1992-06-11

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to the daily routine of business, I want to give my ruling on a matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast a few days ago.
As all hon. members know, there were some technical difficulties with the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, June 3, 1992 in recording the divisions on motions of amendment at report stage of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada. A reprint was immediately ordered to accurately reflect the results recorded by the Clerk.
In his point of order, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast was concerned by the fact that some of the names appearing under the listing for paired members also appeared under the "yeas" or "nays".

I would appear therefore that some members whose names were paired with others indicating that they would not be voting had in fact cast votes either for or against certain motions.

Should or could action be taken by either the Speaker or the House in regard to this situation.
Standing Order 44.1 specifically deals with paired members. It explains that a register of paired members is kept at the table "in which any member of the government party and any member of an opposition party may have their names entered together by their respective Whips to indicate that they will not take part in any record division"; independent members sign in their own right.

The names of these paired members are inscribed immediately following the list of "yeas" and "nays" for each recorded division.

However, the Standing Orders are completely silent on the question of a broken pair; there is no penalty provided for, nor any corrective action suggested. As the 21st edition of Erskine May explains on page 350:
The Speaker has ruled that agreements to pair are private arrangements between Members and in no sense matters in which either he or the House can intervene.

Although Westminster's rules relating to pairing are different from those employed in Canada, the basic principle enunciated in May holds true for our practice, that is to say: a pairing agreement is a private arrangement in which neither the House nor the Speaker can intervene, according to the Standing Orders as now written.

Any change to our current practice would require amendments to our Standing Orders. The Standing Committee on House Management which has as part of its permanent mandate the power to review and report on the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House, may wish to look into this question. I thank the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-85, an act respecting the control of psychoactive substances and their precursors and to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (money laundering) Act and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.

June 11, 1992
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Cadieux (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) 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.


REQUEST FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING
Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is introduce a motion on behalf of myself and the hon. member for Comox-Al-bemi on electronic voting for the House of Commons.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret there is not unanimous consent.


PETITIONS
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I would like to table pursuant to Standing Order 36. These petitions have been signed by Canadians across this country who are objecting to the government's decision to cancel the Court Challenges Program.
This particular program has allowed many individuals and minority groups to clarify through the courts their constitutional linguistic and equality rights.
They call upon the Government of Canada to rescind this decision and reinstate the Court Challenges Program. Some of these individuals come from Kingston,
Ontario, and others come from New Brunswick, Newfoundland, the other Atlantic provinces, the Western provinces, Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 wherein the petitioners ask the federal government to do everything in its power to stop drift-net fishing in the north Pacific ocean.
They point out that an ecological disaster is being perpetrated by Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese drift-net fishing fleets in the north Pacific. Sea birds and marine mammals are being slaughtered by the thousands in the monofilament drift-nets used by the above mentioned fleets.
The west coast salmon fishery is being damaged by this fishing practice. There is also a great possibility of this practice having a horrendous effect on the global ecosystem and our own environment. The petitioners call upon Parliament to do everything it can to stop this.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I have a another petition signed by people primarily in the Ladysmith area of my riding.
The petition is to promote pride in being Canadian. Whereas it is appropriate to encourage all Canadians to take pride in a united, strong and independent Canada, whereas Canadians are normally a reserved people often concealing their patriotic feelings, and whereas Kinsmen and Kinnette Clubs of Canada have created an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the proud to be Canadian project during the celebration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation in 1992.
Therefore the petitioners support the proud to be Canadian project as an opportunity to nurture a positive lifelong relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians and the advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles, and to promote tremendous pride in being Canadians.
June 11, 1992


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to introduce a petition calling for a referendum of the people before there is constitutional change.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present a petition signed by many of my constituents in Malpeque, in places such as Cornwall, Winsloe, Kensington, Marshfield and Albany, Prince Edward Island.
Whereas scientific evidence has raised doubts about the safety of silicone breast implants and whereas the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare has known of the dangers of these implants for several years the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to establish an independent judicial inquiry into the testing and approval process of all medical devices, in particular silicone breast implants.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to present a petition from a number of residents in British Columbia regarding two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years in a Brazilian prison.
They have suffered discrimination in sentencing and parole. The cumulative effect of these irregularities provides ample grounds for the Government of Canada to seek a remedy on their behalf and there should be a request for expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the government to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them home to Canada.


LIGHTHOUSES
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition representing the wishes of thousands of British Columbians.
They ask