General says: "We noted that direct pay and allowances alone cost the department $3.3 billion or 29 per cent of its 1989-90 budget". This is after the revelations last year that our Department of National Defence has more commissioned officers per non-commissioned officers than any other force in the world. The icing is six feet thick and you have a private down at the bottom. There is a general, a lieutenant-colonel, a major and a sergeant above him and the list just goes on and on. For every private there are about 800 generals. Is anybody doing anything about it? Has the Minister of National Defence called in a few of the generals and said: "Hey, guys, what about a few heads rolling?" This is a sacred cow. Of course the government would not want to do anything about it. The department spends between $18,000 and $47,000 per student per year and this is for cadets. All the Auditor General wanted was some kind of benefit evaluation. Will the department do it? Of course not.
Official languages training is a real sacred cow. No one in this country is supposed to want to talk about this stuff. In our 1990 report we recommended that National Defence redefine the goals of its official languages program in terms of the number of bilingual positions required and proficiency levels needed to meet clearly defined operational requirements. That is not unreasonable. Just identify how much you need.
We reported this program cost the department $500 million since 1980 and was expected to cost $1.4 billion over the next 15 years. There were 7,600 individuals on the language training in 1990-91. In 1989 the 9,000 anglophones at the language level closest to becoming bilingual were not given priority access to resources that would have enabled them to become effectively bilingual. In 1990-91, 75 per cent of the student population was still registered at the beginner level of the program.

Government Orders
I am sure one of my colleagues will have an intriguing question to put to me if I am able to complete this set. Canadians have the right to know about this kind of thing.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: With an invitation like that I am anxious for my colleague to let us in on further secrets within the Auditor General's report that would have meant these important institutions we are talking about today could have been preserved.


James Ross Fulton: My colleague brought me back to the pith of my argument here today. There are many areas a government that was seriously managing government and the taxpayers' dollars would have gone to and drawn dollars from to protect these kinds of agencies.
We have 9,000 anglophones in the Department of National Defence involved in training, but the Auditor General finds they were never given access to the necessary resources. They still got the dough and the program still ran, but they were never given access to it. Therefore 75 per cent of them were still beginners three years later. It seems to me you could give them $20 on a Friday, tell them to go down and hang out in a beer parlour for 24 hours and they would learn more than they would by taking this kind of program which costs $500 million.
It gets worse. I know this is a sensitive area, but listen to the facts. Only 24 per cent of the candidates who took the 1990-91 non-commissioned member basic French course qualified as bilingual. Do you know what it cost, Madam Speaker? DND has not implemented our recommendation to incorporate bilingual posting priorities. Although this course lasts a full year and costs over $80,000 per person, in 1990-91 only 66 per cent of its graduates were actually assigned to a bilingual position. Now you cannot tell me this is competence. Bring me the generals and I will sign the firing slip. Bring them to me. I am sure even the government House leader would like to sign a couple. It just does not seem possible they were not placed after spending $80,000 a person for the year. You have 9,000 anglophones taking the course at $500 million and after three years 75 per cent of them are still in the beginner's course trying to figure out how to print. Give me a break. There is $500 million for this and this government says it had to get rid of the Science Council
because it cost $3 million a year. What about $80,000 a year to give someone language training? I get $62,000 a year and I get beaten over the head with baseball bats in my riding for being over-paid. Where are these guys on language training? What are they doing? Are they only learning the words: "Caviar, champagne please, where is my Cadillac, give me the keys, how soon do I get to retire?"
Give me a break. This government calls itself conservative. Conservative, my foot. It should be Cl for conservative incompetents, not PC.
Let us look further to what the Auditor General had to say because there are plenty of areas to save money. Let us take a look at training.
The Auditor General says: "We recommended in 1990 that the department compare costs between its own school system, civilian colleges and institutes of technology". That is not an unreasonable request from the Auditor General of Canada on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayers.
By way of example, in 1990 we reported it cost $265,352 for a Canadian forces fleet school to train one marine engineering technician, while it cost $71,923 in the community college system just down the street.
Now who is kidding whom? Maybe these are the people who attend the $500 a plate Tory fund raisers. Did that ever cross your mind, Madam Speaker? It costs seventy thousand bucks to be trained at any college or technical training school in the country. What is the government allowing? These are Tory years, 1990, 1991,
1992.	It costs $265,352, another two hundred grand, or 300 per cent more for Tory training. Canadians have to be outraged that the Science Council of Canada and the Law Reform Commission have been cut.
As I have said before, we know why a couple of the people in these institutions and on these commissions had harsh things to say about the government. This government is not fond of democratic institutions. We know that. Members' privileges are constantly being eroded. The rights of Canadians to have access to institutions they feel secure are at arm's length from the political process are being shot like ducks out of the sky by this government.
November 26, 1992

Where is it leading, we have to ask ourselves in this House? At least it is broadcast to a few people, and occasionally a few reporters watch this place and a few people listen and talk. But we have to ask, what is the underlying philosophy behind a political party that starts pulling the funding from independent institutions all over the country? We are doing six today and there are another 40 to go. We are talking lobotomies, guillotines, throat slitting and gut shooting.
Why is it doing this? It is not doing it for money. I just found the government somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 billion in savings. I did this research this morning and found $20 billion. Where is the Minister of Finance? He should come in and give me one of the 125th medals so I could wear it around. They cost $1.86.
How can this government think Canadians are so gullible, stupid, unplugged and uncaring they would accept this kind of crap being peddled to us? Oh, we are getting rid of duplication. What about the 12 million crooked bullets? Can that not be stopped?
The Auditor General said: "Well, let us look again on medical care. This is something Canadians do care about". The DND medical support system costs at least $230 million per year. This is the Auditor General speaking. "Our 1990 audit recommended the National Defence determine the minimum dedicated medical support system needed in peace time". Now that is not unreasonable. Just figure out what your minimum needs are and start funding to that level. He found the department's peacetime medical system costs in our sample were 86 per cent higher than the average for similarly sized civilian hospitals.
Now you cannot just kick that under the rug and say it is because it is military. It seems to me that is inconsistent with what I have always been told by my father and my uncle who were both in the military. The whole idea of military systems is to run them as cheaply, efficiently and effectively as possible. And yet everywhere we look, after eight years, the Tories are lavishing and squandering. It is enough to make you economically bulimic, to
Government Orders
think these guys are pursuing these kinds of completely irrational expenditures across the street.
Let us take another look at training, efficiency and economy. This is the Auditor General speaking: "In 1990 we found that 62 per cent of individual training delivered by the Canadian forces training system was not relevant to the trainees present jobs or it duplicated what they already knew". The training cost $165 million a year. We are training people who have already been trained. They already have their ticket. They have already been paid at that category. The military says: "That is kind of boring. What are you, an auto mechanic? Okay, go take an auto mechanics course and we will pay you to do that".
Does it not sink in? This is from the Auditor General. The training cost $165 million a year and these people are talking about increasing the level of expenditures to DND. I could go over there today and carve out $1 billion. I could probably carve out $6 billion of their $12 billion a year. It is incredible that this sacred cow hangs around.
The purchasing would make you gag. The department purchases the parts from the same company it buys the original equipment from. No one does that anymore. Just because you happen to buy a tank that has a Ford motor in it and you get sort of chummy with the guy who cut the deal, does not mean you have to buy all the parts from him forever and a day. It is like the rental of this building over in Hull. The Auditor General says it is crazy to have 10 and 20 year contracts for space where there is no competition. You just do not do that.
These are the people who are always saying: "Oh, Bob Rae, Mike Harcourt, Roy Romanow. Oh, scandal, New Democrats, incompetent". It is time Canadians knew the truth about the nine governments we have held in four provinces and Yukon. We have always done better than the governments that came before us and those that came after us. The years of Douglas and Blakeney produced balanced budgets, which are unheard of under the Tories and Liberals. Barrett in British Columbia, produced a balanced budget. However, the Socreds, Liberals and Tories say: "Watch out for the New Democrats. They have wild spending habits".

November 26, 1992
Government Orders


An hon. member:: What about Bob Rae?


James Ross Fulton: What about Bob Rae? He is running a heck of a lot better government in this province than there ever was before.


An hon. member:: He was deceived by the Liberals about the debt.


James Ross Fulton: Let us look at merit boards. It is obvious the Tories do not want to hear about their own incompetence. This is from the Auditor General. This is not NDP research.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry that I must interrupt the hon. member. The time for questions and comments has now expired.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, an hour ago the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Peterborough was quite right when he said he had a hard job putting forward the first speech on behalf of the government in defence of this bill. This is corroborated by the fact we do not see a long line-up on the government benches of subsequent speakers on this bill as it is customary we rotate speakers from side to side. Obviously it is an extremely difficult bill to defend and I congratulate the member for Peterborough for his courage.
He based his whole reason for proceeding with this measure on the government's desire to restructure and streamline government, making it more efficient and eliminating overlap and duplication. One has great difficulty understanding how the government could be streamlined or made more efficient by eliminating the Science Council of Canada, the Law Reform Commission, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Economic Council of Canada, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. It really boggles the mind that these are the objectives to be obtained and the goals to be reached by way of the premise given to us by the member for Peterborough. He went on to say that meaningful alternatives had not been offered at the time of second reading and in committee by those who oppose this bill.
Meaningful alternatives are offered every year. We just heard a moment ago of the reports produced by the Auditor General who every year points to the mistakes, sometimes in good faith, sometimes because of administrative shortcomings, sometimes because of inefficiency or incompetence, which are inherent in large institutions at times. Nevertheless the Auditor General points out every year and has pointed out to this government since 1984 opportunities to eliminate inefficiencies, to reduce overlaps, to deal with inefficiencies and duplications and to streamline government. The latest report by the Auditor General is a clear indication of that.
Alternatives do exist and for the life of me we cannot understand why the government has to proceed with Bill C-63 in order to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved through this bill. There is a contradiction here in terms.
What can be achieved in terms of efficiency by eliminating the Law Reform Commission? What can be achieved in eliminating overlaps and duplication by removing the Science Council of Canada? What can be achieved in streamlining government by eliminating the Economic Council of Canada? What is the logic of the government in terms of efficiency that can be achieved by eliminating the Canadian Institute of International Peace and Security or the Employment and Immigration Advisory Council? It does not make sense.
One has to conclude that what one is dealing with is a mind-set of a government which has decided that the role of government is to be compared to the role of a business and that the role of government has nothing to do with the public interest. It has decided that the role of government is not to pursue long-term goals and longterm public interest. It has to eliminate, where it can, institutions which may cause criticism, perhaps alternative viewpoints and produce them. It has to be obsessed with only one thing and that is the bottom line. That is not what the majority of Canadians expect the government role to be.
I suspect that the role the majority of Canadians expects the government to play is one of looking at the long-term, providing policy, doing the research that is necessary, and keeping the country united by way of very intensive intellectual work which is in great competition with other countries.
I would like to know of any G-7 country, which are the other industrial nations with which Canada is grouped, or any other country that belongs to the OECD, to which we also belong, that has done away with their economic council, or has done away with their science council, or has done away with their law reform commission.
November 26, 1992

No modem industrialized nation in its right mind would take a step like this. We are becoming the laughing stock abroad. Nobody understands why we are doing these things.
Let me give an example, one that I have not mentioned yet, and that is the elimination of the International Centre for Ocean Development. It was very revealing at the time of the announcement of this bill what its vice-chairman said in Halifax. Mr. Vandermeulen is quoted by Canadian Press as saying: "This is the only international assistance group in the world that was working in the fisheries field with small island states. The agency was founded in the early eighties to help developing countries in the South Pacific, the Caribbean, and Indian Ocean to manage their ocean resources after the Law of the Sea conference established the 200-mile limit".
Since fish do not respect political boundaries, if stocks are mismanaged by one country then the whole community pays the price. This was the role of the International Centre for Ocean Development: to help in the South Pacific, Caribbean and Indian Ocean states to develop their policies and it is gone.
In eliminating the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security our critic, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, commented that the government "is intent upon snuffing out any kind of serious analysis of what is going on in the world". He may perhaps have attributed motives here, but one must say in all fairness that this institute has performed an extremely valuable role in providing government, Parliament and any agency interested in foreign affairs with in-depth analysis and alternative policies. We will not have that benefit any longer.
My colleague for Scarborough-Rouge River was quite right when he stated on March 10 of this year: "Agencies like the Science Council, the Economic Council, the Law Reform Commission, the Institute for International Peace and Security have provided valuable advice to the government and at a time when this country should focus on making Canada more competitive and better equipped and up to date, the last thing we
Government Orders
should be doing is getting rid of them". Those are very wise words.
One has to put Bill C-63 in a broader context, and that is what has happened to Canada in the last eight years. It is part of a pattern, part of the Prime Minister's commitment to change Canada's face, as he stated back in 1984. He is certainly changing Canada's face. He is certainly maintaining his promise of doing that.
One has to look at this measure together with other measures that have been gradually introduced over the years. It started very slowly and unobtrusively with the cancellation of programs for youth. I must remind members of the cancellation of Katimavik which was very strongly resented by some of our most distinguished colleagues in the other place. It went on with the cancellation of Environment 2000, a youth employment program for the summer. Over the years it escalated into a number of other initiatives of which this bill is the last.
I just have to remind my colleagues about the virtual cancellation of social housing in our urban centres. Just to quote another example, I remind them of the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. The list is pretty long.
Coupled with the cancellations were cuts and a reduction in responsibilities that were gradually put into place. Let my remind everyone of what has been done in reducing the role of VIA Rail in placing an immense burden on its operation, in reducing its ability to tie together communities across the nation, as only VIA Rail could have done. However it did not stop with that.
It reduced the mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation when it was announced by the government that the CBC should not pursue in its mandate the unity of Canada. That was a mind boggling announcement. The CBC was denied that mandate at a time, particularly after going through the referendum, when we very badly need institutions like the CBC and Radio-Canada to perform that bonding role of promoting and pursuing a sense of unity in the country. Its role is stressing what brings us together, what unifies us, rather than what makes us different from each other. The CBC and Radio-Canada could not perform during the weeks and

Government Orders
months preceding the last referendum as a result of a decision by this government.
Might I remind members of the cuts which were introduced in late 1984 and subsequently to the National Research Council which today operates on a very limited budget. Might I remind them of the fact that government contributions have been cut from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, thus severely limiting the funds available for the training of the unemployed, for the assistance to those who cannot find employment and may want to have an extension to the benefits they receive. In other words, the number of those who exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits and do not want to go on welfare has been reduced.
As a result of the cuts by this government, the unemployment insurance fund now can rely only on contributions by the worker and by the employer and no longer on the tripartite system we had of contributions coming from employer, employee and government.
The cuts and the denial of absolutely necessary budget increases to key departments like the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Secretary of State in charge of citizenship courts, the postal services, are just other indicators of how the government has gradually and systematically reduced the capacity of the federal government's employees to perform their jobs. What we have in our major urban centres are federal government offices, particularly in immigration, which are badly understaffed and badly overworked.
We have seen considerable cuts in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the field of research and development, particularly in the field of research on renewal sources of energy. We have seen a shift almost entirely in favour of increasing Canada's dependence on non-renewable sources of energy which, as the name says, will exhaust themselves in due course. Also we have a very dangerous shift away from research and development on sources of energy that rely on biomass, solar energy and wind.
We have closed the consular offices in large numbers and reduced Canada's presence in a number of ways. We have reduced the support that the Government of Canada gives to non-governmental organizations. We have reduced the capacity of CIDA to perform its
mandate with adequate funds in helping developing countries in relation to the problems of mounting poverty, famine and disruptions abroad.
In other words, the promise the Prime Minister made in 1984 to change the face of Canada is being kept. Bill C-63 is an emanation, an expression and a fulfilment of that promise.
What this particular measure does to the Canadian taxpayer must be put on record. The average Canadian taxpayer will be deprived of some valuable and important initiatives once this measure goes through. We will oppose it inevitably but the numbers will not be on our side.
The five-year plan by the Science Council of Canada to influence the direction of science and technology for Canadian prosperity and Canadian well-being has been abandoned. Its study and the plan which commanded attention were extremely well received when published and would fit perfectly into any long-term economic policy of any government. With the abolition of the Science Council, we can kiss this five-year plan goodbye.
Then there are a number of studies which were also launched and were in process by the Science Council, namely, a study on genetics in health care, the role of venture capital in financing new technology, and the relationship between technology and economic development.
I will conclude by referring to the fact that the Economic Council of Canada had published just before its abolition a study on the economics of health care, a study on the economics of education, and an analysis on the impact of government on competitiveness.
The Law Reform Commission by virtue of its abolition has had its ongoing recodification of the Criminal Code of Canada frozen. The ongoing recodification will no longer be carried out as well as the completion of studies related to human rights, protection of life and administrative law.
Time does not permit me to elaborate on what is going to be lost as a result of this measure. I have no doubt that Bill C-63 will do profound damage to the fibre of Canada and to its ability to renew itself and to face emerging problems.
November 26, 1992

Not only that. It is also putting Canada in a position of great weakness. By the disbanding of these very important bodies we are losing the intellectual power and intellectual capital that these bodies represented and were able to produce on behalf of and for the benefit of present and future generations of Canadians. This is a very regrettable step. It is our hope that the government will reconsider it.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity for me to put a question to the member for Davenport. He may be in a very special, if not unique, position to answer it. It has to do with the role of independent advice to government. That independent advice and direction are products of many of these agencies we are dealing with.
The hon. member for Davenport has been a government minister as well as an opposition member. The opposition in Parliament, not being as well resourced as government is on a day-to-day basis, benefits as much from the independent advice and spade work of these agencies as does government.
I would like the member to comment on his own experience. As I have never served as a cabinet minister, I am curious about just how realistic my view has been that this kind of independent advice is useful to government. How effective is it? Is it money well spent? Maybe government never listens to these things. Maybe just the opposition does.
I would like to ask the member in his experience, with reference to, for example, the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development and the Law Reform Commission, any of these, how has he viewed the function of independent legal advice? Is it useful? Is it essential? How would he respond to that question?


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, it is extremely helpful. It is helpful both directly and indirectly-
It is helpful directly because it has an impact on the bureaucracy and the members of cabinet of the day. Collectively they have to take into account very seriously
Government Orders
alternative proposals and plans that are being made by independent agencies of the kind the member mentioned.
It has an effect indirectly because these reports impact on the composition of editorial writing of the intellectual and political community across the nation and not just in Ottawa. They provide food for thought, so to speak, for all those who are interested in policy development. Therefore, the policy development process is enhanced, enriched and widened. In the end the policy product the government announces is much better than without this kind of advice.
I would like to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. In his statement of March 10 from which I am reading, he did stress the importance that governments should be nurturing and taking advice from these valuable agencies.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate particularly having had the opportunity to listen to my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, and to say that I agree most whole-heartedly with the remarks he has made.
We on this side of the House are not opposed to the elimination of those bodies that no longer serve a public policy purpose. That is sensible and that is the norm for governments. However, we do stand opposed to Bill C-63 and to the elimination of a number of bodies in this country that not just serve a public policy purpose but serve a crucial public policy purpose.
In a country such as this one where literally all of us, even the native peoples, came from somewhere else originally, one of the unifying factors of this country is the desire for knowledge, the pure desire to know if you will, the respect for learning, the respect for lore that is garnered through experience, through research, through academic endeavour, through think-tanks, whatever. It is one of the things, I believe, and I know my colleagues on this side of the House believe, that makes Canadians again just a little bit different, just a little bit distinct from our neighbours on this continent.
All of us in this small country of ours, small in the sense of population, have been justly proud of organizations such as these that we now preside over the dissolution of.

Government Orders
There is a reason for everything this government does. It may not be a particularly good reason and as a matter of fact it usually is not a very good reason. However, I think the reason behind Bill C-63 and the dissolution of these bodies is particularly pernicious.
It is widely perceived that the elimination of organizations such as these which continue to serve a crucial public policy purpose is an attempt by this government to silence its critics on the right, most particularly its critics in the Reform Party. Indeed, many of this government's actions have been and continue to be guided by the desire to recapture the votes and loyalty of their own disaffected members who moved, yet again, to the right. What is happening because of this? As a country we are becoming hostage to a fringe party on the outer edge of the political spectrum.
Let us talk about the specific organizations we are going to lose when this bill becomes law because of the government's majority.
Let us first of all look at the Law Reform Commission. What kind of a country does not have a law reform commission? What can we expect in the area of developing legislation, in the area of far-seeing legislation, in the area of legislation that might anticipate our movement toward a global economy, toward a very different kind of life that Canadians are going to be dealing with in the 21st century, when the Law Reform Commission which is set up to develop and to bring forward the kinds of ideas that can help us make these transitions to the incredible speed of change in our modem society, is being thrown out, being wasted, being closed down?
What can we say about a government that deems all of the references to the commission to be references of the Crown, that confers the authority to close out the affairs of the commission to the responsible ministers and that repeals their constituent acts? We can say it is a government that is afraid to be told what it needs to do for the betterment of its people.


An hon. member:: Shoot the messenger.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Are you referring to me?


An hon. member:: No, no.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Good. I will come back to the Law Reform Commission later in my remarks.
I want to speak a little bit now about the dissolution of another organization that is particularly close to my heart as the member for Halifax, because this act also
dissolves the International Centre for Ocean Development.
Again this is something that is going to be extremely hurtful for Canadians and has already been hurtful for Haligonians in the loss of jobs. We have lost people and not just from the region. I know a number of people who were involved with ICOD have left Halifax and gone to other organizations in Canada, but worse than that, a number of people have left ICOD and gone to organizations in other countries.
We have lost people with a specified area of expertise in ocean studies. We should be one of the ranking countries in the world leading the way in ocean development and we have lost these people. I have friends who were with ICOD in Halifax and are now in the South Pacific, in Australia, in the Far East, where governments are prepared to spend some money on the theory of ocean development. Here we are, a country with three oceans, and what are we saying? We are saying we are closing it down. It is a shame and a scandal but it is exactly what one has come to expect from a government that does not merely wear blinkers but a blindfold.
The Law Reform Commission has been totally shut down. It no longer exists. It is inconceivable that a government that is as committed to making Canada more competitive as it says it is would axe those agencies which provide us with an edge, which provide us with the data, analysis and direction which a modem country like ours so desperately needs.
Let me talk about two other bodies we are losing through this bill, that we have already lost: the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada. They were years ahead of politicians in tracking economic and scientific trends world-wide, in illustrating the consequences of these trends for the Canadian economy and Canadian society, and in offering solutions to deal with the problems that would be created.
They are gone. Why? Why are they gone? What does the government see that will replace the development in policy areas of these organizations? With the greatest of respect to my colleagues on the other side of the House, is it going to come from their caucus? Is it going to come from that cabinet? I do not think so. I have not seen anything that would lead me to think that we could get anything in the realm of public policy that might help from that side of the House.
November 26, 1992

I might add that on this side of the House we would never be so presumptuous as to think that could happen. That is not what we are for, that is what these organizations are for. The fact that Canadians will no longer have the benefit of these organizations is a shame and is tantamount to public scandal.
It is deceptive and downright irresponsible for this government to deny that Canadian society reaped tremendous benefits from the small amounts of money that were channelled into these agencies.
There is an old expression: penny wise and pound foolish. This government has been pounds and pounds and pounds foolish.
Let us go back to the Law Reform Commission for a moment and look at some of the things that the Law Reform Commission did in 22 years, from 1970 to 1992. It put out 32 reports, 61 working papers and 76 studies containing a vast spectrum of recommendations covering Criminal Code reform, hate propaganda, plea bargaining, safeguarding genetic heritage, pornography, euthanasia, sexual assault, arson, mental illness, and on and on and on.
As of 1990, Law Reform Commission studies have been cited in 211 Canadian court decisions, 39 of which were in decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada.
That is hardly an example of minimal impact on the people of Canada. That is hardly an example of an organization that did not give value for money. That is hardly an example of an organization that is not vital to the continued health of the legal system in this country, of the judicial system in this country, and indeed the continued health of the citizenry of this country, in a legal sense.
As a result of the dissolution of all these bodies Canadians will be deprived of the following studies that are of great importance to the development of our country: studies relating to the relationship between technology and local economic welfare, a study entitled the "Economics of Health Care and the Economics of Education". How many times have we sat in this Chamber and heard our colleagues on all sides talk about the
Government Orders
absolute necessity of education if we are to compete in a global economy?
How many times have every one of us heard, from the Prime Minister on down, about the sacred trust of our social programs? What is the jewel in the crown of our social programs but health care and medicare? Yet an organization that gives us a study on the economics of health care and the economics of education is trashed by this government. That does not show a whole lot of sense. I am not sure what it does show. I know that it does not show a true concern and care for what is in the best interest of the people of Canada.
Another study that we are losing from the Economic Council of Canada is an analysis of the impact of government on competitiveness. I can imagine why the government dissolved the Economic Council given the title of the study and given the impact of this government on every aspect of the economy in this country. It is an old and tired government that does not want to hear the bad news and does not know how to create any good news.
Another study, from the Law Reform Commission, concerns the ongoing recodification of the Criminal Code of Canada. Where does that leave us? There are studies relating to human rights, to the protection of life and studies relating to administrative law, again from the Law Reform Commission. A vacuum has been created and there has been nothing from this government to show that there will be anything to fill that vacuum.
With the proposed elimination of the Law Reform Commission of Canada we will become one of only three Commonwealth countries without an independent law reform body. The other two are Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
The Minister of Justice has been trying to silence the Law Reform Commission since 1990 by leaving it without a quorum for two years, which has made it impossible for the commission to approve any reports that would have suggested changes to federal legislation. That shows a level of irresponsibility that is almost unique in the history of this country. Yet we are told by that minister and by other ministers that the decision to close this think-tank is simply a dollars and cents decision.

The minister has said that we have to ask ourselves at this time and in our fiscal situation what can we afford to do. She refers to the Law Reform Commission as a Cadillac approach to legal research. She may call it a Cadillac approach but she has not even left the people of Canada with a horse and buggy approach to law reform.
We have to ask ourselves questions parallel to that question posed by the Minister of Justice. Can we afford not to have a Law Reform Commission? Can we afford not to have an International Centre for Ocean Development? Can we afford not to have an Economic Council? Can we afford not to have a Science Council? Can we afford not to have a country? Can we afford not to have those component parts that decide public policy? Is this government so bankrupt of ideas, so bankrupt of memory of the traditions of this country?


Mr. Volpe:: Yes.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence says "yes", and he knows I agree with him.
The answer is yes, this government is just that bankrupt. This government is just that cavalier about taking these component parts of the public policy process in this country and throwing them out. It is a cliche to talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water, but that is clearly what the government has done in this case.
The government is not doing anything near an adequate job in dealing with the economy. Everybody knows that. President-elect Clinton had a big sign in his office in Arkansas that said: "It's the economy, stupid". We all know that. Somehow that message has not got through to the people across the floor.
We cannot create legislation or policy in a vacuum. This government has created an intellectual vacuum in this country, and I suggest that in days to come the members of this government led by these ministers will be referred to as the intellectual Luddites of Canadian history.
It is a tragedy that Canadians will not be able to recover quickly from the devastating policies, the ridiculous decisions and the terrible cancellations that this government has hoisted upon us.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, this government continues to claim that it is fighting for accessible post-secondary education. Yet the Auditor General's report tells us otherwise.
Here is just a sampling of some of the areas of the Canada Student Loans Program in which the Auditor General gives the government a failing grade.

In 1990 the Auditor General noted that national post-secondary education objectives had not been clearly defined. Two years later these national objectives have yet to be set. The department has not produced an annual report on the Canada Student Loans Program since 1988. While the department has taken some minor remedial steps, much remains to be done to officialize and implement federal-provincial agreements and improve the management information system for student loans.

I strongly urge the government to undertake a full review of the Canada Student Loans Program and take action toward making education accessible to all Canadians.
November 26, 1992


COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to this House the findings of research on community health services users.
The study revealed an underuse by young women from financially underprivileged families of the services provided such as prenatal programs. While teenage girls are more vulnerable, they do not show a marked interest in the content of community programs. They seem to consider that this model fits neither their values nor their ideas.
I think it is essential to create awareness for people to know what means are at their disposal.


WATER DIVERSION
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, some bad ideas never go away.
Mr. Frank Dale, president of the Los Angeles based Foundation for Water and Power for North America, has started promoting the old idea of flooding the Rocky Mountain Trench to provide water to the United States. The plan is to direct water from Alaska through the river systems of British Columbia to the U.S.
I spoke to Mr. Dale last night and he is proceeding with plans to hold a conference on February 15 of next year in California to promote this idea.
Along with this issue there are other water diversion projects we are concerned about like Alcan's Kemano project and the plan to divert water from the North Thompson River in B.C. into the Columbia River system.
This government has already sold out our forests, our farms and our fish. Water is our life-blood. I call on this government to state categorically that our water is not for sale.


BILL C-91
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, one of the very positive aspects of the drug patent bill, Bill C-91, is the
significant impact it will have in the area of medical research. I am especially encouraged to learn of the positive effects it will have on research facilities such as the University of British Columbia.
In 1987 changes made to the Patent Act under Bill C-22 triggered one of the largest research and development expansion programs in medical research history. Annual research and development spending by the pharmaceutical industry soared from $102 million in 1987 to $286 million in 1992.
Recently following the government's endorsement of the GATT proposal to eliminate compulsory licensing and the tabling of Bill C-91, forecasts for new research investments are over $400 million.
Bill C-91 will mean more R and D jobs for companies, hospitals and universities like UBC. More and more of our Canadian university graduates will be able to find research jobs in expanding Canadian fields. It will also increase the odds for Canadian people suffering from medical ailments for which there are no cures. We must step up our efforts in medical research and Bill C-91 will certainly assist in this regard.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and the world have watched with deep concern reports of racist, anti-refugee, anti-ethnic, anti-Semitic attacks in Europe. While it is unfair to let the violent actions of a few characterize a whole society, these unprovoked acts remind us of how important it is that racism be turned back wherever it rears its ugly head.
As we learn from history, if such attacks go unchecked they inevitably lead to far greater consequences. Remember, silence breeds complacency and it must not be left to stand.
Reports that neo-Nazi violence in Germany has resulted in murder arouse terrifying memories. Where will it stop? Along with all Canadians, let us be vigilant at home and abroad against racism of any kind. It goes against basic Canadian values, respecting differences of race, religion, gender and language. As Canadians we must speak out against acts of human hatred wherever they occur in this world.

November 26, 1992


S. O. 31 CRIME
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, Canadians in general and the residents of the federal riding of St. Albert in particular are becoming increasingly concerned about the rising crime rate in our neighbourhoods.
At the national level we have been working hard to make Canada a safe place to live, implementing the national drug strategy, firearms safety regulations, the Young Offenders Act, the rape shield, the Extradition Act, and corrections and conditional release acts.
This is not enough. This past summer I convened hearings on law and order in my riding. The consensus: There is a great deal of work to be done to ensure our criminal justice system is more responsive to the needs of our citizens. There is a great concern for the victims of crime and the inadequacy of the Young Offenders Act.
On behalf of the constituents of the St. Albert riding, I urge the provincial and federal governments to act.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the deregulation of Canada's airline industry has not worked. In fact the Tories' vision of cut-throat competition has brought both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines to the brink of disaster.
Deep in his heart the Minister of Transport knows that the airline industry must be re-regulated, but tragically he cannot bring himself to say the r word. Instead, he suggests that they might recalibrate the transportation policy framework within which the airlines operate.
According to Roget's Thesaurus two of calibrate's synonyms are grade and measure. Does the minister want to grade or measure the airlines? To grade is to classify, differentiate, incline, level, order, size, smooth or sort. Which of these does the minister have in mind for the airlines? If the minister is to measure the airlines,
does he want to calculate, compare, fit, gauge, judge, number, quantify or average them?
I have a suggestion for the minister. He should admit that deregulation has created chaos and then admit that whatever word he uses, the airlines must be re-regulated so they can compete and survive on a rational basis.


OSTEOPOROSIS
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, November is National Osteoporosis Awareness Month.
A number of people, and I am one of them, are familiar with this health problem, while others are not. Osteoporosis thins the bones and makes them brittle so that they fracture easily. In many cases it can cause serious incapacity, and it can even be fatal.
Educating the public is important, and the Osteoporosis Society of Canada has been doing this since 1982. The funds collected by this organization are also spent on the research that is essential to fight this disease.
The federal government also supports the Osteoporosis Society of Canada through its subsidy program for national volunteer health organizations.
The many volunteers who play an important role in our society are to be commended for their dedication. Thanks to them, the quality of life of people afflicted by this health problem has improved. I urge you all to take part in the activities organized this month to increase public awareness of this health problem.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the federal government to shelve the report of the royal commission on transportation.
November 26, 1992

This report is an insult to every Canadian outside the central Canada corridor. This report ignores the essence of Canada and will put this country, which was once united by the national dream, to the point when we were little more than isolated pockets of population forced to look south rather than east to west.
If a family of four left P.E.I. by car today to go to New Brunswick, it would cost approximately $50 to take the car ferry. If this government implements this report, who knows how much it will cost tomorrow.
Canadians have come to believe in the sharing of responsibility and the sharing of costs which are necessary if this country is to continue as a united entity. It will not do so if the federal government allows the weaker and poorer regions of Canada to wither and die.
I call on the government to reject this report out of hand and reaffirm to Canadians that by living in this great nation they will continue to receive the same rights and privileges regardless of where they reside.


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Canada comprises less than 1 per cent of the world's population, and yet at this moment our brave troops are fulfilling 10 per cent of all peacekeeping missions around the globe.
While we are very proud of the thousands of men and women who are on those duties, saving lives and sometimes even saving countries, Canada is serving beyond its capacity. If we are to continue in this role then a few common sense things have to happen. First, the United Nations should immediately pay Canada the millions of dollars it owes us so that we can keep our troops in place. It is unfair to ask Canadian taxpayers to do it all. Second, it is high time other countries paid their fair share. Large and wealthy nations which do not now supply the UN troops should not only do so, but they should help underwrite the major costs of Canada's efforts.
Finally, it is also time that our peacekeepers got the heck out of Cyprus. For 28 years now Canadian taxpayers have kept troops in place there and that is surely long enough.
I call on the government to end this mission now to make sure that Canada's brave troops are used efficiently, effectively and in a manner that is fair to the citizens at home who support them.


STUDENT GRANTS
Mac Harb: Today the NDP government has decided to scrap the Ontario Student Association grant program. This action is shameful. Without these grants many students will be forced to abandon their education.
During the last provincial election the NDP government promised to increase funding for education. Once elected, the NDP betrayed the students and their families by reducing funding for education.
I call on my colleagues to deplore this brutal NDP attack on Ontario colleges and universities and this horrendous assault on access to education. This policy shows that the students are not a priority of the NDP. It simply shows that the NDP do not understand the needs of the students.
Canadians must be aware of the NDP strategies. They make promises to the people but they never follow through with action.
Shawn Rapley, a Carleton University student president, is outraged and Ken Craft, chairman of the Ontario Federation of Students, is appalled at the decision. He said: "They are supposed to have vision, but this vision ends at the end of their nose".
The NDP plan to put an end to student grants is socially and morally regressive and irresponsible. This is another NDP action against something they once said they supported.
If the NDP think this is a solution to bringing its debt under control, they are mistaken. This is not a solution, it is a short-sighted abandonment of our young people, of our educational institutions, and of this province's future.


VICTORIA CROSS
Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, this week has not provided many examples of co-operation in this place. Indeed visitors and those watching our proceedings may question if there is ever any co-operation here. Well, there is, and I would like to thank all members for one good example.
Earlier this week members of this House gave unanimous consent to declare votable my private member's bill seeking to re-establish the Victoria Cross.
In addition to speeches of support from colleagues on the government side of the House, both the Liberal and New Democratic critics for veterans affairs spoke in favour. The New Democratic Party's critic, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, felt strongly enough that

November 26, 1992
Oral Questions
he made an impassioned speech even though he was in considerable physical distress. I understand the hon. member's back pain required his admission to hospital the very same evening. I suspect that he is going to be following the proceedings from his hospital bed. I want to thank him for his support and I am sure on behalf of all members of this House also extend our sincere best wishes for relief and recuperation and an early return to health.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, this week over 30,000 members of the Baha'i faith from around the world have gathered in New York City for the second Baha'i World Congress and to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the passing away of their founder, the Baha'u'llah.
Central in the Baha'i teachings are the unity of religions and the unity of all peoples. The Baha'is believe that all of the great religions teach an identical and universal truth. They also believe in the equality of the sexes and the oneness of all people.
The Baha'is take great effort to live their lives in accordance with their beliefs. They work selflessly for the eradication of racial, class and religious divisions and prejudices.
Due to their beliefs, they have suffered much persecution in the 100 years since the founding of their faith. Yet in the present world of terrible racial and religious wars and strife, their message is one of hope. They have faith that a new world order of equality, social and human justice, will prevail. They have faith in the inherent goodness of all people and the awakening of that goodness in us all. It is a very contemporary message needed to be heard in these troubled times.


SEXUAL OFFENDERS
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I was outraged to read on the front page of today's The Globe and Mail of the planned release of convicted paedophile Wray Harold Budreo.
This dangerous offender is to be released tomorrow as a result of the decision by the National Parole Board despite the fact that this decision was not supported by Budreo's case workers. These professionals are as aware as I am that sexual offenders are highly likely to reoffend.
Children are the most valuable and vulnerable citizens of our country. As such we must make every effort to protect them from threats to their safety.
The parole board seems willing to acknowledge that this paedophile with a 30-year record of repeat offences may again reoffend, but it seems to believe this will not cause serious harm. When a child is molested serious harm is done.
Our Solicitor General has said that "protection of society is more important than giving another chance to these individuals who just cannot be rehabilitated". I strongly urge, even plead with him, to do eveiything in his power to overturn this decision of the parole board and to do what he knows is right.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
A lot of people thought there would be economic instability after the referendum. For two weeks it was very stable. Suddenly, 10 days ago, the Prime Minister made a speech and said he would stay the course. Then confidence went away completely. The dollar has fallen and interest rates have gone up by almost 3 points.

When will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Finance to stop this crazy policy of fighting inflation at all costs and introduce a policy that will create growth and hope in our nation?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: The
idea of suggesting that we should stop fighting inflation is one that would only be applauded by the Liberal backbenchers. In point of fact, in any of the great trading nations that have enjoyed economic resurgence, be it in Germany or in Japan, their success has been built on low inflation.
When my hon. friend was the minister, inflation went to 12.9 per cent. It bloody well just about killed the Canadian economy. That is why we have had to fight and work so hard to bring it down to 1.3 per cent.
Low inflation is an important pillar upon which economic resurgence can take place. Growth and productivity, which is up 5.2 per cent this year, is another important one. Relative unit costs are down by almost 5 per cent over last year. These are all very important factors.
If my hon. friend has some specific ideas as opposed to these easy slogans, let him stand up now, stop the criticism, and give the Minister of Finance the benefit of his wisdom.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, going back to the years when I was Minister of Finance, I am the only one who, over 20 years, had no growth at all in expenditures over a two year period. However, I am not here to talk about 1978 or 1869.1 am here to talk about 1992 and 1993.
In case the Prime Minister thinks I am alone in what I am saying, yesterday I quoted La Presse. Today I will quote, not a socialist rag, but The Financial Post and not Bob Rae's economic adviser, but Diane Francis: "High interest rates have been killing enterprises, strangling the economy, aggravating government deficits, boosting our current account deficit, causing higher taxes, and throwing people out of their jobs. Individuals and businesses, big and small, are being crushed in a vice".
When will the Prime Minister realize the time has come to swallow his pride? When will he realize it is time to have a policy that makes some sense and that will be conducive to creating growth in Canada so that the
Oral Questions
Canadian people can work and have the dignity of working?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What
would that policy be? My hon. friend criticized low inflation in his first question. Now he criticizes interest rates when he was part of a government that had interest rates at 22.75 per cent and we reduced them very substantially to 9 per cent.
As my hon. friend knows, the genesis of the problem in public finances is overspending by governments. There is no question about that. When governments spend too much money, much more than they bring in, eventually the problem grows and it suffocates economic growth.
My hon. friend made a statement that there was no growth at all in public expenditures when he was there. He was President of the Treasury Board between 1974 and 1976 and spending increased 33 per cent. Government spending increased 33 per cent in two years and in that time he entered the history books by saying that a 16 per cent spending jump was great restraint.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at the time my neighbour here was not even a Canadian. He was in Lebanon. I suggest we stop talking about the past and concentrate on what is happening today.
In the same article in The Financial Post, it says that because of this policy of fighting inflation at any price-I never said we should not fight inflation at all-more than $50 billion has been added to Canada's debt, which means that today, the government has to pay $5 billion every year in interest charges because they fought inflation at the wrong time.
Is the Prime Minister finally going to realize the kind of situation the country is in today? When will he wake up and give Canadians jobs, with a policy based on economic growth?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund says that next year Canada will have the highest rate of economic growth in the industrialized world.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.

November 26, 1992
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: But that is not important, of course.
The International Monetary Fund also says that next year, the inflation rate in Canada will be the lowest of any major industrialized country. And far more important, the International Monetary Fund states that next year, the rate of economic growth, the rate of job creation in Canada will be the highest of all the G-7 countries.
I think that today my hon. friend will have to admit that despite all the problems in the industrialized world, despite the major problems facing Japan, France, Great Britain, Germany, and other countries, despite this international trend, Canada is comparatively well off, and I say comparatively. It is basically thanks to our focus on policies to maintain inflation at manageable levels while constantly improving our rate of growth, and it works according to our national indicators.


REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie - Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General in commenting on loopholes in tax rules for foreign affiliates of Canadian corporations states that "it is reasonable to conclude that hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue have already been lost and will continue to be at risk".
Does the Minister of Finance realize that in saying, as he did yesterday, that there is really no conclusive evidence that the amount of money identified as being lost by the Auditor General can be substantiated, that he is doing an enormous amount of damage to the credibility and integrity of one of the most important institutions in the Canadian parliamentary system of government: the Office of the Auditor General?
Is the minister prepared to review those comments in the light of the kind of damage he can do to one of the few remaining respected institutions in this system?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and all members of the House that I in no way want to undermine the integrity and the importance of the Office of the Auditor General.
I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. member. I was simply quoting from the departmental response contained in the Auditor General's report which says that the claim as yet has been unsubstantiated.
We are prepared to sit down and review this situation with the Auditor General. Obviously this issue will be before the public accounts committee where it can be fully explored.
If there are some realistic proposals that can flow from this particular finding, I am prepared to look at them. However, I want to reiterate that the Office of the Auditor General is an important one in our parliamentary system of democracy and I in no way want to be associated with undermining the integrity of that office.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's response, would he then be prepared to acknowledge to the House that unlike the response contained in the Auditor General's report from the Department of Finance, this Auditor General is not the first Auditor General to bring up this matter?
In fact Auditors General have been requesting these changes to the tax legislation since 1987 to reassure Canadians that at least the Office of the Auditor General still retains the respect of the government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, indeed so. The government Whip has just indicated to me that this issue has already been raised in the public accounts committee. I think there is general agreement to proceed with a full examination and to explore all the evidence and all the background with respect to this. We will certainly co-operate fully.


DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister who often comments on the value of competition in the effort to keep consumer prices in line.
Does the Prime Minister really believe that it is in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers and Canadian consumers to have a policy that would see the foreign multinational drug companies have an exclusive monopoly on the discovery of new drugs enabling them to charge excessive prices then to consumers? Does he really think that this is in the best interests of Canada, Canadian consumers and the Canadian health system?
November 26, 1992

Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to listen to that because when Bill C-22 was put in place in 1987 there was an increase of 2.9 per cent in patented drug prices and we had a price index increase of 4.4 per cent. We were far below this increase.

I must also say that there are more than 2,000 patented medications now on the market which can be copied because their patents have expired. Fifty to seventy patents expire every year and the drugs can then be copied by generic drug companies.
That being so I think that increases in the price of patented medicine in Canada have been kept below the rate of inflation. In my opinion this has been a fair and equitable policy for Canadian consumers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would think the minister would know that as far as Canadians are concerned, all they see are drug prices escalating. They are continuing to go up in spite of the kind of rhetoric he is able to perpetuate here in the House of Commons.
The right hon. Prime Minister will know that for decades the American drug lobby has been pushing Canadians to give away our fair generic drug programs. Finally, with the Canada-U.S. trade agreement they got there half way.
Now under NAFTA one of the conditions is that they go the rest of the way. As a matter of fact, the other half is being sold out in section 1709 of the impending North American free trade agreement.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that section of the North American free trade agreement will prevent any future Canadian government from changing legislation and restoring the right to issue licences for generic copies of patent medicines?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows, and the hon. member should know, that compulsory licences were an exception to patents which throughout the industrialized world are valid for 20 years.
Because the government instituted a fair policy to match that in other industrialized countries, drug companies have invested over a billion dollars since 1987. When we announced changes through Bill C-91, $500 million in investment and job creation were announced.
Last night on the television news Mr. Durivage of Radio-Canada said: "Five years after Bill C-22 passed, the gloomy scenario predicted by this bill's opponents has not occurred. The price of patented medicine increased by only 3.3 per cent". That is the reality.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister. Only the minister, his government and the pharmaceutical industry would refuse to admit that the anti-generic drug policy will cost the already beleaguered health care system across Canada hundreds of millions of dollars.
The ministry of health in the province of Ontario calculates that its taxpayers in that one province will be loaded with an extra billion dollars in extra costs over the next decade. Will the minister and his government, rather than trying to support the multinational drug companies, stand up for the health care of Canadians and say no to the multinational drug companies?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that a member of this House cannot use more accurate information when he talks about health care costs. He should know that patented medicine accounts for only 3 per cent of all the medication used in Canada, so 97 per cent is not subject to the bill he is referring to.

November 26, 1992
Oral Questions

Before saying anything about the health care system, make sure you have good information, please.


TAXATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since 1986, the Auditor General has recommended that the Minister of Finance eliminate tax loopholes for affiliated foreign corporations. In 1988 when general anti-avoidance measures were introduced the minister did not deal with the problem.
Why does the minister continue to say that he has no money to announce an infrastructure program that would give thousands of Canadians work, while he continues to make gifts to multinationals that do not pay Canada a cent of tax?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question and I have nothing further to add.
I thought I responded to his colleague indicating that we are prepared to sit down and examine this in full detail with the Auditor General. As I said, in the Auditor General's report there is no substantiation of this. We will sit down and co-operate fully with the committee in exploring this issue.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for six years, since the first report on this matter from the Auditor General. In 1988 the government did not address this issue. In 1992 the Auditor General tells us that $92 billion in investment was given and interest was deducted from those investments which created $4.2 billion of dividends without paying one cent of tax to Canada. Why do ordinary Canadians have to pay high taxes and multinationals pay no taxes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday and earlier, the government has introduced the general anti-avoidance rule into the income tax system. There have also been a number of loopholes closed that were left by the previous Liberal administration which were costing taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. We took action on that. We have closed loopholes and we will be
prepared to close further loopholes if there is clear evidence.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport concerns the $50 million in financial assistance offered to Canadian Airlines this week.
I would like to know why the government will not disclose the conditions that have been imposed on that loan. Why has the government not tabled a copy of the loan agreement in the House of Commons? I would like to know whether the real purpose of that loan is to buy the silence of PWA Corporation while the government pursues a one airline objective?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if the member is really intent on saving 16,000 jobs in a region of this country, he should be very careful about what he says. This is not a joking matter. This is a very serious matter.
We have gone into this to save that company by asking them to take some very drastic action. In order to get access to mathematics and figures of the company we entered into a confidential agreement which we will not divulge until the appropriate time.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, we are treating this very seriously. Clearly if this loan was given on the condition that PWA will not ask for any further assistance, then it is the largest payment of hush money in the history of Canada.
Two days ago the Minister of Justice acknowledged outside the House that it may be necessary for further loan guarantees to be given. If that is the case, why will the Minister of Transport not acknowledge that more has to be done if there are going to be two profitable national airlines competing in Canada?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, we made it quite clear that our main reason for deciding to intervene was the strong employee involvement in efforts to save the company. We agreed to provide one-time financial assistance totalling $50 million, so that the other partners, provincial governments and creditors would also be involved in a solution originating from inside the company, through restructuring and reducing debt, making this a concerted effort on the part of all those concerned about saving Canadian Airlines/PWA.
November 26, 1992


TAXATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance a question about legislation that was tabled in the House today. He was distracted by something else that I said and did not get around to answering my question. I want to give him another opportunity today.
Would the Minister of Finance be prepared, in order to show credibility when it comes to deficit reduction and to sharing the burden of that deficit reduction fairly, to withdraw the legislation which was tabled today having to do with extending the 21-year tax exemption for private family trusts in this country, what some of us have come to call 'the Upper Canada College clause', and show Canadians that this government does not exist just to give tax breaks to the wealthy in this country but that everyone is expected to pay their fair share?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the implication of the question is totally and grossly distorted and I disagree with the observation that the hon. member has made. Therefore on the basis of that illogic, I would not propose to honour his request.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, time and time again I have asked this question in the House and I have not been able to get any Minister of Finance to directly address this particular loophole, to justify it or to even mention it.
Do you know what? It is a big, dirty, dark secret what is going on in this country, the way the rich are looked after particularly by this government as they were before by the Liberals.
The money estimated to be tied up in these trusts is in the billions and billions of dollars. If he is serious about reducing the deficit, will he not withdraw this legislation? These people have had 21 years to get ready to pay this tax and they should bloody well pay it as of January 1, 1993.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is
Oral Questions
serious about getting the facts of this issue, why does he not allow the bill to go ahead and let Parliament decide? Maybe after the debate commences on this bill, the hon. member will be enlightened and he might find himself agreeing with the proposition as well.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The establishment of a centralized immigration centre in Vegreville, Alberta, to replace face-to-face interviews in all parts of the country including the west by a paper review and computers is another crazy move by this government to save an electoral seat.
The pilot project showed that this new system caused longer delays, was inefficient and opened the door to fraud and criminality.
I want to ask the minister how he can justify such a program which so poorly serves both immigrants and the Canadian public and will lose thousands of jobs both in the west and the east? Why is the government giving us such a nonsense proposition?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Liberal member took his cue from the NDP question of yesterday. That question was answered yesterday.
I saw the hon. member on Newsworld reciting a list of, I hope it is parlementaire falsehoods about this move. This is about taking an office that is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., five days a week, and using technological breakthroughs to give the people of Canada 24-hour a day service, seven days a week. This is about trying to reduce the cost to taxpayers of government services.
The big joke of the Liberals is that they talk about security and fraud. Just this year the department issued 31 million cheques of UI out of a system that will be similar to this one and we have not been defrauded by Canadians.

November 26, 1992
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations with several immigration officials from his own department and I have been told that this proposal is tragically flawed.
Decisions that once took two days are now taking five and six weeks and the door is wide open to fraud and criminality in the presentation of those applications.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
[Editor's Note: Disturbance in gallery.]


William Warren Allmand: I want to ask the minister when will the government learn that policy should be based on what is right for the country and not what is right to elect the Deputy Prime Minister? When will the government cancel this ridiculous program?


Bernard Valcourt: Warren, next time leave your fan club outside.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to answer the question he should do so.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, on a serious note, the issue at stake here is whether or not the department can take advantage of new technology to give better service to Canadians.
He points to long delays. Obviously the member is not lining up in an immigration office at five in the morning. They line up and they wait maybe three, four or five hours just to put in a little application to an immigration officer. They could obtain the same service by filling in a form which can be processed by a computer which will give quicker service to the person.
This is about better service. This is about less taxes for Canadians and I think they will support it.


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is depressing to see a government that seems paralysed and totally at a loss about how to deal with the economy. The recession continues and the deficit keeps building up despite what the government says.
Can the Minister of Finance give us the assurance that his economic statement will contain accurate and reliable forecasts with respect to the deficit as well as concrete measures to create jobs now for our unemployed? Canadians really want to work.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would argue with the hon. member's contention that we are still in recession. We have had five consecutive quarters of growth, certainly not robust, but it has not been negative growth.
As a matter of fact, in August, we had our strongest performance in over a year. The composite leading index is up, continues to increase and has been continuing to increase over a 17-month period. The help wanted index is up. We have had increases in employment in five of the last six months, 64,000 new jobs created, 83,000 permanent jobs created in the months of September and October.
I will admit that the recovery is not as buoyant as we would like to see it, but Canada is part of a global community. Canada's rate of growth relative to the other global economies is right in line. We see some pick-up in the United States. We are seeing some pick-up in consumer demand. We are seeing some pick-up in department store sales.
I think my statement on Wednesday will help in providing further encouragement and further optimism and hope for the future.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government does not understand what is happening with the Canadian economy.
I ask the Minister of Finance: Seeing that municipalities have sewer and water projects ready to go, will this government's economic statement include an infrastructure program shared not only with the provinces but with the municipalities so that Canadians can have jobs as soon as possible?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest expenditures the Government of Canada makes is in the form of transfers to provinces. In terms of cash and the transferal of tax points it amounts to $39 billion a year.
November 26, 1992

The other major transferral is transfers to people, to people who receive old age pension, veterans allowance, family allowance, unemployment insurance. This amounts to almost $42 billion per year.
What I am saying is that the transfers to the provinces are specifically for programs which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Municipalities have a responsibility and are creatures of the provinces. Why would the hon. member want us to invade provincial territory?
What we have to do is work together in co-operation. We have had discussions with the provinces. We will try to do what we can, but we will not unilaterally interfere-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move on.
 * *


NATIONAL REVENUE
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, many small business operators in my riding think they spend far too much of their time filling out government forms when they would rather be taking care of business and creating jobs.
Now the Minister of National Revenue has announced yet more changes concerning how small businesses are taxed. Will these changes actually help our entrepreneurs, or will they just make it easier for the government to tax them?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the restructuring exercise which I announced to the Canadian Tax Foundation yesterday was designed to make things easier for the small business community particularly. In a nutshell what we are doing is dovetailing all the operations of Revenue Canada into one-customs, excise, GST and taxation-which will make it simpler, more efficient and easier for the small business community.
For example, instead of three auditors, there will be one. Instead of three or four tax returns, there will be one. There will be savings to the business community in the hundreds of millions of dollars and elimination of tonnes of paper which prompted John Bulloch, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, to say yesterday: "Jelinek's announcement will be signifi-
Oral Questions
cant for small companies because of the benefits of one-stop approach".


AGRICULTURE
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
This year's Farm Credit Corporation survey shows that the combination of giveaway prices and the 4.2 per cent increase in farm debt has resulted in a further big drop in the net worth of Saskatchewan farm families. This means that since this government was elected the value of farm assets in Saskatchewan has fallen by over $8 billion.
As if this was not bad enough, the changes to the method of payment to the Crow benefit which are being flogged by this government at the present would cause another huge drop in the value of these same farm assets.
Therefore I would like to ask the minister to explain why his government is trying to railroad changes to the Crow benefit which would result in a further undermining of the market value of farmland, threaten the viability of thousands of communities and drive hundreds of farm families from the land.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is just not accurate.
There are discussions under way as to how to use the $720 million that is available. Nobody is talking about taking that away from farmers. If there is a change-and I will get to the second part of his question in a minute-the same amount of money will be transferred to the farm community. How he can suggest in any way that is going to lower the price of farm land is beyond me?
Second, there have been all kinds of discussions. We have had four or five meetings federally and provincially with ministers of agriculture to discuss the process. The most recent one was 10 days ago in Toronto. It was agreed then that every government would go back to take a look at a set of draft proposals for discussion and come back some time around December 1 to make some more decisions.

November 26, 1992
Oral Questions
Nobody is attempting to railroad anything. There have been discussions with full public consultation and, above all, with a very good working relationship with the provinces. That in no way can be construed as anybody trying to railroad anything.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
The discussions that really count have already taken place, and that is those that occurred with the farmers of Saskatchewan who would be most affected. Over 70 per cent of them said that they did not want to see any change in the payment of the Crow benefit.
Along with promoting the changes in the method of payment, the government is also floating ideas about restructuring the Department of Agriculture and deregulating the industry starting with a wide open free-for-all in the export of barley.
Therefore I would like to ask the minister: Why in heaven's name is this government applying the same model of restructuring and deregulation to agriculture- it has been so disastrous for the airline industry-when what farm families really need is some stability?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member really does not know what he is talking about. As usual it is high propaganda and very low validity.
Let me tell him what has happened since the free trade agreement when we gave producers, and the Canadian Wheat Board included, a better chance to sell into the United States without worrying about the Americans closing their border with their section 22 of the agricultural adjustment act. I will send him over the numbers just so he does not ask these kinds of questions again.
Our exports to the Americans in the last three years since the free trade agreement have almost doubled. That means we sell enough to make them our fourth largest customer. They are the biggest exporter of grain in the world. More important, they are the second highest priced market in the world after Japan. Not a bad record for some opportunity for people to do business on
a set of rules. That is all we are trying to do by looking at regulation in general.


MANPOWER TRAINING
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Instead of obstinately maintaining a monetary policy that is strangling the economies of Quebec and Canada, I suggest the government face the facts, and the fact is that it is unable to control and reduce the deficit. The easiest and most obvious way to reduce the deficit and cut spending is to get rid of overlapping jurisdictions, starting with manpower.
Why does the government keep refusing to transfer full jurisdiction over manpower to Quebec, which would save $300 million annually right there?


Pierre Blais: That is what you call being consistent.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if that is what you called being consistent, he spent two months telling everybody not to go along with that, and now he wants us to do it.
With regard to the manpower issue raised by the hon. member, I admit that manpower training is a matter of concern, not only to the Government of Quebec but to all Canadian provinces. I am referring to the desire to avoid duplication and overlap. I am sure that no one on either side of the House is particularly keen on duplication because we are all taxpayers.
What we want to do, and this will happen in January when I meet the provincial ministers, is look at ways to maximize harmonization and co-operation and avoid undue duplication and overlap, so that taxpayers get their money's worth.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just proved that in addition to not understanding the referendum question, he did not understand the answer given by the people of Quebec and Canada. He was never given a mandate to continue with the current overlapping and the attendant outrageous waste of resources.
How long does he intend to ignore the legitimate request made by his friend, Mr. Robert Bourassa, to transfer manpower policy to Quebec?
November 26, 1992


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of Canada's economic situation, it is important that all levels of government work together to revive the economy and create the jobs which our people need, and that depends on training. What we need to do is not keep our heads in the constitutional clouds like the hon. member but to get involved with those who are in the market-labour, management, the provincial and federal governments, to and see how we can give our labour force the best training possible so that our economy is competitive throughout the world. That is what we will do.


EDUCATION
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister will know that the Ontario NDP government will be cutting student grants, moneys needed by college and university students to get jobs. On several occasions the Secretary of State has said in this House that there would be a new student aid program. Last year a government study indicated that the 1984 criteria which have not been updated were totally inadequate.
When the minister makes the economic statement on December 2, will there be a plan to address this particular issue of student assistance, student unemployment? Will the students be forgotten again, or will they simply be treated as the NDP has treated its own students, with more cuts?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the program is not available today, but I can assure the House that he has been studying the issue of student loans very carefully and has a plan in mind.
From what I recall, about a quarter of a million students are assisted each year and it is a very important program for all Canadians.
I might add that in the year 1991-1992 some $330 million were provided to Ontario students. That was up $100 million from the previous year.
Oral Questions
At the moment officials are examining the implications of what the Ontario government has announced. I am sure the minister on his return will be addressing that matter in the House.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. I hope that a decision will be made shortly because students have been waiting for a long time already.
In his annual report the Auditor General said:
We stress that amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act and
Regulations are urgently needed.
Urgently needed. Can we expect immediate follow-up that will meet students' needs and aspirations? Yes or no, and when?
Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and
Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister will answer soon that a study has been done on the subject and you will have an answer once the minister is ready.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The final negotiations of the GATT round are about to begin next week. Last month the Minister for International Trade met with his counterparts of the European Economic Community and from the United States and did not even raise the question of Canada's supply management system.
I want to know why. Why, with this special opportunity right in Canada, did the minister not raise this important issue to try to influence those ministers to be sure that we got the maximum consideration in the final negotiations of the GATT round which is about to begin?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at my hon. friend's ill-informed question.

Oral Questions
In fact a number of ministers went just a few months ago, a number of them took the same occasion to be there to speak on behalf of article XI and to call for clarification of it and strengthening of it.
This has been the government's position all along and virtually every minister that touches the trade file has articulated that position.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I simply quote the minister from the Canadian Press report.
Last February 40,000 farmers stood on Parliament Hill to protest the lack of action by this government in the trade negotiations. The chief negotiator for the agricultural sector said this morning that Canada had only two countries supporting its position. Last February when the rally occurred there were five.
How can the minister say that this government is serious about negotiations when it only has half the support from other countries around the world that it had six months ago? How can it really say that it is fighting for the farmers?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, Canada has always done its utmost to defend farmers. Since we received the farmers who came to support us in February, we, the ministers and members here, perhaps not on your side, have received several thousand letters of congratulations and thanks to the government for the position it took to defend farmers.
We are aware that the arrangement reached between the Americans and Europeans will change the Dunkel report. Canadians will be there next week when the negotiations resume in Geneva and we will defend the Canadian position with all our energy. We met all the representatives of the farming community this past Thesday in Saskatoon to inform them of the changes and they will be with us to the end to support Canada. That is how we have acted for nine years, by co-operating very closely with farmers, and we will continue to do so.


VIOLENCE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see the Prime Minister last week commit to deal with violence on television as he signed a petition presented to him by Virginie Lariviere.
You may recall my private member's motion that was unanimously accepted by this House last February which called upon Parliament to review the media's role in the portrayal of violence against women and children.
I and all members of Parliament have a significant interest in this subject, one I know will take a great deal of perseverance to resolve and one I know we cannot resolve on our own.
My question for the government is therefore: Can the government tell Parliament if it is prepared to give this item priority consideration during an early visit between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, the Prime Minister last week signed his name when he met with Virginie Lariviere to add his name to the other 1.2 million Canadians who are concerned about this problem.
We have already indicated to Canadian broadcasters that we expect to seek concrete proposals from them at an early date to reduce the level of gratuitous violence on television.
In addition to that, I can inform the hon. member that the chairman of the CRTC will be directly contacting his counterpart with the federal communications commission in the United States to raise this issue as well as raising it with senior people in the American production industry.
I have asked my staff as well to draw up a number of names of potential fora in which we can raise this issue internationally to try to secure the support of other countries as well.
November 26, 1992


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, it has now been eight months since I have been away from Parliament and it has been almost five months since my heart transplant surgery.
I missed this place. I missed all of you and I missed what this place is about. I missed the honourable activity of politics. I have noted that around here some things change, and others never do. I note, for example, that when you come to the exit door, the green bus still pulls away just as you are approaching and 80 per cent of my mail still has a big red tab on it that says: "Urgent, for member's eyes only" and inside is a magazine subscription.
However I missed being here to help shape public policy and to be effective with my constituents in Crowfoot and for Canada. I want to pay a special thanks to my staff for the very special way in which they took over, helped constituents and worked on behalf of our country.
I want to pay a very special thanks to my wife and my family who were so tremendously supportive, so extraordinarily helpful. They were there not just frequently, but always. I do want to counsel my seven-year old son that I do hope that when he asks the question about when is my next biopsy he will get it straight, and not ask me when is my next autopsy.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay special thanks to the heart transplant team of the University of Alberta in Edmonton. It is a marvellous pool of competence, talent and sensitivity. Here I am. We have the technology, the ability and I am now Parliament's $600 man.
You will notice some changes in me. Obviously, after transplant surgery you are on a number of drugs. Some of them are fairly potent, one of which causes very rapid and different hair growth. I say to the hon. member for Churchill or Notre-Dame-de-Grace or Fredericton- York-Sunbury that I am not in the retail business and they need not come to me. I now have a set of eyebrows that look like they are made from prairie sagebrush. When I come out of my farm home, the great horned owl that nests in the big spruce tree out there dances and gets a little excited. It thinks I am one of them.
Privilege
One thing that happens when you are away is that you come to see this place differently. I want to mention just two things. One I will take just a moment on. One thing about Parliament that is seen different is that of course as political parties we are different in this House. Of course our ideologies are different. Of course our policies are different. Of course we disagree and of course, that is right. That is what Parliament is all about. That is why we are two sword lengths apart.
Mr. Speaker, I got from you, and I thank you for it, a very lovely note as I did from all of my caucus friends. The support was so generous and overwhelming that I was in disbelief at the support. Somehow I expected that too, but I was also surprised. People outside of this place do not know the enormity of comment I received from the Liberals and the New Democrats who said to me: Best wishes, good health and hoped that I would be back soon. I want to thank each and every one of them and Parliament for what all of Parliament is and how we have learned to have civilized debate here.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Arnold John Malone: I want to take a moment to just steal another thought. When I was away I came to where I saw news broadcasts in a different light. What I saw was that they appeared as manifestoes of truth. They took on a new predominance. Forgotten was my privilege of being a member of Parliament where I had an inordinate other range of sources by which I could seek other opportunities for research and knowledge. I found out that when the media prepares the seed bed of knowledge, it almost always harrows and seldom ploughs. Moreover, when it does plough it is usually looking for worms rather than for turning up more fertile soil.
By and large the news is too negative. While I was away, I watched dead body TV news broadcasts, features where bodies from Yugoslavia, Somalia, South Africa, airline crashes, convenience store hold-ups or wherever else they might be found. No one would deny that these subjects are newsworthy, but news ought not to be limited to being a catalogue of misery. News disseminators must go beyond presenting an index of what went wrong on a given day. We have a legitimate right to ask: Where are the achievements, the advancements, the excellence, the happiness, the joy, family, camaraderie, peace, opportunity, heroics and a thousand other positive dimensions of human life? I am 55 years of age. Apart from funerals, I have seen one dead Canadian body in my life. In the news death is a daily diet.

Privilege
I am a member of Parliament and I have witnessed excellence and achievements from groups such as women, men, youth, educators, scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, new Canadians, established Canadians, senior citizens, artists, musicians, across a spectrum of trades and a host of other categories. News tends to be an overemphasis of graphic treatment of violence and disorder. Too much attention is given to champions of wrong.
Many Canadians, unfortunately, are becoming dropouts to news observers and I found it very amazing, the number of educated people that I associated with in hospital who said they no longer watched news. I say to the media: "Scrutinize we who are politicians because you should, but note you enjoy a special privilege. You are uniquely immune from formal criticism. If there is to be hope and happiness, we need a free press but we need one that balances good and evil, hope and despair".
I want to make three quick comments that reflect on my surgery and then take my seat.
I am feeling well. I feel very well. I am also cognizant of the fact that it is only by the coincidence of luck that I and my needs were able to be attended to and corrected because I was among the fortunate whose needs and this technological moment in histoiy coincided. This is not a situation I planned or made happen; it is purely a fact of existence beyond my control. I am grateful for my fortune.
Second, though I have realized this before, now more than ever, I am thankful for being Canadian. Not only am I a citizen in a nation of medical excellence, but also one who was privileged by the reality of our medical affordability. Some other nations as wealthy as ours cannot make that claim.
Third, my present existence is a blessing that is not in disguise. My family's relief flows from another family's sorrow. My opportunities continue because another's ended. My gratitude toward the family of an unknown donor is daily and it shall be life-long. To whomever those persons are and all others who are willing to become organ donors, I express my thanks.
I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I would never, even after my inordinate advantage, ask all Canadians to become potential organ donors. First, there is not such an extensive need. Second, there are many who for personal and moral and sometimes religious reasons have cause to resist being organ donors. This is a legitimate opinion and it must be respected.
However for those who upon examining their consciences are willing to allow themselves to be organ donors, I appeal to them now to talk about it with their families and loved ones, affirm their conclusions, and then sign the donor permission card and carry it on their person. Importantly I say: "Don't do it this weekend or over the Christmas vacation or some other time in the near or distant future, but make a note now and do it at your very first opportunity".
In a survey done by the Kidney Foundation of Canada, 90 per cent of respondents expressed a willingness to be organ donors, yet only 20 per cent have talked it over with friends and family or signed organ donor cards.
Today the need for organ donors is much larger than our available capacity, yet our need could be met if only 50 per cent of potential donors had provided an affirmative signal to be one. The need is most acute and most unfortunate among children.
It is an interesting irony that I come from a small community in Alberta, the community of Camrose with only 13,000 persons, and two of us from that area within a month required transplant organs. The two differences between us, significant differences, are that she required a liver and I required a heart. The other difference is that I was nearly 55; she was just 5. But her situation was very critical and very urgent in terms of the amount of time she had left. An organ was found from another community, from another province, and Jenny, a beautiful, ambitious, active child, is healthy and well today. But she is so, again because a program was available.
For the hope of Canadians, and there are so many, I simply plead: "If it is within your conscience to sign an organ donor card, do so because you are being so helpful to so many others".
November 26, 1992

As I take my seat, I want to restate how pleased I am to be back among all members and to be working together on behalf of Canada and Canadians. I wish to share with them that they are as lucky as me for while I have benefited directly from the marvels of modem medicine, all of us as members of Parliament and all us as Canadian citizens have the assurance that Canada is a caring place capable and willing to help should we ever be in a situation where that need occurs.
I say, Mr. Speaker, thank you, Canada; may we always stand on guard for thee.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege to raise with you, but before I do so I want to congratulate and to thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for his very positive remarks and to say how pleased we are to see him back in the House.
During Question Period the Minister of Employment and Immigration associated me with the demonstration which took place in the south balcony. I want to say very emphatically that the demonstration came to me as a complete surprise as much as it did to anyone else in the House. The minister indicated that these were my friends or a fan club. I must tell him that as far as I know I do not know any of them. I did not organize any such demonstration in the balcony and I did not know that one was to take place.
I would hope that the minister would withdraw the suggestion that I had anything to do with that demonstration.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in the honourable tradition to which our friend Arnold just referred, I absolutely want to withdraw any such insinuation. I said that in jest. I never meant to imply the hon. member had arranged that, not at all.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of committee reports.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked for unanimous consent of the House to revert momentarily. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

This report deals with the 1992 Auditor General's report. This morning the committee met and agreed to recommend to the House that the Department of Finance and the Auditor General of Canada meet as soon as possible in order to clarify their positions on the issue of tax arrangements for foreign affiliates of Canadian companies.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, this committee requests a government response to this report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, perhaps the government House leader could indicate to the House the business for the remainder of today and for tomorrow, as well as far as he can see into next week. There have been some additional discussions earlier this hour in terms of certain business which may come before the House. I am wondering if he could indicate that.
Second, I am wondering if there might be unanimous consent among the parties that should the House sit late this evening for the completion of the third reading of Bill C-63 we preserve the adjournment debate from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
Third, I am wondering if the government House leader could indicate when he might be coming forth with a House order on the provisions of the economic statement to take place next Ibesday.

Government Orders


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam
Speaker, as the Table has indicated we will complete third reading of Bill C-63, the dissolution bill this
afternoon.
I have no problems with the suggestion made by my colleague in terms of interposing what normally would have been the adjournment debate at the end of the day, should that be to the convenience of members.
Tomorrow we will be completing third reading of Bill C-26, the PS 2000 bill. In terms of Monday and Tuesday we are still having discussions about what we might proceed with in that regard. One of those days will be a supply day, probably Thesday.
I would like to inform the Chair that I will be giving the formal word on that tomorrow. I will look at the possibility of some accommodation in terms of a couple of bills flowing out of last year's budget, Bill C-76 and Bill C-93 having to do with the same subject matter, to see what progress we could make on them.
On Wednesday and Thursday time will be provided for the discussion of the economic statement to be made by the Minister of Finance on Wednesday. I will be putting down a motion to provide the basis for the discussion on Wednesday and probably use Thursday as the first day of debate on a borrowing authority bill that will be brought forward.
As we indicated in our discussions, we will carry on our usual discussions in respect of a House order that would allow us to sit later on both Wednesday and Thursday so that we will have the necessary time for that important debate in which a lot of members will want to participate.
I will get back to the hon. members in that regard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the comments of my hon. friend, the government House leader. I wonder if I could ask for a clarification on the land claims bill. Is it the intention of the government to move on that next week, or would it like to wait until the following week?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, we are prepared to proceed on it. My understanding was, through the usual channels since there was some interest on the part of the New Democratic Party, to have a few more days to consider it before we brought it forward.
I know that in an earlier discussion I talked about Monday but apparently there was a desire to have a few
more days for caucus discussions. We could certainly amend that if that is now not true.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, earlier today I raised a point of order regarding the legislative committee hearings on Bill C-91. I have not read the transcripts from this morning, but I understand there are ongoing difficulties and problems and there has been a suggestion that the committee sit right through the entire weekend.
I simply want to give notice that until I read the transcripts I would rather not proceed now but wait until later.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, be read the third time and passed
Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed with the period of questions or comments following the intervention of the hon. member for Halifax to the House.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, during the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax she mentioned on two or three occasions the circumstances lying behind the dissolution of the Law Reform Commission.
I can recall that during committee hearings on the subject of this bill we were definitely made aware of very unfortunate implication, as we saw it, in the dissolution of the Law Reform Commission. Judges across Canada at all levels have an interest in reform of the law in some way. Let us keep in mind judges have a unique window on the legal system in this country. They do not have an obvious vehicle for their views on either a collective or individual basis. The Law Reform Commission had evolved into a vehicle capable of listening to and accommodating the views of our judges with respect to law reform in a non-partisan comprehensive and appropriate way.
November 26, 1992

Now that the Law Reform Commission is to be dissolved, I suspect many of the judges across this country who want to participate are losing this very unique vehicle. I wonder whether my colleague from Halifax has a perspective on that in her own experience as an MP and as a lawyer.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I do have some thoughts on that.
There has been a great deal of discussion both here and outside of this Chamber, regarding the role of judges in our legal system. They have very little or no opportunity in their current incarnation to have input into public policy in the research and development way. They have the ability to write decisions on those questions put to them in the courts and in the normal way if they happen to be appellate court judges. Obviously there is a limiting factor there.
Other levels of the judiciary, particularly those at the most active level in dealing with the public, which are known in my province as provincial magistrates, have no opportunity of the kind my hon. colleague mentioned.
I have risen many times in this House and discussed the need for mandatory training of judges, for example, in gender sensitization. I would hazard a guess that if the Law Reform Commission were still in existence, a number of judges would see the problems with gender sensitization, not just within their own brethren and sisterhood, but across the board in our society because of the cases they face. Indeed, they have now lost the opportunity to input this kind of data into a body such as the Law Reform Commission.
There is another area of great concern to Canadian women that would have been an area the Law Reform Commission would have studied. That is the whole area of sexual harassment. There is not a woman in this country, Madam Speaker, and I know you agree with me on this, who has not had to deal with this pernicious development at some time in her existence.
This week I have twice raised a situation in this House relating to two of my constituents, members of the Public Service of Canada, who have lodged a complaint founded on sexual harassment. I also raised this point last week.
Government Orders
It is absolutely clear to women within or without the public policy area of this country that the whole question of sexual harassment is not fully understood by many of our male colleagues, males in managerial and senior positions and many department heads. It is my strong impression, particularly following the problems with Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas and the Senate judiciary committee in the United States, that the area of sexual harassment is the newest area for deep response from organizations such as the now defunct Law Reform Commission of Canada.
It is a tragedy we no longer have this vehicle. It is a tragedy for the judiciary in this country. It is a tragedy for lawyers, but most particularly, it is a tragedy for the people of Canada.
I would hope that before any of us are very much older we will see a resurgence of a body similar to the Law Reform Commission of Canada through some form of intervention .


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I want to enter into the last stages of this debate. I think the discussion which has taken place with respect to elimination of these institutions has ranged across a wide number of different areas, but deserves to be focused as we come close to the end of the debate.
We really have a question before us as a country, as a Parliament, as members of this House of Commons, whether we are prepared to invest a small number of resources to ensure expert continuing input is provided to us on an independent basis as policy making goes forward.
As things stand at the moment, for instance, in the area of economics and economic policy, there is not a single institution in this country that has the responsibility to act independently to provide policy advice to governments across this country or, in other words, to fill the role the Economic Council previously filled.
We can look at some of the institutions the government has talked about as being able to fill this role, such as the Fraser Institute. It is very much shaped by a specific ideological view of the world and very much supported by large scale private business.

Government Orders
The C. D. Howe Institute has a slightly different perspective of the world and is again supported by private business. There is also the Conference Board of Canada. These are all reputable institutions and contribute important viewpoints which are helpful to government, but not from an independent perspective because of their source of funding.
In the case of the Conference Board, for instance, the funding again comes entirely from private business.
The University of Toronto Institute for Policy Analysis provides some policy advice, but at a very arm's length basis from political reality in many cases. It is funded partially by the private sector and partially by the public sector but through the university mechanism.
There is a problem with all these forms of institutional support and policy advice. There is not a large enough gathering together of resources to support the detailed research and large scale projects that are often needed in a much more complex world to get at the heart of economic issues which have to be understood in this relatively small country in financial and population terms. TTie same thing is true of many of the institutions we are talking about eliminating with this piece of legislation.
The Science Council of Canada has provided important advice in the past to government, not just about science and how to deal with science, but advice about the economy and how science should be brought into a more powerful and contributing role in our economic growth in Canada.
We can talk about institutions like the Law Reform Commission, and the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. All of these institutions have filled a tradition in this country which governments have previously been proud of. It is a tradition where institutions have the freedom to act and yet are provided with financial support on an arm's length basis.
This tradition is not just limited to this country. We can look at other countries in the world and see they too have institutions of this sort which play a similar role. For instance, France has a social and economic council with 200-plus members who meet twice a month. It has a large research staff. It provides important information
and advice on economic and social issues to the government.
Japan has the Japan Economic Research Centre. The United States has the Council of Economic Advisers, which is again supported by various research staff. The United Kingdom has the National Economic Development Council.
It is true we have some institutions in this country that still live. We have institutions like the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. They are able to operate with some independence and provide some advice, but frankly not with the depth of financial support some of these research institutions which we are winding up with this legislation have had to contribute in the past.
What if we were being asked to judge these institutions by the government and it said it was not certain whether they were contributing to the country or not? Perhaps the government would have an independent inquiry, or even a parliamentary committee probe their contributions and give some kind of independent assessment of what these various institutions have been and could contribute to the country.
If these independent inquiries and reviews had come back and said to Parliament these institutions were costing too much money, were not providing independent advice or contributing to better policy making and therefore they should be eliminated, that would have been a sensible route for a sensible government to take in policy analysis.
Instead, we had a government stand up on budget day, having given at most two or three hours warning to these institutions, and simply decide to eliminate them without any assessment, without any review, and without any chance for the people of Canada to analyse the contributions that these institutions have made to our country.
I have to make the assessments myself. It seems to me, from what I know of it and I have not had an independent review to help me, that it does make sense to eliminate the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council.
November 26, 1992

It seems to me we have other institutions that can provide independent advice and help, such as the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre.
When I look at the other institutions I do not see that. I do not see the way in which their work is going to be replaced, and I do see immensely valuable contributions that these institutions have made in the past and could make in the future.
For instance, I think of the work of the Science Council in analyzing some of the problems with multinational corporations and their activities in this country. It is work which led to new approaches on the part of policy makers to try to push multinational subsidiaries in this country to begin using their branch plants in Canada as bases for development and export of particular specialist product lines.
I think of the work of the Economic Council of Canada in examining the question of our relationship with developing countries in a very detailed study called Toward a Common Future. It developed a set of recommendations which in many ways have led government to recognize that trade, and trade relations, with developing countries is the most important way in which we can help poor countries in the world to expand their economies and to achieve development success.
Those countries have benefited as a consequence of the Economic Council's work. I think of the work of an institution like CUPS which has been out in the high schools providing information to our secondary school students so they have a better understanding of the complex changes taking place in the world.
I think of the International Centre for Ocean Development which, as well as contributing to Atlantic development, to the development of our Atlantic provinces, made useful suggestions and developed and administered useful projects in various Third World countries to help them build up their fish resources for the future.
At no stage has the government ever justified the elimination of any of these institutions. At no stage did the minister appear before committee and attempt to explain why the Economic Council should be guillotined or why the Science Council should be put before a firing squad.
Government Orders
At no stage were these kinds of explanations given, either to the House of Commons or to the people of Canada. Instead the government simply moved ahead and eliminated a whole set of institutions; a set of institutions whose one common thread seems to be the fact that they were established under the auspices of another political party. The Economic Council of Canada, the Law Reform Commission, ICOD, CUPS, all of these institutions were established under Liberal governments. Despite that, I say as a New Democratic that they have done useful, non-partisan work.
However, this government, a Conservative government, decided that it had to get rid of them. It has justified that by saying that this was going to save people in Canada tremendous amounts of money. My colleagues this morning and last night clearly demonstrated that there were other immensely more profitable areas to tackle if the government wanted to save money. It could have saved millions by enforcing taxation more effectively and it could have saved billions by seeing to it that family trusts were not given a free ride in tax terms in the future.
Did the government choose those areas to move in? It did not. Instead, it chose to move in what can only be analyzed, in the end, as a partisan means of eliminating institutions to which it objected for reasons that could only be understood, it would appear, in political terms. It is shameful that this was the approach taken by this government.
What is even more shameful is that having decided to eliminate these six institutions the government then brought before policy makers of this country the so-called prosperity report which recommends the establishment of six new institutions in this country. They are she new institutions to deal with the economy, to deal with the teaching of science in our schools, to deal with questions of quality in the production processes of our country-many of the issues which these institutions being eliminated were already dealing with.
It is unforgivable to see stupidity being implemented for partisan reasons. It is even more unforgivable to see that stupidity revealed for the hypocrisy it is by suggesting a short seven months later that we establish a whole new set of expensive institutions which I am certain will cost us far more money than the minor amounts to be saved by killing off these institutions that provided a

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
forward guidance system for the policy-making process in Canada.
I stand in the House as somebody who worked, before I joined this House of Commons as an elected member, with the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada. I have seen them from close up.
They are non-partisan, thoughtful institutions trying to contribute to the betterment of this country's future, and they have been butchered. They have been butchered by a government that has not seen the responsibility it has to maintain independent thinking in the future of our country's government.
I hope that this piece of legislation will be rejected. I hope that it will be possible for us to recognize fairly and independently the value contributed to this country by these institutions that this government is seeking to kill.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, I would like to contribute to the debate today by pointing out what Canada will lose when the Science Council of Canada goes. The council was created in 1966 when Mr. Pearson was Prime Minister of Canada. When the council was inaugurated, Mr. Pearson said that it was in the interest of governments and Canadians to receive advice from an independent body on establishing constructive links between science and technology on one hand and economic growth, resource development, health, the environment and national infrastructure on the other.
He charged the new agency to draw upon all the wisdom of the natural sciences, pure and applied, as well as the social sciences and humanities. He stressed how important it was to apply the scientific talent of Canadians to social problems that affect the whole world and to evaluate the impact of science and technology on society. That was in 1966.
Since then the Science Council of Canada has met Mr. Pearson's challenge. According to its last chairman, Janet E. Halliwell, the production of the Science Council of Canada is rich and multi-faceted. We need only consider the publications following more than 25 years of study: working papers, workshops, lectures and studies.
These publications are a solid collection of summary documents, analyses and policy papers, widely recognized in Canada and abroad, as the frequent references to them in national and international literature attest.
The council's most important function perhaps has been education, not in the sense of acquiring knowledge but of helping people to rethink old problems in new ways and to identify new issues and new challenges. The council had about 20 members who came from all parts of the country and all backgrounds: the private and public sectors, industry, government, education, medicine and so on. Of course the council brought together French and English speaking people. I would like to return to the Science Council of Canada's national vocation in a moment.
I should also point out that with the exception of the chairman and vice-chairman of the council, members worked without remuneration. The Science Council gave them an opportunity to discuss the various problems being analysed by the council and consider possible solutions.

In a letter to members of the committee which studied this bill to dissolve the Science Council and the other commissions such as the Law Reform Commission and the Economic Council, Janet Halliwell, the last chairman of the council, observed that while the council's work extended to many subjects there were perhaps two themes which dominated and influenced Canadians over the course of the past 25 years and the understanding that we have of science and technology and society. These two subjects are what is today called competitiveness and sustainability, words which were not in vogue perhaps 15 to 20 years ago but which nonetheless have preoccupied the council for the past 25 years.
From its beginning the council consistently stressed the need for Canada to become more innovative. I believe that Ms. Halliwell is right to say that the council's work has had a profound impact on the national agenda and that the council's thinking underlies the government's current prosperity initiative. Witness the fact that Ms. Halliwell was asked by the government to co-chair the task force on science, technology and related skills which was one of the task forces which made up the prosperity initiative.
November 26, 1992

With respect to sustainable development, the Science Council anticipated the Brundtland report by more than 10 years in a report entitled "Canada as a Conserver Society''.
With this record, it came as a shock to many people that the Science Council would be unceremoniously dissolved by the government. Of course this decision was announced in the February budget. The decision to abolish the council was taken without formal evaluation of its work or consultation with the chairman or the members of council. Indeed, the chairman was advised that the winding down of the affairs of the council should not be considered a negative comment on the work of the council.
The Minister of Finance has said that other groups can do the council's work. Perhaps he had in mind the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology which is chaired by the Prime Minister. NABST does not operate independently from the government. On appointment, the members of that board take an oath of secrecy. Its reports are not always made public or are often made public after considerable delay.
Professor John Polanyi, the 1986 Nobel prize winner in chemistry, who has been a member of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, appeared before the legislative committee studying this bill and explained that governments must have not only in-house sources but arm's length sources. "Why is that", he asked. He answered that in-house advisers have to deal with immediate crises. They often cannot afford to take a longer view and are subject to political constraints. They do not report directly to the public and sometimes they do not report at all to the public. That is why we need independent, arm's length bodies.
Canada is left with only two independent long-range research organizations that are examining science policy and innovation and both happen to be located at the University of Quebec in Montreal. Neither has the integrated strength, national purview or scope of the Science Council. I believe it is accurate to conclude, as did Ms. Halliwell: "The demise of the Science Council will sharply reduce access to independent in-depth
Government Orders
analytical work in science and technology policy, the underpinning of good decision making".
The government has said the motive for terminating the Science Council is to save money. This is a motive we all share. However as Professor Polanyi put it: "The money being saved by the dissolution of the Science Council is about $3 million per year". It sounds like a lot of money but as he said: "It is a trivial sum compared to the cost of just one technological error".
Dr. Polanyi also told the committee that if we abolish the Science Council we will have to recreate it, and he listed a number of considerations which we should look for in the existing and in the future Science Council. I would like to review three of these considerations.
First, he said it must be credible, which means it must be in touch with the scientific community. It also takes time to establish credibility and that is why it is such a tragedy we are losing the 25 years of experience we have in the Science Council. Credibility is item one and the Science Council had that.
Second, the Science Council must be fair and recognize a range of views and that is exactly what the Science Council did.
Third, the body must be visible. On this point Dr. Polanyi felt that the Science Council may get less in the way of good marks. It has to be visible he said to scientists, to scholars, the public, the media and decision-makers.
I would like to add a word or two on this point. I am concerned that MPs are not organized to benefit from the work of the Science Council or other groups that provide similar advice such as the groups at the University of Quebec or the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. I believe we will have to make changes if we wish to benefit from a future Science Council.
Let me explain what I mean. Until 1986 the miscellaneous estimates committee dealt with the scientific and technological activities of the Government of Canada. It was that committee which reviewed the work of the Science Council and its reports, studied the activities of the National Research Council and the government

Government Orders
departments that deal with industry, science and technology.
In 1986 as part of parliamentaiy reform, the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology was created. One of the major features of reform was to give more power to committees and part of this power was the ability to undertake a study independently without a reference from the House of Commons. Also committees with a smaller membership were supposed to lead to specialization.
I regret to note that the enthusiasm for reform lasted about two years. By 1988 most of the smaller committees that were established in 1986 were merged into larger ones. Research, science and technology were lumped together with industry, regional and northern development. The committee's work I must say is hampered by changing membership.
In the United States the membership of congressional committees operates under rather strict rules of seniority. Adopting rules of that nature might improve the effectiveness of our own committees.
What I am trying to say is that while we might want a future science council to be more visible and to have the ear of decision makers, it is for decision makers, including members of Parliament, to listen and to organize themselves in a fashion that we are able to listen to the advice and to understand the reports that come from groups like the Science Council.
In closing, I want to add just one word about the national vocation of the Science Council of Canada. As I said before, we are left really with no national body to look at science and technology policy issues from a national perspective and from an arm's length perspective.
As I mentioned also, the Science Council was unique in being a national body in that it brought together anglophones and francophones from all over the country. By its mission and composition the Science Council helped secure both as prosperous and harmonious future for Canada.

I would like to quote Mr. Goyette, who wrote to the Science Council of Canada when it was announced the council would be dissolved. Mr. C. Goyette is president of a company in Montreal called Corestham. Mr. Goyette said that the Science Council provided a vision
of technological and scientific development commensurate with the reputation of this country, and capable of steering us successfully through the critical nineties. The council also had a unique network of scientists and engineers who, as reflected by their ties with the business and academic world across Canada, proved that the various regions of this country can work together and also reach a consensus on a vision of the future".
In concluding Mr. Goyette said: "On the basis of my experience, I can state that the Science Council was an essential component of Canadian unity".
The dissolution of the Science Council not only deprives us of an agency that would help us prepare for the future through an understanding of the challenges of science and technology, but also of another agency and institute that brought Canadians together and contributed to national unity. That is why all Canadians should and indeed must regret the dissolution of the Science Council.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I just wonder if he would comment on where one might find the necessary funds to keep these institutions going.
The government side has indicated that their principal purpose in doing this is to make a leaner, meaner government. I know in his remarks the hon. member was just drawing toward telling Canadians where the funds to keep them going were going to come from.


David Berger: I thank the member for Skeena for his question. I guess in the months leading to the actual closing of the Science Council, in the time between the budget and the end of June when the Science Council had to close its doors, the chairman, Janet Halliwell, prepared a proposal to revive the council known as the Phoenix Project. She hoped this new institute would be modelled after the Carnegie Institute in the United States. Funding would be provided by a number of sources, including the private sector and provincial governments, but certainly required a commitment from the federal government.
On April 8 I asked the Minister for Science when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Industiy, Science and Technology whether the federal government would be prepared to participate in the funding of such a new institute. His answer was no, flatly no, no interest whatsoever from the government.
November 26, 1992

We learned that the Phoenix Project would never see the light of day and that the government was not interested in preserving the council in any form.
Perhaps at some point such a council can be recreated as a purely private initiative. I am somewhat doubtful. I have spoken to people who have been close to the council and people who are in the private sector. They do not feel that the funding can be obtained solely from the private sector for this kind of initiative. There will have to be some kind of government funding if we wish to recreate the council some day. Such a council would perhaps be housed at a university or some other institution where it might be on firmer footing than as just an agency of the federal government, as it was in its first incarnation.


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that some people over here were impressed by his speech. I am frankly surprised at what he has just said.
If the member wants to send to some of us over here the notion that a phoenix can arise out of this situation which may require some matching support there are some people over here who would like to help him.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his willingness to look at this proposal to revive the Science Council. Certainly, I will be in touch with him. We will get to work on it and see what we can do.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.
Canadians should know, and I want to repeat for them, the organizations that we are dissolving this afternoon: the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law Reform Commission and the Science Council of Canada.
When the rest of the world is talking about training, retraining and creating centres of excellence we in this country are dissolving six institutions that contain some
Government Orders
of the best and brightest minds that our country has ever seen. They have been producing ideas on a whole range of issues.
I think specifically of the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada. These two institutions have been generating ideas for debate not only for this legislature but for every other legislature in the country. They have also provided specific information to those in the private sector who were interested, some of it concerning corporate development in the business sector and the education sector.
What bothers me most is that the government is suggesting that this entire operation is being done in the interest of addressing the deficit and debt of this country.
This government does not understand that as it proceeds on this course of cutting and dismantling these instruments it is weakening the galvanization process of this country. That is one of the things that really affects confidence.
I remember in 1961 when John F. Kennedy said: "We are going to put a man on the moon". That one sentence triggered a reaction which galvanized the will of the American people. That one sentence triggered a reaction in the grade schools, high schools, colleges, universities and think-tanks all over the United States. They said: "Yes, when we work together, when we have a hopeful thing to look forward to we can raise our productivity levels and we can become creative". These exercises in creativity produce all kinds of spin-off opportunities for job creation.
I believe that President-elect Clinton will be a catalyst for galvanizing the will of Americans once again. That is what we are missing in this country. We are missing that one big idea that will pull us all together, that idea of hope that will make us all feel good about ourselves and cause us to have the level of confidence that will cause us to spend again and will cause our job creation mechanisms to start kicking into place again.
If one good idea came from these institutions, I refer specifically to the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada, that could trigger a change in the mind-set of this country then that alone could pay for all these institutions for the next 10 years or 20 years.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
I am totally sympathetic with the notion that we must be cost efficient, that we must not waste and that we must not abuse taxpayers' money. I will not argue any of those points. However, what is really lacking in this country right now is the feeling that it is a good thing to be creative, that it is a good thing to unleash that creative process.
These institutions were internationally respected think-tanks. They did not always come up with ideas that could be used. They have not always come up with ideas that I have agreed with. However, they were instruments for advancing the debate, which is what is lacking in our country today.
The whole exchange, the whole concept of advancing debate is really stifled. It is only when the best and the brightest of minds are fully exercised in debate that we will generate ideas that hopefully will put this country back on a path to economic prosperity.
When I think of these organizations being dismantled I just cannot understand where the government is coming from. How much are we truly going to save? What are we going to do with these minds, with the human capital that exists in some of these institutions?
I am sure that some of this human capital, this great talent, is going to be transferred to other sections of government so that they will still be an expense to the taxpayer. Their data bases and libraries are being dismantled. They are moving some of them to Toronto. I do not know where all the data bases are being moved, but I am sure they are going to be parked in different sections of government, in different parts of the machineiy of government.
Think of the cost we are going to incur when we bring similar think-tanks back. We are going to have to reconstruct all the dismantling that is going on. I just cannot figure out where the government is coming from on this particular question.
I listened to the Minister of Industiy, Science and Technology talk about the prosperity initiative. I listen to the government when it talks about the fact that we must become globally competitive, must put more dollars into training, and must stimulate the community and stimulate the idea process to create new products at more competitive prices. I hear all these statements, but this action flies right in the face of them.
I refer specifically to the Science Council and the Economic Council of Canada. These are two of the finest think-tanks anywhere in the world. To chop them is the type of retreat by national governments that I am ideologically opposed to.
In the private sector we are encouraging people to put money into research and development. Two and a half years ago one of our more successful companies in this country, Magna International, which I had the privilege and experience of working with, had a very difficult time because of the downturn in the economy. The levels of profit had vanished and there was pressure from financial institutions to try to get this organization back on track.
Yes, there were some streamlining initiatives and steps that were included in the revised business plan but the one thing that salvaged Magna International, put it right back on track and made it once again one of the most profitable organizations in North America, employing close to 20,000 people, was the fact that it had a solid research and development centre. It was able to diversify its products because there were creative minds in that company who were given the resources to create new products at better prices and with better quality. That is what brought it out of the depths of this tough economic period.
What I do not understand is that when there are creative centres of excellence like the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada, if anything, we should be supplementing their budgets because right now we are looking for one or two ideas that will galvanize the will of this country, pull this country together, and give us the confidence to start moving again.
This government once again is not demonstrating the vision it should when times are tough. In my opinion, when times are tough we should not promote less but more. We have think-tanks with the best and brightest minds in the country working in a non-partisan manner for the good of the nation. When instead of encouraging them and giving them the tools and necessary environment to come up with something to give us guidance and lift us out of this demise the government writes them off it shows me that it is missing the very point. The government is missing the very thing that is required to help pull us all together and help put us back on track in terms of this economic malaise we are in.
November 26, 1992

I can only hope that something happens between now and the time when the final axe is dropped. Maybe there will be some kind of death-bed conversion. I salute the Prime Minister for admitting just a few days ago that he had made some mistakes in the last few years. Well, maybe for the sake of $3 million or $4 million he could admit that this is one of his mistakes and keep these fine institutions going.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend's speech with great interest because he is very thoughtful on these questions and I respect what he has
had to say.
I will begin with a little story. Two weeks ago, a page approached me and she asked: "Are you related to the Tom Hockin who wrote this boring book that we have to read in our political science class?" I said: "Well, I am that Tom Hockin". She came back two days ago and said: "Oh, I was so embarrassed. I have read the book again and it is not so boring after all. There are some good ideas in there".


Dennis Joseph Mills: There are some good ideas in that book.


Thomas Hockin: Maybe she was just apologizing. I mention my book because I know the hon. member has written a book too. It is on taxation, on the flat tax. As far as I know, he produced that book the same way I produced the three books I wrote. I did it without an institution funding me, without an economic council or a science council funding me. I did it as an individual.
In fact, this government's $168 million publishing program is going to allow publishers to seek out people, to get all sorts of new ideas into the public conversation of Canada. We will have a tremendous proliferation of ideas and debates on a number of things.
Why do we have to have institutions for the hon. member to write his book? He would agree with me. Institutions are not needed; he can do it on his own. A publisher will approach him and his ideas can be disseminated.
I am in no way being critical of what the Economic Council of Canada or the Science Council of Canada produced, but sometimes institutions can slow down publication. Sometimes they can to some extent smooth out the hard edges of an idea because one is writing for
Government Orders
the institution. Sometimes the ferment of ideas is more likely to come forward in an autonomous fashion, the way the hon. member wrote his book, the way I wrote mine.
I just wanted to tell my hon. friend that I do not agree with this approach that without these councils we are not going to have a ferment of ideas. Of course we will. In fact given our publications policy brought in by the Minister of Communications, we are going to have just a tremendous number of ideas that will attract the attention of Canadians.
The hon. member said that what we are looking for is the one big idea which will pull Canada together and pull us out of whatever it is we are in, I would say our economic troubles or constitutional troubles. I have to say that the Toronto Blue Jays did not win the World Series with one big home run. They won it with a lot of singles, doubles, stolen bases, good relief pitching and not with one big idea. They did it with a whole range of small, medium and a few big ideas.
This government is being asked to lead the Canadian people, and any government would be asked to lead the Canadian people, not in search of one big idea, but a whole range of ideas. When I look at the front bench and the second bench here, every minister represents different ideas to help restore the Canadian economy. Every minister has his or her own approach. There is not one big idea. The positions of the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister will always attract the most attention perhaps, but all ministers are contributing.
It is wrong to try to put in place councils that will somehow miraculously come up with the one big idea that will solve all our problems, be they medical, sociological, economic or political.
It is much better to have the ferment of autonomous thinkers in academic institutions and elsewhere, writing and dialoguing, attending seminars, producing their ideas that way. In fact the $168 million for a publications strategy will probably do far more for producing that ferment of ideas than maintaining these councils which frankly are expensive and whose participants generally will still produce their ideas in different formats for academic institutions and maybe for government and the private sector.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I did read the hon. member's book when I worked in Mr. Trudeau's office. Actually I found it quite helpful. It was a well-written piece and enabled me from time to time to effectively use the machinery of government. I have never forgotten that.
I did not use the Science Council of Canada or the Economic Council of Canada when we did our work on the single tax issue. We continue to advance that idea. Hopefully one day this government will be receptive to doing a detailed analysis of it and considering it for Canadians because most Canadians would like to see this government take a shot at comprehensive personal and corporate tax reform.
I found that it was only after the Canadian Tkx Foundation did a critique of our work on the single tax that we started getting some response in terms of having a viable idea.


An hon. member:: They are not government financed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: That is not the point. The point of the matter is that this particular organization, the Economic Council of Canada, has a data base of information and research that assists all kinds of operations from other legislatures, corporations and educational institutions across the country. So one should not think that they are just self-sufficient. They give information to all kinds of agencies across the country that are doing their own creative thinking.
That is the point I think the government is missing. They represent a solid service. A service that has credibility for some of the research going on in fields in so many different sectors.
When I talk about the one big idea, I am not talking about just a single idea. I am talking about an equation that will pull everyone together. I mentioned the example of John F. Kennedy saying: "We are going to put a man on the moon". It was not the actual event of a man being put on the moon which pulled everybody together. It was the fact that the objective got everyone working together. It stimulated everybody, those in grade school right through to those in the think-tanks, research centres and corporations all around the world. He gave
the people a vision of hope. That vision of hope was partly given to him by some of the best and brightest surrounding him.
That is the whole purpose of these think-tanks. It is for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to listen to some of these people from time to time. He does not have to agree, but they are instruments for advancing debate. They are instruments for helping people move to a new level of hope and a new level of opportunity.
It may not necessarily be the Economic Council of Canada which comes up with an idea but its service and work on a particular idea might motivate some think-tanks in a university in some other part of the country to come up with some ideas. The whole notion of sending out a signal that we are going to do away with the idea generating institutions is counterproductive.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-63.
I do not take exception to everything that the hon. member has just said, but we are debating Bill C-63 which really gives effect to a commitment we made in the February budget of this year in order to streamline government, make it more efficient, make it more effective. What we are talking about is the elimination of six bodies only in Bill C-63.
I want to remind the House that those bodies are: the Economic Council of Canada; the Science Council of Canada; the International Centre for Ocean Development; the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security; the Law Reform Commission; and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council.
In a debate like this we can drag in everything and I think the opposition has effectively done that. We have to focus on what this bill does. What it does is to respond to a need expressed by the Canadian people. That need was pretty evident last year during the minister's prebudget consultations.
From one end of Canada to the other Canadians are talking about streamlining government, making it more efficient and more effective. At the end of the day they want less money spent on the delivery of services.
November 26, 1992


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: It is about silencing your critics. Shoot the messenger.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member hollering from across the floor hopefully will have a chance to speak. If he could give me the opportunity, I will say what I have to say and hopefully he will have a chance before the evening ends as well.
To put this in perspective, we are talking about six organizations only in this debate. I want to remind the House that the federal government currently maintains more than 400 separate organizations and advisory bodies. At the end of the day, there is a great cost to that. Also included are 26 statutory government departments, 80 departmental agencies, 54 Crown corporations and over 200 boards, tribunals, councils and other advisory boards.
As we often say, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to calculate the cost of that. The cost is immense to the Canadian people. They have told us they want less government, not to say that they want less service, but they want less government and good service at the end of the day. I am not convinced that we are going to achieve that by maintaining the status quo. We have to take action at some point and I think we have taken constructive action.
To prove what we are doing is correct, I want to step through each and every one of those organizations and think-tanks we are talking about today.
The first one is the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. The role of that council is to advise the Minister of Employment and Immigration on matters of concern to that department. That advisory capacity has been replaced by the Canada Labour Force Development Board with parallel regional and local boards. What we have again is a duplication in government and an unneeded cost to the Canadian taxpayer. It is an expense we do not need and we are taking action to eliminate that waste of money.
The Law Reform Commission is another one where its duties are being replaced free of charge by other organizations.
In fact, the minister and the department are taking advantage now of the Canadian Bar Association as well
Government Orders
as federal and provincial government departments to develop proposals for law reform. Why keep a commission that is not needed? No reason. Let us not get lost in the rhetoric of the day.
The Economic Council of Canada was established in 1963 at a time when governments had money to spend and when balanced budgets were commonplace or at least were possible if you attempted to achieve balance in expenditures and revenues. That is not the case today. If it were, I am sure we would achieve it.
A great deal of its work is being replaced by the universities, public policy think tanks such as the Conference Board of Canada, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, and the Institute for Research on Public Policy and private sector groups. Those institutions are doing the same work as the Economic Council of Canada. Certain federal organizations and federal departments do that very work today and they are being paid again by the taxpayers. The Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada are the institutions I am speaking of.
An overlap exists between the mandate of the Science Council of Canada and the programs of those of other organizations.
Let us take a look at those organizations that are doing the very same work. They are departments and agencies with science and technology mandates. The National Advisory Board on Science and Technology and nongovernmental policy organizations are doing similar work, as are more specialized sectoral commentators, institutions and centres of research on science and technology.
The International Centre for Ocean Development was set up in 1983 under the previous regime. The government has concluded after nine long years that these functions can now be fulfilled more economically by assigning these activities to the Canadian International Development Agency. Again, duplication. Is it necessary? Absolutely not.
The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security was established in 1984. We concluded that these functions can now be fulfilled more economically by assigning these activities to the Department of External Affairs.

Government Orders
If we stepped through all six of these agencies, then-work is being duplicated by others inside and outside government. We have to exercise the responsibility that has been handed us. Is it not important that we recognize this duplication in government and the extra spending of taxpayers' money?
The argument used on the other side of the House is simply that the moneys saved are minuscule. Is that not the case in everything we attempt to do on this side of the House? No matter how much we save it is never enough. No matter how much that is, it is always affordable if you are in opposition.
Thke a look at the dollar value attached to this movement to exclude or eliminate those agencies. Let us look at the total cost. I am speaking now of the 46 agencies targeted during the budget presentation in February of this year. It is estimated that for the 46 agencies and bodies mentioned in the budget speech, including the six covered by the legislation of which were are speaking today, the saving will be $22 million this fiscal year. In the words of the opposition that is just a minuscule amount of money. It does not mean anything, $22 million.


An hon. member:: That is not what we said.


Gregory Francis Thompson: If we look at the over-all cost of government maybe it is not, but the accumulation of $22 million here, $22 million there, or $22 million some place else adds up at the end of the day. In fact, it will add up to about $71 million by the 1993-94 fiscal year if we had done nothing. The total savings over the next five years will be $310 million. That is significant.
Do you remember the old phrase, what is a million? I guess today it is, what is a billion, but $310 million is still a fair chunk of change. It is a chunk of change that the taxpayers cannot find because as members on both sides know, whether it is an provincial NDP government or it happens to be Liberal, or a federal government that happens to be Conservative, at the end of the day no matter where you are in this country of ours, from Newfoundland to B.C., times are tough. Attempting to find $310 million is pretty difficult. The only way we are going to find it today I would suggest is to borrow money and we have done too much of that in the past. We are not going to do more of it.
I do not think the issue should be confused. When the member across the way spoke about galvanizing the
Canadian people, trying to instil confidence in Canadian people, moving the economy down the road in the direction we want to see it move, I am not sure we can do that by maintaining agencies that are there at the expense of the taxpayer and are unnecessary. That is what we are talking about. I do not think we should allow the issue to be confused. We are not talking about anything else other than ending some duplication.
When they are talking about ripping the heart out of the Canadian economy, destroying confidence in the country, taking away the ingredients that might move our economy down the road in the right direction, I do not think we can buy into that logic because it is illogical to think that eliminating duplication in government has anything to do with jump-starting or moving the economy along.
Do not let that argument get in the way of common sense. What we are doing in regard to the elimination of these agencies is the correct thing to do.
As I mentioned, each one of these bodies, each one of these organizations by its actions, its deeds, and what it accomplished is already being accomplished by another level of government or another agency outside of government. That is the argument. Let us not confuse the issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, further to the agreement made earlier this day, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at 6 p.m. are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso-Fisheries; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-Westray coal mine.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the member opposite that we do not consider $29 million a small amount of money. No one said that here today. We were not being disrespectful of a sum of money.
If the Tories really do believe that these institutions are not serving any policy objective, then why did they not cut them a quarter of a billion dollars ago? Why did they not cut them in 1985 if they were so committed to this? Why did they, if they consider these institutions a waste today, not consider them a waste in 1984? Why did they not make the decision then when they could have saved taxpayers a quarter of a billion dollars?
November 26, 1992

The discovery in year eight that these institutions were a waste of money is not logical. It seems to me if their logic holds, then they should have made the cut then. The thing that makes this operation so distasteful for me is the fact that there are so many other departments, agencies and services of government that are going through budget cuts, and I salute those budget cuts.
Many corporations, many families are making budget cuts because we are in a period of economic pain. What bothers me about this particular case is that the Tories are not turning to the Economic Council of Canada or the Science Council or the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and the others and saying: "Listen, we have all had a tough time here. There are very few resources because of the downturn in the economy. The debt and the deficit is high because of unemployment, therefore we want you to take some cuts like everyone else".
Would that not be a more logical way to go, more consistent and more fair? That way we would still retain the core strength, the history and all the resources that these institutions have. I believe the economy will come back on track soon. I happen to be one who shares the view of Tom McCormack that the 1990s are going to be better than the 1980s.
I am not speaking here as someone who is negative. I am trying to appeal to your common sense. Just tell these organizations that they have to cut back, they should not get any increases in salaries. In fact, in many corporations these days people are taking cuts in salaries, as many families are doing.
Why can we not apply the same test to these organizations before the door is shut on them and before they are dismantled?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have to respond to that question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You have eight minutes.


Gregory Francis Thompson: That is all the time that is required. It is a very broad question but the member started out by suggesting that if we were serious in 1984 about doing what we are doing, why did we not do it then.
Government Orders
That is a pretty fair statement. He was not a member of this House at the time, nor was I, but if I had been I would have suggested it then and not now. That is easy for me to say, is it not?


Mr. Keyes:: It is on the record now.


Gregory Francis Thompson: That is right. The fact is that no matter whenever one decides to do something like this, it is never easy.
I know there are some members on this side of the House who are not in total agreement with some of the decisions. There is no question about it. For every decision, there is always someone who is railing against it. No matter how good it sounds to you and me, there is always someone who is hurt by that decision.
That is the difficulty when you form a government. Perhaps the government should have, in 1984, taken a look at some of those institutions and made the tough choices back then but that did not happen. I guess that is hindsight. It did not happen. Maybe it should have but it did not.
Going back to the member's question, if he is saying it would have been a smart action by the government then, it is even smarter to do it now and all the rest is hindsight. Unfortunately we cannot return to pre-1984 days.
It was suggested maybe we should have taken a broader look at more agencies and departments of government and just cut back a little. By doing that we may not have had to eliminate some of those agencies. I think the suggestion within the question was we would not have had to do as much radical surgery.
In terms of duplication of government, I have tried in a very systematic way to step through all six of those agencies and explain why they are not needed. Again the basis of my argument is duplication in government. If we can save money and still maintain services to the Canadian people it is incumbent upon us to do that. I do not regret supporting the elimination of duplication in government.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, just before I begin, I wonder if you can give me some guidance, because it is very near private members' hour. Will the debate cease in one or two minutes and pick up again after private members' hour?

November 26, 1992
Private Members' Business


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


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: This evening we are speaking on Bill C-63, which is an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies. I want to say I am standing up along with my colleagues to oppose this draconian piece of legislation.
Let us just have a look at what this legislation purports to do. It will affect some 1,200 employees, cut some 500 jobs and proposes to save a mere $22 million per year. That is not chicken feed. We all know $22 million is a lot of money, however I hope I can demonstrate there are many other areas in the federal service where we can save a heck of a lot more than $22 million and still maintain the viable and very valuable programs these particular institutions, which are going to be chopped entirely, do provide.
Let us have a look at the institutions which are affected. The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council is gone. The Law Reform Commission of Canada has been deep-sixed. The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security is gone. The Economic Council of Canada has bitten the dust. The International Centre for Ocean Development, another world-class research institute has also bitten the dust. Finally, the sixth casualty of this administration is the Science Council of Canada.
I want to submit the reason this government has chopped those bodies has nothing to do with budgetary restraint. It has nothing to do with saving $22 million. It has everything to do with silencing the government's critics because every one of these institutions at one time or another has been critical of the policies and initiatives of this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have 18 minutes left in his speech plus 10 minutes questions or comments.
It being five o'clock, 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. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: that Bill C-350, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to move second reading of this important but very short bill.
This bill is an amendment to section 318.(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. That section prohibits the incitement of hatred against an identifiable group. I quote from the words of the act: "distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin".
The bill would amend this section of the Criminal Code by adding to the list of persons or groups of persons, those who are distinguished by age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
This bill is based on a resolution which was passed last February by the Kingston Police Services Board. The board prepared this resolution after receiving complaints from members of the public who were upset with various comments in the press particularly, but comments these persons believed promoted hatred against segments of society which were not protected by the wording of the Criminal Code as it now stands.
The citizens were upset with statements which suggested, for example, persons infected with AIDS or HIV should be cast out from society and somehow excluded from the normal living standards the rest of us have come to expect because it was some kind of punishment they deserved for having contracted this disease.
It was felt that by changing the words of the act this kind of nonsense could be stopped because it would constitute hate literature and would not be published.
I believe this particular section is important in our country. It is a hole in the law, notwithstanding the fact that prosecutions under section 318(4) of the Criminal Code have been exceedingly rare. I do not want to go into the history of prosecutions under this section particularly. I do not think they are terribly relevant today, but I must say prosecutions have been exceedingly
November 26, 1992

rare under this section either successful or otherwise. I understand very few have been launched but I do not have precise figures on that.
By expanding the wording of the section I believe we can help create a fairer society for persons who suffer as a result of the publication of hate literature. I also believe some of the material I have seen occasionally must come very close to, if not constitute literature that does promote hatred against one of the identifiable groups I have listed in Bill C-350.
I want to thank the Kingston Police Services Board for drawing this hole in the law to my attention. I was pleased to be able to have this bill drafted and submitted to the House and that it made its way through the tortuous process of Private Members' Business to be drawn and made available for debate today. Unfortunately it was not chosen as a votable item. I would hope at the conclusion of the debate today there might be unanimous consent to allow the bill to receive second reading, notwithstanding that it is not votable, and have it referred to a legislative committee so it could be studied there. I do not think there would be general objection to the bill or any aspect of it in the House.
Looking at the history of this bill, section 318(4) of the Criminal Code was introduced into the code in 1970. The debate that took place then was a fairly vigorous one. There was considerable opposition to including hate literature as something that should be prohibited in Canada. The argument was very clear, that it was an infringement on the right of freedom of speech. There is no doubt it is an infringement on that right. It was introduced as such an infringement and it was clear the purpose of the infringement was to limit people in their exercise of their right of freedom of speech from carrying on in a way that was harmful and incited hatred for others.
I had a brief glance through the debate. I found a speech by the hon. Lincoln Alexander who was then the member for Hamilton West. I know my colleague who seconded the motion today is now the member for Hamilton West and certainly would be very familiar with the hon. Lincoln Alexander, the former Lieutenant-
Private Members' Business
Governor of Ontario who also served a very distinguished record of public service after he left this House.
In any event he made a speech in the course of the debate on Bill C-3 as it then was, the bill that in 1970 introduced this section of the Criminal Code. I thought it might be insightful if I were to quote from various aspects of the hon. member's speech. He said, as reported on page 5610 of Hansard for April 7, 1970:
I do not know whether the bill is perfect. Perhaps it is not perfect. Maybe it is contrary to the thinking of some of us-.We as Canadians and parliamentarians must discuss this type of legislation. Perhaps this legislation would not have been necessary had we followed, as I indicated in my maiden speech, the advice of one Adele Florence Corey. I should like to quote from Hansard of September 20, 1968-but remember that when I first spoke in this House I was more nervous than I am now. As recorded at page 291 of Hansard for September 20,19681 mentioned that this woman had said a long time ago, 1 said:
She said that men should be judged not by the colour of their skin nor by the way they fight, love or sin, nor by the gods they serve or vintage they drink, but by the quality of the thoughts they think.
The words that Mr. Alexander quoted at that time are relevant in the debate today. They indicate that the judgment that we pass on others is not to be based on outward appearance, apparent illness, apparent disability or age, but rather on the quality of the thoughts they think. He has typified the kind of generosity of spirit that I believe this bUl tries to inspire in our fellow citizens.
He went on later in his speech, quoting the former member for Hamilton West, Mr. Alexander, as reported at page 5611 of the Commons Debates for April 7, 1970, to say in discussing the same bill:
Then, Mr. Speaker, last but not least we come to legislation. When all else fails with the good intentions of mankind and with the background man professes to have in Christian love and brotherly love, and that cannot arrive at the necessary solutions, I respectfully state it is my public duty as a parliamentarian to start thinking about legislation.
It was an excellent speech. Mr. Alexander displayed on that occasion the kind of generosity of spirit that was important. He said that we were not able to overcome people's hatreds and the way they express them just by encouraging people to expand their horizons and broaden their views. Sometimes we had to do it by legislation, resort to legislation to prevent people in our society who wish to expound this kind of hatred from doing so. He

November 26, 1992
Private Members' Business
was prepared as a legislator then in 1970 to agree to the section of the code that is now section 318(4).
Why are these changes that I propose today so important? Frankly I think the world has changed since 1970. In 1970 the House was prepared to agree to a list that included colour, race, religion and ethnic origin. Since that time we have become much more aware of the women's movement, for example, of the importance of the elderly and of young people and the violence that is done to both age groups in our society. We have been through the International Year of the Disabled and our awareness of persons with disabilities is far greater in 1992 than it ever was in 1970.
We have changed our approach in dealing with these people in a host of ways. We have allowed them and encouraged others to raise awareness of the problems that are confronted by persons who fall into these categories. In so doing, we have not made the law sort of catch up with the way we feel about these kinds of groups and the way we have reacted to these kinds of groups and responded to their concerns. Because the groups have become vocal and are expressing the needs, wants and desires of the members of their groups, they naturally have raised their profile and have become subject to attack. It is that kind of attack when it takes the form of hate literature that this legislation is designed to prevent.
The purpose of the legislation is to protect these groups from this kind of hatred, from this kind of publication. The need was simply not there in 1970 because these groups were not as active, were not as vigorous, and were not promoting the rights and responsibilities of their members the way they are today.
Some may say it is unfortunate that we have groups promoting their rights, that it is very divisive in our society. It may be. However I am prepared and I think most members of this House are prepared to live with those divisions. We have all become accustomed to those divisions. What we have tried to do is say: "Yes, we recognize that you have a legitimate role to play as an advocate for the group that you represent". The interests of the members of that group are very important. We try to balance those interests and create a situation
where all citizens are treated fairly, regardless of the distinction that is based on the items I have listed.
By seeking to protect those differences, those different rights, and the specific rights that belong to each one of us, I think we are safe in saying that we should protect those rights by ensuring they are not made the subject of hatred by reason of the publication of hate literature. That is why I think this amendment is so important.
Our society has aged and perhaps that has something to do with why we would want to include age in such a list. Certainly sex has been a subject of considerable debate for the past decade at least. I am sure, were my colleague from Halifax here, she would want to say something on that subject and the importance of the changes that have taken place in women's rights in this country in the last 10 years or 15 years. That was not an issue in 1970 to the extent that it is today. Public awareness was simply not there.
These changes, while they may seem very simple and very basic, are ones that frankly are moving to bring the law into the latter part of this century, certainly into the 1990s. Had these issues been simmering at the point they are now simmering or boiling, however we want to describe it, in 1970, they would have been included in the original amendments to the Criminal Code. But they were not and so we are faced with a situation where I think the code should be brought up to date and that is what I have sought to do by this amendment, having been urged to do so by the Kingston Police Services Board.
I do not think there is much I can add to explain the bill to hon. members. As I say, perhaps at the conclusion of the debate we might look at the possibility of expediting the bill, giving it second reading and forwarding it to a legislative committee. At this point it would be appropriate if I conclude my remarks.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the proposals which have been advanced in Bill C-350 by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I know the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and I know his interest in legal matters and reform of the legal system. I have had the opportunity to serve with him on the privileges and elections committee. I enjoyed that very much and I am pleased to take part in this debate today.
November 26, 1992

Bill C-350 proposes that the definition of identifiable group as found in section 318 of the Criminal Code be expanded to include the terms age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
The issue embodied in this bill is one of fundamental importance. Parliament in the past has seen fit to provide for the prohibition of hate propaganda against an identifiable group as is currently defined in the Criminal Code.
The hate propaganda provisions restrict at present the freedom of expression in Canada, but they do so in order to prevent injury to members of the identified group and to the public at large. They do it in such a way as to be viewed as a reasonable limit on the guarantee to the freedom of expression.
I note the hon. member introduced this bill last June. In August the Supreme Court of Canada held in its decision, Regina v. Zundel that section 181 of the Criminal Code, spreading false news, violated paragraph 2(b) of the charter which protects freedom of expression and was not justifiable under section 1 of the charter. Section 181 of the Criminal Code prohibited knowingly publishing false statements causing or likely to cause injury to a public interest. Accordingly it was ruled by the court that this section was unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
The finding of the Supreme Court of Canada that section 181 is unconstitutional may have some impact on the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code. One wonders whether this decision has created a gap in the law, in our ability to deal with hate propaganda, in the sense that conduct which would have previously been prevented or deemed illegal by virtue of section 181 would no longer be caught by that section which has been overturned.
It would be useful to study this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and then assess its implications for government policy in the area of criminal law generally and on the issue of the relationship between freedom of expression and hate propaganda in particular.
It is important to remind the House in this regard that attempts by accused to have the courts strike down the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code have been successfully resisted.
In the case of Regina v. Keegstra the Supreme Court of Canada by the narrowest of margins upheld subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code, otherwise called wilfully promoting hatred, as a reasonable limit of the
Private Members' Business
guarantee to freedom of expression within the meaning of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It agreed that there is a societal interest in prohibiting hate propaganda.
In examining the definition of identifiable groups in section 318 of the Criminal Code, in the context of whether the subsection could be a reasonable limit the majority of the members of the court in a five to four decision, a narrow decision, noted that the provision of the Criminal Code was targeted against the intentional fostering of hatred against particular members of society as opposed to any individual.
Subsection 318(4) defines the expression identifiable group as meaning "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin". Expanding the definition would broaden the type of speech that would be caught by the hate law and therefore could potentially put the hate propaganda provisions at risk.
In view of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Keegstra case, subsection 319(2) was designed to extend the measure of protection to visible and religious minorities so as to prevent their being exposed to hate messages and to promote racial and religious tolerance and understanding.
Expanding the definition of identifiable group to include other characteristics such as those proposed in Bill C-350 would significantly extend the narrow purpose of protecting visible and religious minorities approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in Keegstra.
Any amendments resulting in a broader range of speech caught by the legislation could give rise to the argument that these provisions no longer represent a minimal impairment of the freedom of expression. As a result, the hate propaganda provisions as amended by Bill C-350 could be more vulnerable to a finding by the courts that they constitute an infringement of the charter guarantee of freedom of speech and that they are not a reasonable limit prescribed by law in a free and democratic society.
To broaden the definition it would probably have to be established that there is a pressing and substantial objective in Canada of a significantly substantial amount of hate propaganda aimed at particular groups. Such findings would likely have to be made and sustained with respect to groups of persons characterized by age, sex or physical or mental disabilities for the proposals in Bill C-350 to be found constitutional.

Private Members' Business
As a result it may be a more prudent course of action not to amend the definition of an identifiable group unless and until there is evidence of the existence of a significantly substantial amount of hate material to cause harm to a group not now covered by the definition. It is expected that federal-provincial territorial ministers responsible for justice will examine a wide variety of issues associated with the hate propaganda provisions, including the issue of how the identifiable group in section 318 should be defined at its next meeting.
A thoughtful and extensive review of the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code is well under way. In the interests of bringing about a comprehensive and sound law reform in this very important area, it would in my estimation be preferable to allow this process to conclude before the House considers any amendments to section 318 and section 319 of the Criminal Code.
The hon. member should be congratulated, however, for taking an interest in this very important matter and for advancing a proposal for change which is serious and very topical.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member on bringing forward his bill. It is a very important issue but, as I have said, it may not be prudent at this point in time to expand the definition because it could put at risk the hate provisions in our law at the present time.
I will conclude with that remark. Once again I want to congratulate the very eloquent member for Kingston and the Islands. He has done a lot of work in bringing forward various private members' bills to encourage discussion and debate. It was timely that we discuss this one today. I hope that the provincial, territorial and federal ministers will conclude their discussions on this issue and come forward with some reform in the law.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, as the justice critic for the federal New Democratic Party, I am pleased to stand and respond.
I want to say this before we lose the hon. member from the government. The government members always amaze me. Be careful when they start congratulating you. They will kill you with kindness. He just said that the hon. member who presented the bill, the member for
Kingston and the Islands, was a wonderful member, then said how he has contributed so much to the House, and congratulated him. There was just one little problem: We are going to talk out your bill, or we are not going to refer your bill to the committee.
If I were putting forward a bill, I would prefer that the government got up and said that I was a terrible rogue but my bill had some substance and it was going to consider my bill and put it to the committee. I will take that and thanks for the congratulations. I cannot speak for the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, but perhaps if he had a chance to speak again he would say that. Thanks for the congratulations but no thanks. Don't kill me with kindness. Just send my bill to the committee.
I do thank the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathco-na for putting forward some serious legal considerations. He mentioned the recent Zundel case in the Supreme Court of Canada which dealt with section 181 of the Criminal Code and that is spreading false news. The court said that was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore falls.
This of course deals with hate propaganda. The government member for Edmonton-Strathcona, who just spoke, raised a good question as to whether the recent Zundel case dealing with section 181 on false news affects this section on hate propaganda.
We still have this section in the law on hate propaganda. It is in the Criminal Code in section 318.1 will come to that in a minute. He asked the question: "Will that affect it? Will the court decision affect this section?" That is a good question.
It seems to me that is why we should take this member's bill and put it into the committee. Let the committee have a look at that and analyse precisely that question. If you are going to wait for the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice-I love all of them to the last man and woman-you will wait until hell freezes over before they make a few decisions. They are still working on facilities for juveniles. They are still working on areas for better gun control. They are still working on native justice measures. They are working on them, but they work pretty slowly.
November 26, 1992

If you are going to wait for them, you will be waiting for a long time. The position of my party is that we will agree to this bill today going to the committee because I think the principle of the bill is right. Indeed, it advances some very interesting principles. We would agree with that now so that it could be done. I did not want to disturb the hon. member, but I just wanted to make that particular point to him.
Let me say a couple of things about the bill, and put it in the right context. This bill deals with section 318 of the Criminal Code. It is worth having a look. I have the Canadian Criminal Code here. Section 318 calls it "hate propaganda" and it says "advocating genocide". Section 318(1): "Everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years".
"(2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely: (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction". That is of the whole group, the whole people.
"(3) No proceeding of an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General, and (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin".
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands brings his Bill C-50 and proposes to add in section 318(4) age, sex, sexual orientation and mental and physical disability to the list of characteristics that may distinguish an identifiable group for the purposes of this section of the Criminal Code.
There is another bill in the House from my colleague for Burnaby-Kingsway. His bill received first reading on June 19, 1991. This bill received first reading on June 10, 1992 but the 1991 bill, the previous bill of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, just deals with sex or sexual orientation.
What has happened here is that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has gone further and has added
Private Members' Business
age, mental and physical disability to the list of characteristics. This is very interesting. This is open to a lot of debate and a lot of thought.
I am trying to picture in my mind a group advocating the genocide of a whole group based on their age, perhaps old people, perhaps killing old people or killing disabled people. That is a very big debate in Canada today, as members know. There is the woman from the west coast who is suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease who wants to be able to terminate her life.
We do not have yet the debate of people actually getting criticized or charged who are advocating that a group be terminated. That is what this bill would deal with. I find that a very interesting question. It is hard to pronounce on the question without some serious debate in the committee on that. I think that is what we need. Also sexual orientation is in there. We have seen the extent of gay bashing and the calls from different people for eliminating that group of people. Most Canadians do not share that. It is a very small minority. Again it would fit in the context of the hon. member's bill.
I just want to say a couple of other things on the general subject. The member for Kingston and the Islands and the House know that the issue of freedom of speech versus restrictions on the dissemination of hate propaganda has really been at the centre of the two most notable cases, the Eckville, Alberta high school teacher, Jim Keegstra, and the recent case of Ernst Zundel. Zundel was originally convicted of distributing racist literature through the mail, publications that question whether the Nazis killed six million Jews in Europe during World War II.
These are not academic questions. Watch the news and see what is happening with the neo-Nazis in Germany coming back. I personally am a civil libertarian. I belong to the Civil Libertarian Association, Amnesty International and other associations. I really do not want to see Nazis back. There is only one way to deal with Nazis. They have to be dealt with toughly. That is why we need to have these kinds of laws.

November 26, 1992
Private Members' Business
When people say that the holocaust did not happen, they are essentially rewriting history and trying to pave the way for the return of Nazism and fascism. That is what it is all about. We should not be fooled. It is not a question of civil liberties. It is a question of fascism and hatred and Nazism, ultimately.
I want to point out to the House that in March 1984 there was a special parliamentary committee on visible minorities in the Canadian society. They had a number of interesting recommendations. Section 35 called for the deletion of the word wilfully from that definition in the code. This would remove the difficulty that the Crown has in having to prove that the accused specifically intended to publicly promote hatred against an identifiable group. That is a very hard thing for the Crown to prove.
Recommendation No. 36 called upon the Department of Justice to amend the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code in order to remove the necessity of having the Attorney General consent to prosecutions. That is not in the member's bill, but he might consider those two further aspects of the bill. If it went to the committee, it could look at that.
In July 1984 the Canadian Bar Association had a special committee on racial and religious hatred. It produced a document favouring stronger curbs on hate propaganda. I just want to refer to that: "After evaluating the conflict between egalitarian and libertarian values, the committee concluded that the weight of argument rested with the view that the law does indeed have a role to play in curtailing racial and religious hatred in the dissemination of hate propaganda".
Noting that the framers of our constitution supported the concept of legislative intervention, the special committee of the bar stated: "We ought not to shy away from strengthening the convictions which we have already put in writing in the Criminal Code".
The debate in Canada as to whether you like freedom of speech or laws that restrict freedom of speech is continuing and is at the core of these kinds of bills. As the member knows, we already have laws against libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court, obscenity and laws against incitement to riot. You do not walk into a theatre and yell fire. In other words, we do restrict
freedom of speech in some ways in the extremes. This is a case advocating genocide as an extreme that must be regulated.
I want to cite the cry that was attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it". Voltaire is saying that you can pretty well say anything and he will defend your right to say it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Your time has expired by two minutes. I will allow one sentence.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had longer. I would just like to say that this bill is very interesting. It is very important at this time. This is a huge debate in the country and the world. The bill is well thought out. It should go to committee. The House should put it through today on principle, and we should deal with some of these issues in the committee. That is where it should be dealt with.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to not only second the motion put forward in the House by my colleague the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on Bill C-350 but also to speak to the bill for what brief time I have.
There is a bit of deja vu because it was just last week when an attempt was made by myself on behalf of constituents in Hamilton West to have a Private Members' Bill move from second reading stage to committee stage so we could deal with amendments I had proposed to the Criminal Code with respect to parole and bail. I attempted to bring it to committee stage in order to have a complete, thorough, frank, and open discussion on a particular matter concerning the Criminal Code.
That is really what we were elected for in the first place, was it not? We were elected to bring the concerns of our constituents forward to the highest court in the land, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has done through his private member's Bill C-350, so that they can be put to a committee where there can be open discussion.
What we are dealing with here, as has been so eloquently put forward by the previous member and the member for Kingston and Islands, is the amendment the member seeks to section 318 of the Criminal Code, specifically subsection 4.
November 26, 1992

The hon. member is asking that the phrase identifiable group now mean:
any group of persons who are distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin,
And here are the additions:
age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
We say to the government: "Welcome to the 1990s". I would like to remind the House of a speech made in this House by the former hon. member of the riding I now have the privilege to represent. The Hon. Lincoln Alexander said in a speech on the original section 318:
You cannot legislate love, nor can you legislate against prejudice. But, Mr. Speaker, surely you can legislate against the overt act of discrimination. I do not know whether this bill will work, but I hope it will. It can work in this area, in that it is a form of education. But it is a form of education the hard way.
It is a form of education.
What does Bill C-350 do? It updates us to the 1990s because today we are talking about, as the member's bill states, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
Back when the hon. member for Hamilton West, Lincoln Alexander, made his remarks in 1970 they were very applicable. In 1970 we did not realize the difficulties facing the disabled in our society. We did not appreciate what the physically disabled in our society had to put up with.
That is really what they did. They had to put up with the lack of services that affected them in everything from entering a grocery store to dialing a phone in a phone booth. In the 1990s we can say we have recognized their concern, in part because of the hard work by those organizations representing the disabled. They have come forward to us and said: "Look, here is our problem, help us out", and we acted to help them out.
This is an opportunity today for the Criminal Code to be updated to incorporate their concerns.
The member for Kingston and the Islands expressed very eloquently how the Criminal Code must be updated. There are many sections in the Criminal Code. It is a pretty thick book. There are many aspects of this book that do need to be brought up to date. We can only
Private Members' Business
accomplish that if we can allow an initiative to get to committee stage.
There is no ulterior motive on the part of the member for Kingston and the Islands. This is not a press grabbing issue. This is not something that the member for Kingston and the Islands is trying to get some headlines with. He has just taken a piece of the Criminal Code, on behalf of the constituents he represents, and he said: "Look, all we have to do is get with the times here, folks. Get with the times. Age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability should be added to the list of those identifiable groups already found within the Criminal Code in section 318".
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona said that the government has proclaimed that the job of expanding the definition of section 318 is somehow vulnerable in the courts of our land. He certainly has not demonstrated to me or anyone on this side of the House exactly where it is vulnerable.
He referred to the Keegstra decision. The Keegstra decision was on section 319 not section 318. The hon. member is presenting a bill dealing with section 318. To broaden the definition, says the member for Edmonton-Strathcona, would be to identify the existence of a greater problem. Glory be, no kidding. That is exactly why the hon. member wants to put forward this amendment.
Where can we do it? In this place there must be an appreciation that the government should not always be responsible for all change. Tragically, I am seeing more and more that other members, who are caring and sensitive, on the other side of the House or even in their own party, who sit on the backbenches or in opposition have legitimate issues to bring forward through a private member's bill or a private member's motion, but time and time again there is a thin, narrow, weak excuse to kill the bill or the motion. That is a shame.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not asking for this amendment, through his Bill C-350, to become law today. It will not become law if we say: "Yes, we are in favour of this idea". It is a request to have it moved to committee stage so that we can have an open and frank discussion. That is all he seeks the floor to do today.

Private Members' Business
We ask the government to give him, an opposition member working hard on behalf of his constituents, the opportunity to do just that.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I too am privileged to speak on this Private Member's Bill and answer some of the points raised by the previous three speakers.
I must say at the start that I am going to smother my good friend with more kindness. I am unable to give unanimous consent to this bill, but for some very good reasons.
First, on private members' hour, my good friend knows that this is a valuable debate to have. It goes into the general discussion pool. It will be discussed by the ministers of justice from all the provinces and territories and the federal government. It will go into that mix. They will take our discussions today into consideration. There is no doubt about that.
This bill, far from being a criticism of the current law, really endorses the current hate propaganda provisions. It does so by extending the groups to which the provisions would apply by adding groups defined by age, sex, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability. It will not even be lost because it will come up again as a private member's bill. Unfortunately, it was not one of the five chosen to go to a vote in this session of Parliament. However, even going to a vote is a very unique provision. The power that we now have as private members of Parliament has been augmented dramatically, in a geometric fashion, with the Parliament passing those changes to the Standing Orders which permit five Private Members' Bills to come to a vote.
I wish my good friend who just spoke had been here five or ten years ago with a private member's bill. Nothing got anywhere. Therefore, we are still a major step ahead.
With respect to the intervention by my friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam in which he said that the ministers of justice are perhaps too busy and therefore it should be sent to the justice committee, I would like to say that at this point in this Parliament the justice committee is very busy too.
We are doing a major study on crime prevention for which some very interesting witnesses are appearing. A subcommittee of the justice committee is looking at the national security, as well as the codification of a new general part of the Criminal Code which raises those issues of consent to death and euthanasia.
We are currently reviewing two cases of parole that resulted in the death of police officers. Then there are the usual annual reports and GIC appointees. Therefore, the justice committee itself is really pressed at this moment.
Parliament is going to recess in a couple of weeks from now on December 11. Given the need to have an election by next November it is quite possible that the House would come back in February, there might even be a prorogation. We might then go out and have an election straight away.
Therefore, the likelihood of a committee being able to do much work on a practical day-to-day basis is quite small. That is not to say that this is not valuable though. The reason I want to speak is so that my comments will also go before those ministers of justice.
Section 318 of the Criminal Code right now prohibits the advocating or promoting of genocide against any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. Inciting hatred against a protected group by communicating in a public place statements which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace is dealt with in subsection 318(1).
Communicating statements other than in private conversation which wilfully promote hatred against a protected group is dealt with in subsection 319(2).
I want to make a comment for my friend opposite, and I wish in the next round to hear from him on this. As we know, at least if my recollection is correct, when it has heard these cases the Supreme Court has declared that these parts of the code are prima facie a contravention of the Charter of Rights, but they are saved by section 1 of the charter because they are a reasonable limit on our fellow citizens' fundamental rights.
It is important to consider whether, if this bill were to pass, it would expand section 318 so far that the court would not save it under section 1 and we would therefore be doing what none of us want to do, which is to wipe out the whole section. Therefore we would then be faced without a law dealing with the incitement of hatred against a protected group by communicating in a public place or with statements likely to lead to a breach of the peace or that advocate or promote genocide against any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. It is a very interesting point. I am not sure in my own mind what I think about that, other than I know we want that section to be in the code.
November 26, 1992

In this day and age, these very powerful special interest groups totally lack the ability to see the world in its broad context. They are very much caught up in tribalism, whether it is racially or ethnically motivated or just in their ideas and have no ability to realize that other people's ideas are equally valid and their ideas are really wrong. We accept the fact that we are all human beings in this world. Surely there are not many people who would deny that, but I guess there are a few.
Till South Africa started to move, the fundamental basis of apartheid was the acceptance by people who believed in apartheid that the majority were not human beings. That is the whole fundamental underlying basis of apartheid, that another group of humans is not in fact human.
It is the same with fascism, nazism. They just deny the reality that some people are human beings, based on their religion and their ethnic origin. It is absolutely an abominable thing. The point is that we do not want to put in words at this early moment that which might lead to the whole section being struck down.
In addition, the Criminal Code provides for the seizure and forfeiture of hate propaganda kept in the premises for sale or distribution. TTiat is section 320(1) and (4).
A person charged with advocating genocide is liable to five years imprisonment if charged with the offence of the public incitement of hatred or of the offence of communicating statements which wilfully promote hatred.
A person is liable is two years imprisonment if prosecuted by way of indictment or to six months and/or a $2,000 fine if prosecuted by way of summary proceedings.
The Criminal Code also provides for four special statutory defences which an accused may raise if prosecuted for wilfully promoting hatred. These are: (a) the statements communicated were true; (b) the statements expressed or attempted to be established by argument in good faith and opinion upon a religious subject; (c) the
Private Members' Business
statements were made on a subject of public interest which on reasonable grounds are believed to be true; and (d) pointing out in good faith for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred.
Except for the offence of public incitement to hatred, the consent of the provincial attorney general is required to obtain a seizure or to initiate a prosecution under the Criminal Code's hate propaganda provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I guess that is my final point. You are signalling that my time is finished. That is the final reason why it should go before this group of provincial ministers, the federal minister and the territorial people. I am sure they will come back with recommendations that are very reasonable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no further members rising for debate, 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.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the support shown for the bill, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow it to receive second reading at this time and be referred to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


An hon. member:: Did we call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: For the hon. member's purpose we did call it six o'clock. We were trying to get most of the members in here so that we could continue on with debate without suspending the sitting.

November 26, 1992
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a question I asked on May 11 concerning an extraordinary meeting of the fisheries commission of NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, to deal with blatant overfishing by the European Community, principally by Spain and Portugal, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. That special meeting of the NAFO fisheries commission, which was called at Canada's request, ended in uncertainty. Canada came away with little more than proposals for reform or, worse still, the EC's flat out rejection of their role in the stock crisis.
At that time my colleagues and I told the government that this situation was far too serious to leave solely to diplomacy. We urged the government to act, to introduce legislation now, to extend Canada's custodial management zone to include all of our continental shelf. The fisheries minister said no. He did not want to "howl and bawl and use exaggerated rhetoric". Extending jurisdiction is not a new or wild notion and calling upon the minister to implement such a policy is not wild rhetoric.
Much has happened since I asked my question on May 11. In June governments across the world met in Brazil for the UNCED. This impressive international meeting of state leaders offered our government another chance to change things. To its credit, Canada joined about 40 other countries in sponsoring the resolution on high seas fishing conservation and management, a resolution which passed.
We still could not convince influential countries like the U.S. and the EC to support it. We will have an opportunity to follow up on the UNCED when a special international conference late next year addresses fisheries issues, especially those regarding straddling stocks.
It certainly cannot happen soon enough for Atlantic fishermen. In July the minister imposed a domestic moratorium on the Newfoundland northern cod fishery,
putting over 20,000 Canadians out of the fishery, some for the length of the moratorium and many others forever.
Also in July government scientists released their domestic stock assessments and quota advice for all 1993 Atlantic fish stocks. It calls for drastic cuts, in some regions up to 80 per cent. Frustrated fishermen, plant workers and communities everywhere are bracing themselves for a rough ride next year.
Some hope arose from the September NAFO meetings when the European Community made a solemn promise to follow NAFO quotas in 1993, something which it has never done.
At the same time the EC scuttled Canada's attempt to change the objectors clause, the very loophole through which EC overfishers have jumped for years. There is absolutely nothing stopping the EC or any other NAFO country for that matter from using it again, except perhaps the knowledge that Canada is fully prepared to extend its jurisdiction if they do.
I hope the federal government will make it perfectly clear that it is prepared to act in this matter should it be required. Canada spends about $400,000 annually in membership dues to NAFO. The minister of fisheries must ensure that this money is well spent.
The Liberal Party has decided to recognize the small steps that have been achieved on the international front. Progress has been made but much more will be necessary to ensure the future of our fishery and the future of the individuals in communities that depend upon it for their livelihoods.
Fishery communities in my riding are watching this government. Fishermen are realistic and most recognize that domestic catch reductions and other restructuring measures may well be necessary to sustain the fishery in the long term through this crisis.
They also know that the federal government must stay tough with its international friends. Unless it does, fishermen will find it extremely difficult to accept the tough quota cuts and jobs losses being imposed on them.
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to my hon. friend from Cape Breton who, by the way, represents the area where I was bom.
November 26, 1992

At Canada's request, the fisheries commission of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, met in a special session at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, last May to discuss Canada's proposals to improve surveillance and control of the NAFO regulatory area outside Canada's 200-mile limit.
New measures developed by the special session were reviewed and adopted at the annual meeting of NAFO in September. All NAFO members, including the EC, have agreed to put them in place. Together these new measures represent yet another important step forward in ending overfishing on the Grand Banks outside Canada's 200-mile zone.
The measures adopted in September include a pilot project for an observer program of the NAFO area. Canadian fisheries managers have found the use of observers to be an effective surveillance measure inside the Canadian zone. Beginning in January 1993, observers will be placed on vessels outside 200 miles during 10 per cent of the fishing days.
Important new measures were been adopted to eliminate fishing for undersized fish. Minimum mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes were established. A one net rule was adopted whereby vessels would not be permitted to have nets on board with mesh smaller than the minimum size. These measures will apply to all ground-fish fisheries in the area which will help considerably to reduce catches of juvenile fish. In addition, the adoption of minimum landing sizes will make it illegal for undersized fish to be sold to EC and other markets.
This government, in working with the industry, is doing its utmost to help solve a very severe problem facing the fishing industry.


WESTRAY COAL MINE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have risen in this House to ask questions concerning the Westray coal mine, and in particular with the disaster which occurred in Pictou county killing 26 men.
It has become abundantly clear in the last number of months that with the evidence that has been put on the record, and the information that individuals now have that one of the most important things that we could do as
Adjournment Debate
a national government would be to have an inquiry into this particular operation.
It would be an opportunity for the government to present its case, both with regard to the financial dealings surrounding this particular mine as well as some of the political interference which obviously ran rampant through the Westray coal mine project.
I received a letter recently which I wish to table and I will read it in part. It says: "We were shocked and outraged to read in today's Chronicle Herald that the Commons industry committee voted four to two not to proceed with an inquiry into the financial dealings surrounding the Westray mine project".
"As residents of Pictou county, we can assure you that their decision does not sit well with the majority of us if what people are saying on a grassroots basis is any indication. The talk in Tim Horton's coffee shops, our local garages and on the streets is that we are all amazed that six months after a horrific mine disaster in which 26 young men lost their lives not only are we back to square one but we may never get to first base again".
"We want some accountability from the Nova Scotia Department of Labour, our premier, our Prime Minister and the federal MPs and bureaucrats involved. In the meantime, why do not we invite those committee members who did not see the need to look into this matter any further to come down to the Christmas parties of the children of the 26 dead miners".
That is signed by Mary Gorman and Percy Hind, Jr., and I wish to table that.
The evidence is there for everyone to review and to examine. What is needed is an inquiry by the national government in order to fully address all of the concerns of the people who have been involved in this tragic occurrence. It is not sufficient enough for the Government of Canada to say: "Well, maybe Nova Scotia will have an inquiry". It was found by a Supreme Court justice that their inquiry was unconstitutional, but the justice did state that there was an opportunity here for governments, if you will, to have an inquiry.
I urge the Government of Canada to stop the cover-up, to have the inquiry, to produce the evidence, to respond to the charges and the concerns of many individuals, to give a thorough examination of all of the evidence, all of the witnesses regardless of one's political fate.

Government Orders
I believe strongly that the Government of Canada has a moral responsibility as well as a political responsibility, if not a legal one, to proceed with an inquiry either through the auspices of the Standing Orders of this House or indeed, to have the three political parties come together and agree on the mandate that would be taken.
It is irresponsible for the Government of Canada to turn its back on those dead young miners in Pictou county, their families, their loved ones and the community. I urge in the strongest possible terms that the minister gdford himself of the opportunity in order to have this matter heard in its fullest possible way.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the area of occupational health and safety is the responsibility of the provincial government and is not the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Notwithstanding this fact, the Government of Canada, consistent with its role as a financial guarantor, took several measures to ensure the Westray project was technically viable. The initial environment assessment, the Acres report, pointed out the key health and safety issues associated with coal mines and the methods the company was putting into place to overcome these concerns.
All concerns, including those pointed out by the Devco report were deemed to be modifiable with known technology. The CANMET review deemed that the Westray project had no technical failings. It only spoke briefly of mine ventilation and spontaneous combustion risk. It concluded that in spite of these technical uncertainties, I repeat, the proposal had no major technical failings.
Westray was required to comply with all provincial coal mining regulations in Nova Scotia, including those dealing with mine ventilation and spontaneous combustion matters. It is been shown that the regular provincial mine inspections were indeed carried out.
According to the mining industry, the causes and mechanisms of coal dust explosions are well understood through past research. It is the responsibility of operators and regulators to apply that knowledge base in developing control strategies. We put the steps in place consistent with our role as financial guarantor to ensure the company was in full compliance with the provincial regulatory standards on health and safety.
This was monitored on a monthly basis by an independent mining consultant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: By unanimous consent, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, be read the third time and passed.
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the six commission boards that have been effectively killed by this legislation have been very valuable and viable services for this government.
The Law Reform Commission's mandate was to provide ongoing review of the statutes of Canada and make recommendations for improvement, modernization and reform of legislation. It undertook some of the basic research and contracted out other works to consultants to try to modify and amend shortcomings in Canada's laws. It has been a very valuable service. We save $4.8 million by cutting this service.
Let us have a look at the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. This institution had a mandate to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues related to international peace and security from a uniquely Canadian perspective. We save about $5 million by killing this institution.
The Economic Council of Canada was established some 29 years ago and has served admirably in its capacity. This council's objective was to provide advice on how Canada could achieve the highest possible level of employment and efficient production so the country could enjoy a high and consistent rate of economic growth and all Canadians could share in rising living standards.
November 26, 1992

This council had 28 members. The estimates indicate about $10.6 million in terms of its annual budget. One hundred and eight person years have been chopped to save about $10.3 million.
These are not major expenditures for the amount of work these organizations do.
The International Centre for Ocean Development focused exclusively on the oceans. Its mandate was to provide assistance, information and training programs for developing countries to help improve their management and utilization of ocean resources. We save $13.3 million by killing this program.
Let us have a look at the Science Council. It has been a particularly valuable institution for defending the need for research and development in this country. I think it is being killed because it has been very critical of this government. As this government has done with virtually every institution, it wants to shoot the messenger. It does not want to hear the bad news, so it has deep-sixed these organizations.
The Science Council had a mandate to assess scientific information and technological resources and increase public awareness of scientific and technological problems. The council had 30 members. Its budget was about $3.2 million and that has been killed by this legislation.
The Science Council of Canada has been a vocal critic of the government. The government has not responded to the criticisms. Instead it has chosen to shoot the messenger.
I just want to read a quote from John Polyanni who is the winner of the 1986 Nobel prize in chemistiy. He said: "Killing the Science Council of Canada is short-sighted and will leave Canada without an independent voice on the future of science and technology. In our concern that the ship of state is too big, we are simply removing the rudder".
Killing all six of these very valuable institutions saves us $22 million for the fiscal year. Members of the government have said $22 million is not peanuts and we have to look at every avenue of savings. I want to point out there are a lot of other areas where we could save a heck of a lot more money than simply $22 million.
Government Orders
I am referring to the 1992 report of the Auditor General of Canada. These are follow-up recommendations that were the issues of previous reports and have not been attended to by the government. Under the title of "Military Conditions of Service", the Auditor General points out they examined a range of services and benefits intended to either adjust for special military conditions or develop military commitment and military ethos. The direct pay and allowance alone cost the department $3.3 billion, 29 per cent of the 1989-90 budget, almost $3.5 billion, to adjust for special military conditions and develop military commitment. That is a heck of a lot of money and $3.3 billion is a lot more than $22 million.
Let us go on to where it talks about the commissioning plans for officers. It states: "In the 1990 report the Auditor General recommended national defence periodically evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of its commissioning plans. It pointed out at that time the department spends some $18,000 to $47,000 per student per year, depending on whether the officer cadet is sent to a civilian university or a military college". It gets worse.
Let us have a look at follow-up recommendations with regard to the Department of National Defence official languages training. I have been a long-time supporter of the official languages policy, but I am not a supporter of the flagrant misuse of public funds for the inefficient utilization of these policy directives.
Again the Auditor General's report states: "We reported that this program had cost the department about $500 million since 1980 and was expected to cost some $1.4 billion over the next 15 years". There were 7,600 individuals on language training between 1990-91. It also points out "the department's plans still do not focus training resources to address the shortage of bilingual anglophones. We noted in 1990 the Canadian Forces language system is designed to offer a low level of training to many, rather than train fewer individuals to maximum proficiency. In 1989 the 9,000 anglophones at the language level closest to becoming bilingual were not given priority access to resources that would have enabled them to become effectively bilingual". It goes on to say the Department of National Defence has not

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
implemented recommendations to incorporate posting priorities into its language training. There is still no departmental posting policy to assign trained individuals from all courses to positions designated as bilingual, while respecting operational task priorities. The current departmental bilingual manning policy affects only 250 or so graduates. Although this course lasts a full year and costs over $80,000 per person, in 1990 and 1991 only 66 per cent of its graduates were actually assigned to bilingual positions.
There is more of a horror show here. Again the Auditor General reports the Department of National Defence should identify where Canadian forces schools cost more. This is under training efficiency and economy. It says: "We reported that the Department of National Defence should identify where Canadian forces schools cost more and should use this information to reduce costs".
It gives the following example. In 1990 the Auditor General reported it cost some $265,352 for a fleet school to train a single marine engineering technician, whereas it cost only $71,000 in the community college system. That is an outrageously inflated cost for something that could have been handled much more effectively in the community college system.
I want to move on to another area where this government could and should be saving money. Rather than cutting the fat and waste out of these particular programs it chooses instead to cut these six very valuable councils. They no longer exist and the services they provided have now bitten the dust.
Let us go again to the Auditor General's report. Under the Department of Finance it mentions outstanding loan guarantees amounted to $5.7 billion in 1990 and 1991. He also points out ongoing loan guarantees with lender risk sharing arrangements covered only 26 per cent of the total outstanding. In other words, three-quarters of that money loaned by the federal government has no arrangement in terms of shared risk or equity. It is just money that has been given out to the corporate sector by the government. In 1990 and 1991 that amounted to some $5.7 billion and the total authorized amount stood at $13.7 billion.
It just gets worse and worse as you look through the Auditor General's report and see where the government could have saved money or should have saved money but chose not to.
Again, let us go back to the Department of National Defence major capital projects. It says in the Auditor General's report: "We obtained a listing from the Department of National Defence of all initial provisioning contracts", purchasing contracts, "in effect at the time of our audit. The contracts date from as early as 1982 with a total cost of some $657 million". It reads further: "We focused only on the first comparison and limited ourselves only to those parts where price comparisons could easily be made. This involved some $158 million in spare parts contracted out over a 10-year period. We then compared the prices paid by the Department of National Defence with the listed prices of the same items available for sale or actually paid by the U.S. Department of National Defence". Lo and behold what do we find? The difference between the prices paid by DND, our Canadian Armed Forces and the prices indicated in these other sourcing alternatives varied widely. In the majority of cases it exceeded 50 per cent.
I know you cannot see the small graph on the page but in some cases it identifies overexpenditures of between 500 and 1,000 per cent greater than the comparable cost of the item. This is an outrageous and completely unconscionable waste of taxpayers' money in purchasing items for the Department of National Defence that were substantially cheaper using other purchasing sources.
The report goes on to say that even a 10 per cent reduction in procurement costs could result in savings in excess of $20 million each year. A 10 per cent reduction in the procurement costs would have saved Canadian taxpayers over $20 million.
That number is very significant because this legislation in front of us is talking about saving $22 million by cutting six very very important institutions and organizations including: the Law Reform Commission; The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council; the Economic Council and the Science Council.
November 26, 1992

All six councils bite the dust at a savings of only $20 million. By a 10 per cent reduction in procurement in the Department of National Defence we could have exceeded those savings and it is right here in the 1992 Auditor General's report.
That is not all that is in there. I want to go over another item and the more one reads this, the more amazed one gets. This is with regard to the Canadian Armed Forces. It says that the vast majority of both militia and communication reserve units have no assigned roles or operational tasks and have been organized on the model of regular force operational units.
What is he talking about? Let us have a look. A militia lieutenant colonel, for example, supposedly leads a unit of some 200 to 300 positions, but in actuality it only averages about 100 people. In the regular force a sub unit of 100 people would normally be led by a major while a lieutenant-colonel would be in charge of about 600. There are no instructions requiring unit commanding officers to fill their units efficiently, wasting again, administratively, the taxpayers' money of Canada.
Again, under the project costs for the Department of National Defence, the Auditor General comments that the department bought two used offshore supply vessels for approximately $10 million. This in response to the minister's request in late 1987 that naval reservists be provided with the means to commence mine counter measures training for that summer. Although officials sponsored the project, they told the approving authorities that the vessels were in excellent condition based on an initial survey. It was found that an additional $16 million was needed for unplanned repairs after the purchase was made.
The purchase of a remote operative vehicle, called an ROV, cost the taxpayers some $955,000 to train reservists in mine hunting. It was not adequately evaluated at the time and proved to be too complex for use. At the time the audit was done the total costs had escalated from the original purchase price of $955,000 to well over $2 million. That did not include unplanned costs for facilities and the development of a training package.
Another point is that the department purchased 199 Bison armoured vehicles and 22 specialized M-113 armoured vehicles required to meet militia needs for $161 million before there was even maintenance personnel and facilities available to service them. The Auditor General points out that he estimated the Department of
Government Orders
National Defence has incurred a loss costing $17 million to the Canadian taxpayer which could have been avoided if the programs had been set up before actually purchasing these vehicles.
The horror stories that are in the Auditor General's report, and I have only pointed out a few, indicate there are many avenues in which this government could have and should have been able to save far more than the $20 million it is saving by chopping these six institutions.
The record speaks for itself. The government has chosen to silence its critics by killing these institutions. It really has nothing to do with saving taxpayers money.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, who else but an NDP member could suggest that the saving is only $20 million? Well $20 million is a lot of money but I will correct his figure because it is more like $22 million. That in itself I guess is not as important as the over-all principle of what we are attempting to do, but I want to remind him that the saving this year would be $22 million. That will increase to $71 million by 1993-94. In five years it is going to be over $310 million.
What is $100 million here or there to the NDP? I guess it is nothing. One of the luxuries of being in opposition is that one does not have to be accountable to the taxpayers. That is an easy thing for him say. Why does he not ask Premier Harcourt, the NDP premier in British Columbia, as to what comes with assuming office? What comes with assuming office is responsibility to the taxpayers.
In a debate like this the beauty is if you are in opposition you can drag in everything including the kitchen sink and the member has done that. Everything can be dragged in no matter how irrelevant to the debate. However, what we are talking about specifically is the elimination or dissolution of six government agencies. It has nothing to do with the Auditor General's report. That is a debate for another evening. It has nothing at all to do with the Auditor General's report.
We are talking about the elimination of six agencies that cost us something as taxpayers. I have gone through the numbers, but the six agencies specifically are: the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Law Reform Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council.

Government Orders
The point I want to make, aside from the savings for the taxpayers of Canada, is that every single one of those bodies is duplicated some place else in the country. Sometimes it is by the federal government itself and sometimes it is by the private sector, but most certainly by the universities and other think-tanks throughout the country. We have gone through those, such as the C. D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute to name just a couple.


An hon. member:: Now there is an honest perspective for you.


Gregory Francis Thompson: The truth is when I debated this earlier in the evening, I stepped through all six of those agencies. I can do it again if you will allow me the time to do it, Mr. Speaker-and he is indicating that he will not-but I addressed each one of those specifically. I indicated what they are presently replaced by, but it is duplication which the taxpayers of Canada have told us they do not want any more. It is costing them too much and it is costing us too much, to the tune of $22 million a year.
The NDP is the only party in this House that can tell us and I suppose afford to say that $22 million is nothing. It is something. It is too much and the Canadian people have told us it is too much.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian taxpayer wants this government to save money and at the same time preserve jobs. By killing these councils the amount of money that is saved and the amount of jobs that are lost are not defendable. The services that are lost through the killing of these six national councils are not defendable.
I want to submit that there is no duplication. These councils were national in perspective. There are provincial science councils for example, but there was only one Science Council of Canada that took a national perspective. The Law Reform Commission of Canada was a national body. Sure there are provincial bodies, but we as a country also need a national perspective on these issues.
This has nothing to do with saving money. It has everything to do with silencing the critics of this government, that have told this government time and time again that it is doing a lousy job and instead of responding to the criticisms the way this government should-


Gregory Francis Thompson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That statement is totally inaccurate because those same bodies he is suggesting criticized the government in fact supported the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, these organizations are being silenced because the government cannot handle the heat and it does it under the auspices of budgetary savings.
In my presentation I pointed out well over a dozen areas in the 1992 Auditor General's report where these savings, savings far in excess of $22 million, could have been initiated by this government had it simply listened to the recommendations the Auditor General had made time and time again. It chose not to listen to those recommendations. It chose to ignore those recommendations.
Here we have a report that calls the government short on numerous fronts, where savings could have been effected by simply better and leaner administration and a better understanding of how to implement budgetary controls. There could have been savings effected far in excess of $22 million without a single job lost.
Canadian taxpayers want to see responsible action. Yes, they want to see the government saving money, but they do not want to see the government carving the guts out of organizations and throwing people out on the street in order to effect their budgetary control.
There are different ways to skin the cat and this government has shown absolutely no sensitivity in deep-sixing these valuable organizations.
I say again the only reason the government is doing it, the real reason for killing these national organizations has nothing to do with saving the money. It has everything to do with silencing the government's critics.
November 26, 1992


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-63 is another example of this Conservative government's drive to stifle free expression and thought, including independent research and policy development.
Here we have a bill which abolishes the major independent-and I emphasize the word independent-research councils in Canada, ones that have existed for a number of years including: the Economic Council of Canada, the Law Reform Commission, the Science Council of Canada, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. Today I want in particular to speak about the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council because that is the one I have been very close to over a number of years.
For the past year I have been the opposition critic for immigration and for the previous seven years I was the opposition critic for employment. I must say that the reports of the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council were extremely helpful and useful to me in that opposition role. They were very helpful as well to non-governmental organizations and other outside groups. In addition, prior to the change of government in 1984 I was the chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and, once again, had close contact with the work of this advisory council.
The mandate of the Employment and Immigration Advisory Council is to provide the Minister of Employment and Immigration with independent-and I stress that word again-private sector advice on policy issues pertaining to immigration, labour market issues, and unemployment insurance.
The council was structured in such a way that it had 21 members drawn from business, labour and other non-aligned groups. It was the only independent body directly reporting or advising the minister that was not part of his public service, part of his department.
This advisory council put out some extremely important reports over the last number of years. For example, in April 1990 it put out a report on full employment entitled "Full Employment is an Achievable Goal". The year before they put out a report on structural unemployment entitled "Regional Unemployment in Canada:
Government Orders
A Nation out of Balance". It was published in November
1989.	Prior to that, in 1985 it published a report entitled "Older Workers: An Imminent Crisis in the Labour Market". It also had reports on the Atlantic fishery and on single industry communities.
Previous speakers in this debate have been absolutely correct. The real reason the government is abolishing these six independent advisory councils is that it does not like criticism. I can recall very well, with the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, when the government was putting through its bill, its major reform on unemployment insurance in the last Parliament, the advisory council which for the most part had been appointed by the minister, the men and women on the council had been designated and appointed by the minister of the time, took a position against many sections of that bill. It criticized those sections. It did it in a very scientific and diplomatic way, but in fact it stated positions of major disagreement with the minister. Its information and its statistics were very legitimate but the minister did not like it.
I can recall standing in this House and raising the issues put forward by the advisory council in opposition to sections in those unemployment insurance cuts which were very controversial at the time, and the minister tried to slough them off and put them aside.
It is like previous interveners in this debate have said. It was a question of when you do not like the news you kill the messenger. The messengers in this case were from business, labour and the university sectors. They gave their best advice on many of these issues. When the minister did not like them, she put a black mark against them.
I am thinking of the minister of the time, the hon. member from Kingston who I think was defeated in her constituency in Kingston for the terrible, insensitive reforms that were made to unemployment insurance which cut people off the unemployment insurance rolls and made unemployment insurance more difficult to obtain.
By that reform-and that was stated by the advisory council-by the federal government cutting back on unemployment insurance, all they were going to do was shift this entire group of people to the provincial welfare rolls. That is what has happened.

Government Orders
I can recall very well stating that at the time, citing the different paragraphs in the advisory council report. We said: "If you go through with the cuts, sure, it might look good for you at the federal level; but as far as the Canadian taxpayer is concerned you are simply going to shift the burden to the provincial and municipal welfare rolls". That happened.
The municipal and provincial welfare rolls increased considerably. That advice was given. The minister and the government were pre-warned, but they did not like the advice. They had their own agenda and they pursued their own agenda slavishly, and we have seen what happened. The country is in a terrible mess today where there is massive unemployment, where there are not sufficient resources to take care and retrain the unemployed, and so on.
I was just listening to the hon. member on the government side who was trying to argue that the real reason for these cuts was to help with the deficit and to reduce expenditures in order to reduce the deficit. You never reduce your deficit with respect to programs that could help you increase your productivity as a nation.
They say that today, in the 1990s and as we move into the next century, the greatest assets a nation can have are know-how, ideas, technology, scientific research. These are the things that will make nations great, which will make nations stand among the leaders in the world.
In times of difficulty you do not cut back on your educational systems as this government has done. You do not cut back on your training programs as this government has done. You do not cut back on your major institutions, major agencies that do research and development and provide independent, alternate advice on economic matters such as the Economic Council of Canada did; legal and social matters such as the Law Reform Commission did; the Science Council of Canada; on questions of peace and security such as CLIPS did; or the Advisory Council on Employment and Immigration.
In this modern age, just having resources in the ground and having a large nation with a lot of people do not mean we are a powerful, number one nation. Once again, when we look at a country like Japan, it has built its greatness as an economic power on its ability to develop, research, science, knowledge, know-how, new
products, and so on. When the government says it wants to reduce its deficit by cutting back on these institutions that develop new ideas and develop alternative ways of doing things which give us the basis for know-how, it sounds rather shallow and without support.
The hon. member from the government said as well: "We were able to cut these institutions back because the work they were doing was being duplicated in other areas". He mentioned as an example the Fraser Institute and the C. D. Howe Institute. I will deal with that.
Some members have cited, for example, that the functions of the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council have been absorbed into the ministry. Let me deal with that first. In the ministry the research and development that are done are subject to the political agenda of the government of the day, of the minister of the day. I know because I was a minister for seven years and I had to deal with the research and development wings of my department.
You are not getting what I would call independent, critical research. You are getting good research on some matters. There is no doubt about it. You are getting excellent research, but it follows in support of or pursues the government's political agenda. That has to be done and I respect that, but it is not covering the entire field.
With respect to private sector research, many of these private sector research bodies are dependent on their financial resources from large business, the corporate sector, the multinational business sector, and many of them serve their agendas. Once again one wonders whether we are getting the full range of independent research and development we need. I think not. Whether it is the C. D. Howe Institute that has published some good reports or the Fraser Institute for which I have less esteem but has published some good reports, they still do not provide the independent, critical research we had in this country when we had the Economic Council, the Science Council of Canada and the Advisory Council on Employment and Immigration.
It is a sad day when a country such as this, on the pretext of saving money, cuts back those institutions that provide us with independent thinking, ideas and knowhow. It is a very sad day. We in this party are objecting to these cuts. We think it is the wrong way to go.

There are many areas the government could cut in order to reduce the budget. I raise again the Auditor General's report which states where there has been a lot of waste, a lot of money siphoned out of the country. Those are areas where money could have been saved. We do not save money by cutting back on the institutions that give us high powered knowledge and information.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member when he talked about us silencing our critics.
I would like to remind him, for example, that the Economic Council of Canada predicted that the free trade agreement would bring, if I remember the figure correctly, either 200,000 or 300,000 jobs over the course of many years. That figure was used by the government, by business and so on, in support of arguments for the free trade agreement.
The Economic Council of Canada-and certainly it may have criticized the government in some areas-was supportive of the government in many other areas. This is not an issue of silencing critics. This is more an issue of Canada being a mature nation with mature universities today, many of which are over 100 years old. The university from which I graduated, the University of Alberta, celebrated its 75th anniversary a few years ago. It is probably celebrating its 80th anniversary now. There is a source of research for us and we have other institutions.
My question for the hon. member has to do with the role of Parliament. For years and years Parliament and the governments of the day have created these external agencies asking them for advice, but it seems to me that Parliament itself should be a policy-making body or policy should emanate from Parliament. We do not have enough committees studying the role or producing policy recommendations.
We have reformed Parliament. The McGrath commission in 1986 reformed Parliament. It would seem to me appropriate that maybe we should now consider beefing up the research bureaus of our committees, unleashing the potential of members of Parliament and restoring some of the esteem the public should have in Parliament, rather than always devaluing Parliament by spinning off policy-making agencies and think-tanks and
Government Orders
people looking to those groups as agents for social change and other things rather than to Parliament. I think Parliament should regain its role as a policy recommending body and committees should try to increase their stature in that manner, and many have done that.
Does the hon. member think that Parliament's role has been devalued by having this plethora of different agencies? Might we now re-assert ourselves as parliamentarians, give our committees extra power and produce policy recommendations in that way?
My next question concerns the economic argument here. These agencies cost a lot of money; $5 million is a lot of people paying taxes. We have to borrow that money. Then each year we have to pay interest on that borrowed money and we have to borrow money for interest. There is a never-ending, vicious cycle of compound interest, debt and so on. Certainly we could pay heed to some of the recommendations of the Auditor General, but that would not solve the problem of our massive debt and continuing deficit.
The Liberal Party and the NDP have called for increased spending every day. I sit in the House of Commons and every day I hear calls for massive programs, economic stimulus and so on. All that does is create inflation in the long run and devalue our currency and productivity.
We have to think seriously about the economic course of the nation, about the public purse and about keeping things on an even keel so that people have productive jobs.
We certainly have eliminated these agencies, but how do we get the deficit in check? What suggestions does he have on the big ticket items? His party seems to be saying: "Spend more, spend more, spend more". I will leave it at that and ask him to respond.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond. There are really three questions here.
First, with respect to whether the creation of these independent research agencies demean or take something away from Parliament's ability to do research, not at all. It is not a question of one or another. I fully agree with the hon. member that we should beef up and improve our parliamentary research capacity.

Government Orders
In the years I have been in Parliament, it has improved considerably. We now have in every committee one or two researchers who help us with our work. It is still not enough. There is a very excellent research branch with the parliamentary library which helps committees as well but let us be frank, when the committees do serious studies, they get their information not just from the research branch of the Library of Parliament, but by calling as witnesses the major industrial, labour, university, think-tank bodies in this country and we ask for their views. They do the research and then they input that research into our parliamentary committees. The good parliamentary committee is one which listens to many points of view.
I have just finished doing the work on the legislative committee for Bill C-86, the immigration bill. We heard from the section of the Canadian Bar Association that deals with immigration. We heard from the social agencies that dealt with immigration. We met with the various ethnocultural groups which did work on immigration. We got our information from many sources and from sources that did considerable research.
I might say that when I was with the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, we used to have very often before us the Economic Council to give us its advice on some of these major issues that were before Parliament and on which members of Parliament had to take a position.
I believe you can do both. You can have independent economic research agencies such as the Economic Council and the Science Council of Canada and improve your research capability within Parliament as well. I do not think it is duplication.
The member referred to the fact that the Economic Council supported free trade. Yes, it did support the concept of free trade. I was very much involved in that debate. I was on the committee prior to the election in 1988 that dealt with the free trade issue. The Economic Council also issued two reports which said there would be losses of jobs in several industrial sectors and something should be done about it, and that advice was not followed.
It also made major recommendations for retraining, upgrading and restructuring in areas that would be hit hard by the free trade agreement and that advice was not
followed as well. While the Economic Council supported free trade in general, it had something to say about the details of the free trade agreement and what had to be done to properly implement it, which was not followed.
The last question the hon. member asked was about these institutions costing a considerable amount of money. They cost money. The saving here is supposed to be $22 million. It is a sizeable sum of money but I look on money spent on developing ideas, developing scientific know-how as an investment in the country and in productivity and not as money being simply thrown out the window on consumption.
If we carry the argument of the government to the logical extreme and if we want to really save money, we could cut back all our funding for universities, we could cut back our public education system. We would save a lot of money, but we would end up a pretty ignorant country. I put these agencies in that area.
These national councils contribute to our national ability to produce at a high technological level, which is essential at this age in the 1990s and into the 21st century. This is not the kind of thing we cut. There are many areas where we can cut but we do not cut our ability to produce ideas, know-how and scientific first class information.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, as has happened all too often in this Parliament of Canada, I am standing again this evening to express my sincere dismay at yet another foolish piece of government legislation. Today the disheartening legislation in question is Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.
I had the opportunity to speak on this bill at second reading last May. At that time I outlined that the government had announced in its budget of February 1992 its intention to eliminate, consolidate, defer or privatize 46 Crown agencies, corporations and commissions, all for a projected savings of $22 million.
This bill here this evening deals with only six of those 46 agencies. Those six agencies are the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security-better known as CUPS-the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law Reform Commission and the Science Council of Canada.
November 26, 1992

We on this side of the House agree that some of the 46 agencies are extravagant and need to go. Many of these were established by this same government. Furthermore, while I am not opposed to privatization, I am opposed to limitations being placed on organizations which continue to usefully serve the public policy process. There are several among the 46 which continue to provide such a service. In particular, the six agencies due to be axed by the government in this bill provided an invaluable service to Canadians.
All the government is accomplishing with this bill is more closely aligning itself with the far right Reform Party. I am embarrassed for this government. Will it stoop to any level to cater to a regional party which is equal only to the Bloc Quebecois? Before taking a closer look at a couple of the six agencies about to be given the heave-ho by the government, I want to first draw the Blouse's attention to the blatant disregard this government has for Parliament.
Yesterday an effort was made to contact each of the she agencies mentioned in this bill. It was quickly discovered that the government had already closed five of the six agencies. I repeat, five of the six agencies have already been closed by this government. This is well before Parliament has even voted on the legislation to do so. Such a total lack of respect for the Canadian parliamentary system is an absolute disgrace. Furthermore, closing the organizations before the bill is passed could be against the law.
An official at the Canadian Institute of International Peace and Security, which is the only agency of the six still open, said that it is only open because it received a legal opinion which indicated that the operation must continue until the legislation is passed. If this is the case for CUPS, why is it not the case for the others?
It is also important to note the callousness with which this government informed the employees of the various agencies about their closure. Judith Maxwell of the Economic Council indicated to the legislative committee on Bill C-63 that she was advised at 12 p.m. on budget day that the council would be dissolved. At least three of the four were treated in the same way.
Government Orders
Has this government no shame? At least Conservative government members will have 60 days from the time an election is finally called to begin packing up their boxes before the Canadian people fire them. I do not know why you could not have given the agencies the same kind of treatment that you yourselves will be treated to by the Canadian public when you lose your seats in the next election. You have 60 days to pack your bags.
In my previous address in this House on this bill, I outlined the importance of each of those six agencies. Now I would like to take a closer look at two of them which will certainly have a significant impact on human rights, the area for which I am the critic for this party. The first agency is the Law Reform Commission.
Established in 1971, one of the commission's mandates was to maintain an ongoing review of the Statutes of Canada, to make recommendations for improvement, modernization and reform legislation. In its almost 22 year existence, the commission issued 32 reports, 61 working papers and 76 studies containing recommendations covering Criminal Code reform; hate propaganda, plea bargaining, safeguarding of genetic heritage, pornography, euthanasia, sexual assault, arson, mental disorder and on and on. As of 1990, the commission's studies have been cited in 211 reported Canadian court decisions, 39 of which were Supreme Court of Canada decisions. Yet, this government thinks this commission is so unimportant that it is getting rid of it.
This commission has played a vital role in the advancement of human rights in Canada. All of the issues I have just mentioned are matters of considerable importance today and most will, without a doubt, be debated in greater detail in the coming years.
The commission is an important element of the public policy process on which our laws are based. Indeed, a claim to a human right is very often advanced as a justification for public policy.
Often, as we can see by the aforementioned matters the commission has addressed, certain issues are controversial and the government must seek the advice and counsel of non-partisan bodies which can evaluate the given matter without political interference. By abolishing the non-partisan commission, the Conservative government and, in particular, the current Minister of Justice

Government Orders
are trying to silence their biggest critic. The minister has been endeavouring to do so since 1990. At that time she left the commission without a quorum. This made it impossible for the commission to approve any reports which would have included suggested changes to federal legislation.
The second organization being closed by the legislation that I want to talk about today in the context of its effect on human rights is the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Established in 1984, CUPS mandate is to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective with particular emphasis on arms control, disarmament, defence and conflict resolution. In today's ever-changing global environment, what could be more important than these issues?
I have sat in this House on several occasions and listened to the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Conservative Party talk at great length about the need to make every effort to bring about a more peaceful world for our children and our children's children. Wonderful words. Unfortunately this government is high on words but low on action.
We are standing here today to debate an issue which should not even be on the agenda for debate. We have an Institute for International Peace and Security and this government is saying: "No, we do not need that". By voting to abolish CUPS, this government is saying that we do not need an institute which will increase knowledge and promote understanding of issues relating to international peace and security.
By voting to axe CUPS, this government is sending a clear message to Canadians that it is not committed to limiting the out of control arms trade. This morning's Ottawa Citizen outlined just how out of control the arms trade has become, detailing the role that Canada played in the arming of Iraq in the years prior to the gulf war. In fact, this government allowed a company supplying munitions to Iraq to test artillery and special shells at Canadian military bases just months before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
By voting to abolish CUPS, this government is saying that we do not need an institute dedicated to discussing
issues which could ameliorate the deplorable crisis we are witnessing in Yugoslavia. East Timor, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Liberia, Cambodia, China, Burma, Iraq, Iran and the list goes on and on. By voting to do away with CUPS this government is acknowledging that it lacks a real commitment to doing its part for a more peaceful world.
In conclusion, this bill is not about saving the government some money. If it really wanted to do this, it could take steps to implement some of the recommendations of the Auditor General. We all know that there are more than a few. Bill C-63 is not about fiscal restraint, it is about abolishing agencies which have always acted in the interest of Canadians. This government is embarrassed by these agencies because it does not always do the same. Rather than debating the issues this government has chosen to kill the messenger. It may be easier but in the end we all suffer because of the loss.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-63 but, as my colleague mentioned a little earlier, all of the agencies have been closed since June 1992. One would ask, what is the point of a member of Parliament standing up in the House to defend an agency that is no longer in existence. The doors have been closed. In some cases the telephones do not even exist. They have been disconnected.
I was wondering what the fairness is when we have a situation like that. Legislation is introduced and even before the legislation is passed action has already been taken. It is quite intriguing. Our role as members of Parliament has been minimized if not ignored in this case.
The organizations that the government in its wisdom decided to close down are the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law Reform Commission, and the Science Council of Canada. All six agencies have in the past provided government, as well as interested groups, with great third party opinion that was not influenced by government or special interest groups. Most of those opinions come from experts, from people who know and who are willing to listen to both sides before they make their recommendations.
November 26, 1992

To shut down these organizations for the mere sake of saving $22 million when we are losing this excellent advice and are laying off in excess of 300 employees is a shame.
Just recently the NDP government in Ontario dedicated close to $1 billion in the hope of creating up to
100,000	jobs. I was informed about a week ago that after it spent in excess of about $20 million it was able to create only 200 jobs.


An hon. member:: They need advice, don't they.


Mac Harb: The NDP does not listen. That is its problem.
There are people who are trying to create jobs but they do not know how to do it because of lack of experience and lack of talent. However, there are already agencies in place that have been doing a great job in providing a tremendous amount of service and support to the government and to people at large, yet we are closing them down.
What has intrigued me the most is the closure of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. This institute was established in 1984 with one thing in mind, to provide that third perspective or advice.
To close it down in the time we are in is really shameful. It is inappropriate and it is veiy ill-timed. All we have to do is look at countries around the world, look at the former Soviet Union, look at the disintegration of Yugoslavia, look at what is happening in Somalia, look at what is happening in certain parts of the Middle East, look at what is happening pretty well in every part of the world.
If anything, what we should have done is enhance the role of this institute, and encourage it to go even further and try to deal with world disputes and find resolutions to those issues and those disputes.
We have seen a tremendous amount of pressure coming toward Canada on the international scene and international community. There is more and more demand for our peacekeeping forces. There is more pressure on external affairs. There is more pressure on the minister herself.
The world views us as being in the best position to provide neutral advice, advice that is well balanced and moderate. As Canadians, this is something that we
Government Orders
should be very proud of. Canadians should be proud of the fact that the whole world is listening to us as a middle of the road power. Canada is not a big power and not a small power but a mid-sized power. We are in the best position to provide leadership, ideas and suggestions to countries where there are problems and disputes.
I thought this particular agency would have been one of the tools that the government could have used and could have promoted world-wide to help solve some of these problems. I say this because when people look at Canada from the outside they see a Canada that is compassionate, caring and willing to help. I do not think we should take that for granted, nor should we ignore the fact that it is one of the best assets we have.
Our image is one of our best assets, not only to the outside world but to the inside world. The outside world looks at Canada with an admiring eye and the inside world, from time to time, wonders about the wisdom of our government when it comes to institutions such as this one. We wonder why the government is closing it.
It is my hope that the government will see the wisdom and reinstate some of these agencies. If it were up to me I would reinstate all of them. However, it looks like the rest of the agencies, with the exception of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, have given in. They have decided that it is time to close down.
I want to commend those people who are answering the telephone at CUPS. Obviously they have decided to stay there until the bill goes through the House of Commons and the Senate.
It is my hope that we will have an election before the Senate approves those bills. It is my hope that my party, in which I am confident, will have a second look at those agencies and try to inject life into some of them to ensure that Canadians who have been accustomed to the quality services of those agencies will continue to receive them.
What has also particularly intrigued me is the situation of the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada. What a couple of organizations. We can see the correlation between the two: science and the economy. We cannot just divide the two because when we think about it if there is any one single tool that is necessary to succeed it is the educational tool. Unfortunately we do not have it right now. Our work force is not fully equipped to produce the kind of wealth that we are interested in.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
First, on the international scene we are not scoring as high as we should in terms of productivity. Second, the production of our universities, schools and so on compared to the production of other schools and universities around the world is not as good as it should be. We do not seem to be scoring high in terms of the quality of education our graduates are receiving.
The same is true when it comes to applying those degrees in the work force. We do not see the output that we should be seeing, and that is not the fault of the student. The student will learn what is taught in the curriculum. That is a fault of the system. We must have a system that encourages, creates and graduates the kind of students who are willing and capable of being fully productive in society.
Not only that, we must give them the tools to do so. That is why I would have hoped that rather than closing them down the government would put more emphasis on agencies such as the Science Council and the Economic Council.
I do not think members will disagree that unless something is done with our educational system over the next few months we are going to see ourselves lagging behind the rest of the world.
I am amazed, and it does not matter which chart I look at, that when we compare ourselves to the big G-7 countries we seem to always be hitting the bottom, whether we look at productivity, investment in research and development, our level of output in terms of students who go into high school, or the level of literacy. No matter how you slice it or look at it we seem to have a problem.
The solution is extremely simple. We should, and we must, have a national standard for education all across the board. We should and we must work with the industries a little more closely than we have been doing in the past. More important, we must listen to advice, which is what the Science Council and the Economic Council were doing in the past. They were trying to provide that third party advice to the government, which the government did not seem to be listening to.
We have to go to industry and listen to it to see what it wants us to do with the government rather than trying to
complicate the tax system, increase the red tape, and trying to drive industry away from provinces such as Ontario. When it comes to attracting industry from the outside we seem to be scaring it off so it is not coming in.
The savings that the government is getting in the short-run are going to cost us in the long-run.
That is why I would like to join with my colleagues in calling on the government to have a second look at these agencies, in particular agencies that have provided quality service in the past. I do not see why the Law Reform Commission has to be shut down. I do not see why the government has to close down the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council when we are accepting, on an annual basis, in excess of 250,000 immigrants to this country and when there is a shortage of public servants.
Today I was at a rally of public servants from Employment and Immigration. I heard, over and over again, that they need more staff. They need more resources if they are to deal with and support the level of immigration that we have.
The International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law Reform Commission, the Science Council of Canada, the Economic Council of Canada, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, all these agencies are fine, fine agencies. I wish and hope that the government will listen to the opposition and reconsider its position.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House to discuss this particular bill.
I want to be as objective as I can. I want to address the issues honestly and directly. This is a bill about dismantling many research facilities that are available to government today. They are research and development facilities and ones that give expert advice on a host of issues.
The government ought to realize that there is some contradiction here. First, the government talks about competitiveness, it talks about increasing productivity. It has the tools at its disposal to help it do that. I shall try to prove that case. What does the government do? It decides to dismantle these essential organizations.
November 26, 1992

Why would the government attempt to do this when this is the situation that we in Canada face today. I said earlier in the House that some of our greatest challenges were the social problems facing us. Yes, there are political problems and economic problems, but the social problems are Canada's greatest challenges.
There are over 1.6 million unemployed Canadians as we speak. There are in this country more than 2.2 million Canadians who will be receiving social assistance this year. There are over 2 million Canadians, 40 per cent of whom are young people or children, who are going to be nourished at food banks this year. There are close to 5 million Canadians who are at the level of poverty or living in poverty. There is abuse in our country that needs to be investigated so that we can come up with policies that will reduce this kind of situation, which is completely unacceptable to countries such as Canada.
We have problems of aging and I do not say that in the pejorative sense. We have a population that is growing older which will necessitate different solutions in the future. We have environmental challenges-and we could be a leader if we chose to be-that are virtually insurmountable if we do not have these tools working for us.
My colleagues have mentioned the role we have in peacemaking. We have been, perhaps continue to be, but certainly should aspire to be, first in the world to be involved in peacemaking around the planet.
Just in case people are not completely aware of some of these organizations and what they do, I want to quote from some government papers. The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council is an advisory board to the employment and immigration minister. It provides the minister with advice from those affected by the department's policies and activities. Surely that is important. It acts as an independent institution. Surely this is extremely important.
Let me share with you some of the things that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security is intended to do, that it will no longer be able to do. Here is part of its mandate: To increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective. It undertakes research in order to assist in peacemaking.
Government Orders
Let us look at the International Centre for Ocean Development. This organization's prime objective was to improve the management and utilization of ocean resources as a source of food for those nations that do not have enough food to nourish their people.
Another organization, the Law Reform Commission, has a bit of a stuffy title but it did have an important mandate. It was going to make recommendations for improvement, modernization and reform of legislation. It undertook research in order to assist.
Let us look at the mandate of the Science Council of Canada. It was to assess scientific and technological resources, requirements and potentialities of Canada and increase public awareness of scientific and technological problems and opportunities. It undertook research, published studies, reports and provided advice to the minister.
Let me deal with the final one, the Economic Council of Canada. What was its mandate? It was to achieve the highest possible levels of employment and efficient production in order that the country may enjoy a high and consistent rate of economic growth, that all Canadians may share and have rising living standards. It undertook research. It was a departmental corporation operating at arm's length from ministers to provide independent advice to the minister.
Every single one of those organizations I have mentioned provided expert advice and research so the government could do a better job.
When I look at what the Economic Council of Canada produced in this booklet which is called: A New Face of Poverty I can understand why a government might be loathe to continue to support it because it gets to the root of a problem when it examines the face of poverty in Canada.
I mentioned just a few moments ago that we have close to five million people living at or below the poverty level, over one million of those are children, the vast majority of whom are women. Let us look at this booklet and give a couple of examples of some of the things they say that might in fact make governments shudder a little bit: "Unemployment insurance does not serve the needs of some of the unemployed. Good jobs have become difficult to find, creating economic difficulties", and it goes on to talk about economic stress and what have you.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
I can understand why governments would be nervous about that kind of advice. On the other hand, if we are committed to tiy to improve the human condition, if we want to wrestle our problems to the ground, to make Canada a better country, surely we should not shy away from hearing the truth from experts who have worked long and hard in trying to determine what it is that needs to be done.
What are the reasons for dismantling these organizations? We have heard about the economic reasons. We know they are not true. Of course there will be some savings in a way, but if we look at the losses as a result of the dismantling, what are the real savings? No one has come up with that figure. Savings are not the real reason. That is a smoke screen. That is to camouflage the dismantling. That is simply to try to find an excuse to explain it in away to Canadians.
We know that some $20 million is a lot of money. I do not want to minimize that. But I suspect that $20 million could be saved by reducing the size of cabinet. Let us start with cabinet and some of the perks that its members get.


An hon. member:: Get rid of those Tories.


Ron J. Duhamel: We could reduce the size of the ministerial staff and save much more than $20 million. We could cut down on the polling and government advertising and already we have saved several millions more. If the intent was to save $20 million, there were some targets which were much more appropriate that would have been much more acceptable to Canadians and would have been much more honest.
Saving money, no, but government is attempting to get closer to this reform agenda. Why? Because it has noticed that the reformers are in fact crowding into its boat. What do you do? You adopt some of their stances, some of their policies or you get as close to them as possible without getting burned.
There is a lesson to be learned here by government members and by the people of Canada. This kind of cutting, this kind of slashing without regard for the human condition, for the workers who were there, without looking at the real cost that is going to be incurred because of the lost research and the lost expert advice, just looking at the superficial $20 million is what the Reform Party would do. That is what it is all about. It is skimming the surface. It is taking complex problems
and giving simple little solutions in 30 seconds or shorter clips. That is exactly what it is all about.
Let me tell you another reason why there is dismantling here. You will recall that the government cut down the civil service. When I ask how much money was spent on contracts because some of that work still had to be done, lo and behold, there were no records. I must confess, I find that surprising.
There is deep suspicion that there is even more money being spent today than before those civil service cuts took place. Where has the money gone? Where has your money, my money, my colleague's money and other Canadians' money gone? I suspect that it has gone to private firms and to private agencies.
What is going to happen over here? We know full well the governments, no matter their political stripe, will need to continue to have expert advice. We know full well that the money that was supposedly saved will be going to corporations, firms and friends of government. I am going to be watching closely and my friends will as well.
If that is what happens, then it is hypocrisy of the highest kind. I see a similarity between these reductions here and the reductions that took place in the civil service.

They cut organizations. It could be said of most of the people involved who know the problems and were trying to solve them that they did an excellent, thorough, enlightened job that helped us parliamentarians look as objectively as possible at our society's problems and come up with much more flexible, sensitive solutions.
Why did they do it? It was not to save money. It was mainly to make Canadians believe that they were reducing the size of government and trying to cut government spending. But, as I already said, that is not the case. They are just shifting some expense items around. I am willing to bet that this money will be spent somewhere else as they did with the Public Service. Admittedly some positions were abolished, but the work was contracted out. I would really like to have the answer to this question. I would bet a year's salary for a doughnut that the government spends more now than it would have spent if it had kept those positions.

It looks good to some people. Some people have accepted this government propaganda, and I find that unfortunate. As I said a little while ago, if the government really wanted to save, there are advertising budgets and all sorts of surveys ordered by the government that could have been cancelled and they would have saved much more.

I am willing to have my colleagues from the other side ask me all kinds of questions and challenge everything I have said. I encourage them to do so. What I would like to propose is that the government consider setting up a third party blue ribbon committee of outstanding men and women who will look at this government decision and who will determine whether or not these agencies were in fact providing useful services for what it was costing Canadians. Surely that should not be too difficult to do.

What I would like-and I will say it in both official languages to be sure that I am well understood-is for the government to promise to set up a veiy credible committee of men and women from all across Canada to review the government's decisions and tell the Canadian Parliament whether or not it was a good and wise decision.

Surely that is not too threatening.
In closing I would hope that my colleagues would be sufficiently shocked by what I have said, because they are all supporting this bill, that they would rise in their place and ask profound questions of me to see whether or not Canadians believe what I have said or what it is that they say, or what it is that they propose to do.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I too am surprised that the members opposite have not asked questions of my colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface. That is incredible.
Government Orders


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: They are speechless.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As the hon. member for Hamilton West just said, they may have been left speechless.

I can understand why they do not want to debate this bill. They have remained silent all day. In fact, I think it is safe to say that they are hanging their heads in shame at the fact that the government is proceeding with this legislation and destroying a series of agencies that have been extremely helpful to Canadians and to our country.
I had occasion to speak on this bill before as recently as yesterday in the course of debate at the report stage, and I certainly had something to say at second reading on this bill. My opposition continues unabated. What has really been shocking is that in an effort to arrange for a suitable debate today, the government has chosen to remain virtually silent. I do not believe any government member has spoken on third reading, unless the minister spoke when he introduced the bill at that stage.


Ron J. Duhamel: It is a shame.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is a shame, as the hon. member for St. Boniface says.


Ron J. Duhamel: They are ashamed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They are ashamed and they should be ashamed because the bill is doing untold damage to the fabric of our country. One of the extraordinary things about the government-I know the hon. member for St. Boniface, who has a particular interest in this subject will know this-has been their alleged enthusiasm for research and development. Research and development has been carried on in virtually all of the agencies that are the subject of the debate today and the subject matter of this bill.
The Economic Council of Canada did a great deal of research and development. The Science Council of Canada helped foster research and development. The Law Reform Commission did all kinds of work to assist in legal research in Canada and help our country develop

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
new laws. Indeed, the Law Reform Commission, as I indicated in my speech yesterday, was in fact very highly regarded by foreign law reform commissions that carried on similar work in their own countries.
We had an outstanding organization the government is now throwing out with the stroke of a pen with this bill. The shocking feature of the whole thing is it has done it without waiting for the bill to pass. In other words, we have become a rubber stamp for government action that followed on the budget. It is scrapping all these organizations and all but one of them does not even have a telephone line any more. The government has just decided to let them have it and has given them the old boot the chop. This is what it has done in a most undemocratic and irresponsible way.
It is fine to plead this is an attempt to save money. We all recognize Tory times are hard times and we have to save money. We do not have to go about giving these organizations the heave-ho without a very careful look at how much we are actually saving. What is the record? The government announced in the budget it was closing down 46 agencies and corporations at a saving of $10 million? As my hon. friend from Halifax West knows, it is peanuts for the number of agencies being closed down.
We should look at the total cost for the agencies. For example, the total projected savings for the Economic Council of Canada was something like $22 million a year. Half of it could be saved on the Economic Council alone. Add up the others. There is something wrong.
The government has moved a whole lot of the work these agencies were doing into other organizations. I do not know this for a fact, but I can only speculate they have moved them in so they can shift these responsibilities to government departments where they can be under the thumb of a minister. You know how they like to put the thumb to them and make sure their reports comply with the minister's wishes. Instead of independent and valid reports that reflect reality, the government wants something that backs up the minister's view of reality. That is what the government is after. I think that is what it is trying to do in this case. It is transferring the
responsibility from an independent arm's length agency to a government department where it can put the screws to people if they do not come up with the report the government wants.
If a report is unsatisfactory in a government department, we know what happens. It gets buried. It never sees the light of day. The minister does not release it. An independent agency releases its reports and the public gets to read them and understand what is really going on. So it was with the Economic Council, the Law Reform Commission and the Science Council. All these bodies had the right to release their own reports.
Yesterday in the House one of the members of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Skeena, was making a speech and got a bit carried away. He referred to the cabinet in less than flattering terms. He spoke about their educational qualifications in a general way that was not polite or accurate. Understandably the government House leader, a Ph.D., the hon. member for Calgary South I think it is, came into the house and listed some of the outstanding qualifications of some of his cabinet colleagues. We were very pleased to see that. It was an enjoyable speech. It is unfortunate he is not here tonight to participate in the debate because he would enjoy it if he were. We would enjoy it.
As he knows, he was provoked into action last night. I see, Madam Speaker, you are threatening to wring my neck.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Yes, and I would hope the hon. member is not saying whether someone is in the House or not, which he knows is unacceptable in this place. I hope he would not provoke the minister into having to come down again tonight when everything is very quiet and everyone is having a very healthy debate. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, of course I would feel a lot better if a cabinet minister were here to hear this speech since this is a government bill. There is some responsibility under the traditions and practices of this House that a cabinet minister be here when a government bill is under debate.
November 26, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have to say which of the ministers he would wish to see in the House. The hon. member has the floor.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I would be happy to see any one, but of course if the government House leader were here in particular, I would be thrilled. He is an outstanding debater. He has a Ph.D. He is much better qualified than I am to speak on subjects like the Science Council of Canada. My degrees are not in sciences. They are in the humanities and social sciences perhaps, but not in the very distinguished and stratified atmosphere of a Ph. D. like the government House leader.
I see my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton- Strathcona is now getting a bit overwrought. I urge him to control himself. If he would like to make a speech or ask me a question at the conclusion of my address, I would be more than happy to hear from him.
What I wanted to say is we had the government House leader come last evening and tell us about how some of his cabinet colleagues were particularly well qualified to deal with these issues. The issue he did not address in his speech that sort of surprised me, was the fact all these people with Ph.Ds. and qualifications in science and engineering were abandoning the Science Council of Canada willy-nilly.
You would think if they had all this expertise in the cabinet and knew about these things they would say: "Well, we are grateful to have somebody like the Science Council of Canada give some independent advice on which way we should go".
But no. I guess they figured they had enough of them in the cabinet that they could make up their own minds. Yet all of these cabinet ministers have made speeches supporting R and D. I remember hearing the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology at a meeting of the Royal Society of Canada a couple of years ago at a conference. He made a speech saying how Canada was so short on research and development, how we had to get more government funding for research and development. Research and development was absolutely essential for the continued growth of Canada and our economic development.
Government Orders
Yet here we have the government giving the chop to organizations that fostered and sponsored research and development in Canada. There is no sense to its arguments. There is no sense to its rhetoric. There is no sense to its logic. It says one thing one day and does something else the next.
This government is frankly a disgrace. It has failed to address the issues that confront Canada. I would like to turn briefly to its economic record, which explains why we are going through these painful chops.
The government came into power in 1984. It is getting so long ago now it is hard to imagine. You would think it was yesterday from the way it complains. It's big theme was it was going to solve Canada's problems. It had all the answers. It was going to solve the deficit. It said the deficit was Canada's number one problem of 1984. It is still Canada's number one problem but not because it was in 1984. It is because the government has doubled the debt in the meantime and increased the payments so much. It has become a problem that is almost beyond solving thanks to the incompetent management we have witnessed from the government opposite for the last eight years.
Yet every time we ask a question in the House today in 1992, the same answer is given as was given in 1988 and the same one I know was given from my reading in 1984. That was, if we had not inherited this huge debt from the Liberals, we would not be in this pickle today. It is in the pickle today and it is not because of what happened eight or ten years ago. It is what happened over the last eight years. In every single one of them, the deficit has been enormous because of the government's mismanagement of the economic affairs of this country.
Now the government is getting rid of one of the principal organs of advice it had to give it advice, and that is the Economic Council of Canada.
The Science Council of Canada throughout its 15 year history did all kinds of things for this country. Let me read a brief list of its accomplishments. It recommended the creation of a Canadian space agency. It urged Canadians to recycle. It published reports on sustainable agriculture, water supply, biotechnology and technology for cold regions. These are just a few of the outstanding areas in which they moved to provide leadership for Canada.

November 26, 1992
Government Orders
The Economic Council of Canada is well known for its annual review, which focused on one of the problems confronting the economy.
A few years ago I recall the review-I have forgotten the title of it-that dealt with the problems of the deficit and national debt in Canada. Legacies, I believe was its name when I come to think of it. Perhaps Your Honour read it. It talked about the evils of the deficit and the debt, how large it was and how it was making it increasingly difficult for Canadian governments in future to provide for the necessary services and policy options that should be available to any government in this country. It spoke about the need for bringing the deficit under control. The study fitted in entirely with the government's avowed intention.
However, what it said was one thing and what it did was quite another. Deficit control has remained at the bottom of this government's list of priorities. It keeps announcing these little chops. I think it has announced that it will save $22 million a year on this deal, but where has it been spent? It has all been spent already. Every cut that was announced in the budget last February and all the savings that resulted from those cuts have been re-spent. It is all in the supplementary estimates that were tabled in the House of Commons this week.
You know that, Madam Speaker. I know that and the hon. members opposite who are left know that, even if they do not have a cabinet minister here to tell them about it. They know perfectly well that is what has happened. All the money has been spent recklessly because they have failed to manage the economic affairs of Canada properly.
I could go on at great length. I know I do not have the same time restrictions that I suffered from last night. I must say the first eight minutes of my speech went terribly quickly and I found that I was running out of time. However, tonight with the additional time of the 20-minute speech I have the option of speaking a little more slowly and enjoying the comments of my colleagues opposite a bit more.
The Science Council, the Law Reform Commission, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory
Council, and the Economic Council of Canada all have contributed to this country over the years.


Mac Harb: Tremendously.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre says: "Tremendously" and now we are to say good-bye to all these organizations.
We put before the House a series of amendments to this bill yesterday. There were 50 or 60 amendments. This morning the government and its backbenchers, all its supporters in this House, voted against everyone quite mindlessly. There was no explanation tendered as to why these amendments were unacceptable. Some of them were quite good, but they just sat there and voted them down one after another, obviously they were quite unthinking and very much uncaring.
Some of the amendments deleted the inappropriate sections of this bill and every single one was voted down. I regret that the government has shown a complete unwillingness to show any flexibility in this case. It has clearly shown a lack of compassion in dealing with the importance of these issues for Canadians.
There is one reason for introducing a bill of this Draconian nature, and that is because it has allowed the deficit to get out of control and it is trying to save it. For $22 million, the government is getting rid of organizations that are costing a good deal more.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, it is attempting to move the work those organizations are doing into government departments where it can control the work and control the result. It is regressive. It is unfair. The government should be ashamed of itself for proceeding in that way.
I would only hope, even at this late date, the members opposite who have the opportunity would cast their votes against this government or absent themselves from the vote on Monday night if they had any sense. I say to them: "If you cannot vote against the bill, go out of town and stay out of town, stay away from the vote and maybe we will be able to solve this problem by defeating this bill and putting it in the trash-can where it should be".
That is the position of our party. I am pleased we have been able to rise and participate all day in this debate. We have frankly carried the debate. We have had no assistance from the New Democratic Party either.
November 26, 1992


Mac Harb: Why would they be here? They are busy cutting grants for students.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes, they are probably off licking their wounds after their provincial colleagues have cut and slashed the grants for students. I do not know, but it is a shocking thing that they have abandoned this debate. The NDP has abandoned these organizations and have left it to the members of this party to try to carry this debate, to convince members opposite that what they are doing is wrong and that the government should recant, change its policy, and withdraw the bill.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I wish to give notice that I will raise a question of privilege or a point of order tomorrow concerning an oversight, and I am sure it was not more than that. I spoke last night and my speech was attributed to another member. Perhaps it was because I bored some of my listeners. As usual, I talked about Israel and Palestine, very briefly, but I have been thinking about this since this morning. I do not want to bore the people who listened to us last night, or the members who are still in the House, by repeating what I said yesterday.
I am sure thousands of Canadians, and especially young Canadians agree with me. I do not like cut and dried speeches that put the blame squarely on the other side's doorstep, but what I really do not like is this government's decision to dissolve the peace institute we created in 1984.
Perhaps I may recall-since last night it seems some people did not realize this-that the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau had launched a peace initiative in 1984. Subsequently a bill was tabled by the Hon. Allan MacEa-chen, minister of external affairs, to create an institute that, as you all know, examined these very important issues. The external affairs committee, which I had the honour to chair at the time was then called the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The fact that both departments were handled by the same committee had always been a bone of contention. I say this as an additional bit of information for our listeners. In fact I received a lot of calls since last night about the short speech I made on this very important subject. We can talk about the economy, but if there is no peace, if the whole world is in a turmoil, the economy
Government Orders
may be important but we still have to provide a solid foundation and that foundation consists of peace, international understanding, and so forth.
In 1984 it was agreed we could establish an institute. Unfortunately the Trudeau era, as they say, was drawing to a close and we were racing against the clock I am doing this from memory. I did not want to speak this evening but when I saw last night's mistake I decided to join in the debate again. In April 1984 there was second reading of the bill standing in the name of Mr. Allan MacEachen, whose is now a senator and was at one time leader in the Senate. After second reading, as we say here, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Last night I paid tribute to Mr. Stan Darling, who had always been a pillar of this committee, often at odds with his party colleagues.
At this point, perhaps I may mention that it was important to have the committee covering both external affairs and national defence. However, the Conservatives who are now in the government, had always wanted to separate them. Perhaps I should explain why I was against separation. It is quite simple. I think it is very sad when we see members who specialize exclusively in peace issues and foreign affairs, while other members concentrate only on national defence, without any dialogue between the two.
Some members say: "Oh, it is like social affairs. We will appoint all the women MPs to social affairs. For issues like foreign aid, we will appoint the good souls in Parliament. For national defence we will appoint the tough guys".
Personally I always combined the so-called tough guys with people who had some sense of internationalism and the two groups had to listen to each other. People who believed only in defence, defence and attack, had to listen a bit to the concerns of Third World countries which were represented by another group of members.
The external affairs committee had to race against the clock, because several members did all they could to sabotage the Institute from that time; they said it was a gift the Liberals wanted to give when Mr. Trudeau left office. At that time he had already announced that he was going. I was the poor chairman, caught between my colleagues, national defence types and people whose

Government Orders
main concern was external affairs and foreign aid. I had to make my way through that and I made everyone work day and night. That is how we got it. I reported to Parliament on June 27, 1984. Imagine, Parliament was dissolved. The Trudeau era ended on June 29, 1984 and I reported it to the House for approval on June 27, 1984.1 explained it last night but I will repeat it. Some say that for the first time in Mr. Trudeau's life he said what he thought of me. He said that it was thanks to the committee chairman's patience that we had the peace institute. I was away from the House because I was busy on the telephone solving an immigration problem for someone who had been denied entry to Canada; there was a big international conference on the Middle East in Montreal.
To get to the heart of the matter and not take too much of the House's time before we vote, I must say now that it is regrettable. This institute had 40 employees and a budget of $5 million. The first director general, a great diplomat, was the son of former Prime Minister Pearson. It was all peace people who had an idea of international security. For $5 million, we got a tremendous reputation throughout the world.

I will repeat and repeat for the young people sitting in this House and those listening the word Canada is too important in the world. The world talks about us in terms that Canadians sometimes do not even use and I regret it. I regret it in both languages. We are more popular outside Canada. I do not understand why Canadians do not realize and do not take more pride in this great country. We are perceived in the world as a country where, at the end of the day, we always find a solution between French Canadians, of which I am one, and English Canadians, which some others are, between the first citizens of this land and between the new Canadians who are now helping to shape this country. The rest of the world looks at us and says: "If Canada can succeed with all the young people of various origins living harmoniously together, there must be something special in that country".
The peace and security institute was an element of that, studying what goes wrong in the world. Imagine. It brought together here in Ottawa, as I said last night, people with a devotion for the survival of the state of Israel with people who are Palestinian-what a dangerous word in North America, a word I am familiar with. That was the kind of role the peace institute played, to bring these people together in a forum, in a debate, in a weekend discussion so that we could find a solution in order to live on a more harmonious planet. That was part of the role of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
On top of that, the board of directors had to be approved by various leaders and rightly so. It was not a packed political patronage or what have you. Names had to be submitted for acceptance to sit on the board and foreigners could sit on the board. It is quite exciting that foreigners could sit on the board. All that for $5 million.
Every modem country in the world has pride in that kind of an institute for many reasons. Canada had that institute. Knowing Mr. Trudeau, and let us say I have known him since I was 17 years old. I sat here with him for 20 years. I know he was so proud of that institute that brought together such a variety of people with various opinions.
As I said last night, and I repeat, it is regrettable. I do not want to attack because it solves nothing, but it is regrettable that we do not make the nuance between what is essential, what is the pride, what creates pride in young people to make them understand how complicated the planet is.
For those who believe that the world is all right now, think of the Soviet Union which I knew by heart. It has fallen. Now we have a new world order. Do not count on me to be applauding too much because I am afraid more of one dictatorship as benevolent and as friendly as the United States of America may be-and I am a friend of the United States and its citizens-but it is not healthy that there is only one dominant master in the world.
November 26, 1992

The peace and security institute was about to study all these matters. Those who are ready to go to sleep and to say that at long last we can sleep in peace because communism has fallen, as I said last night, I have news for them all.
This planet is more dangerous maybe than ever before because the death of communism has opened something unbelievable. It has opened all kinds of nationalism, confronting each other with hate and passion and producing what we see every night on television, the horror we see under the new world order. We have to study very carefully these new movements, these millions and millions of people who will not remain in their countries.
Canada may look like a do-gooder. We do not have major problems. We do not have many boundaries. We have two oceans. We have the north. We have the United States that can always be a buffer.
However think of Europe, think if you were a 19-year old Ukrainian or Polish person, or of any of the eastern countries, you would take your chances and go to Europe. The worst that could happen to you is that you would be shipped back. But that means the frontier. Now the problem of the frontier in Europe is very dangerous. Look at what is going on in the Balkans. That is exactly what the peace and security institute at times was studying.
Graciously organized parliamentary organizations came here. I will produce a report next week on parliamentary associations if the management and members' services committee does not produce it. The time has come to say what this is all about and the importance of parliamentary associations.
We worked closely with the peace institute. Members of Parliament of Canada are not provincial members. They have to have international preoccupation, but in order to have an international preoccupation. There must be a variety of informants or a variety of sources. Yes, you could count on the very devoted people at external affairs to inform you. But this kind of institute is also an extraordinarily good source of independent thinking. The sadness is that sometimes we say we will deregulate, that we will privatize everything because it looks good. It looks politically rentable. I do not know
Government Orders
how you translate rentable. Can anyone here say that quickly for me?

It pays politically.

It pays to look like you are for privatization but to talk about transportation, you are for privatization, of course. For those whose philosophy is anchored in one word, it looks good to have abolished all these institutes and everything else that my colleague spoke of tonight, and very more ably than 1.1 see them all here. They all spoke about that. Other members of other parties spoke about the dismantling of all these institutes.
Personally I want to be on record to say as strongly as possible, without the slightest partisanship attached to my comments, that we will live to regret the dismantling of the Institute for International Peace and Security. My colleagues across the aisle understand that it takes years to build something and before its reputation spreads around the world. Scholars of the world were talking about this peace institute of Canada, as were military minded people and the experts in defence, experts in security and experts in internationalization of conflict. We are talking about the peace institute.
Madam Speaker, you have great experience in these matters. I must say that you are a great credit to Canada. You represent our country, some macho would say with charm, but I would say not only with elegance but with knowledge. You do honour to Canada when you go abroad. We do not have to be scared by the press or other people who think that when members travel, it is a travelling agency. It is important because we are interrelated in this world, on this planet. We must know what is going on around the world before we vote for fisheries and wheat. We are inter-related not only in this country but in the world.
The Institute for International Peace and Security was about to become a jewel in something Canada has always done well in. Many other countries were glad and even envious to see that a country could take such initiatives. How could you expect an old parliamentarian like me not to say openly how sorry he is.

Government Orders
Come next election I assure you, as I said last night, if thanks to God-and God may be a woman-I am re-elected I will try to convince the new government of the day that it may have been a fatal mistake and we should reinstitute the institute. I see a lot of good in this institute on a troubled planet.

Young people must understand that Canada is for me perhaps one of the last beacons of hope for humanity in difficulty, where we can find solutions together while respecting our differences.

The peace institute was always studying and teaching all of those who came to study at the institute that you cannot have peace, you cannot have a harmonious world if you do not accept and respect the differences that exist in each one's country.
Canada has shown the way, and suddenly, sadly, for all kinds of reasons, we have disbanded the institute. I want to be on record as saying that I profoundly regret it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I want to apologize to one of the hon. members on the other side for an apparent error I made in my speech that he has drawn to my attention. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte apparently did make a speech today on this bill. I am delighted to hear that he did and I am very sorry that I missed it. I was in a committee this afternoon and I dare say it happened then. I am sure it was a wonderful speech and I am pleased that he got up and spoke on his side because there were only apparently two that did. I inadvertently misled the House by suggesting that there
had not been any speakers from the other side. I understand there were two. I am only sorry there are no ministers here to vote for the bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will make sure that he reads Hansard tomorrow to know what the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte said.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 25, the recorded division is deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, November 30.
It being 8.11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 27, 1992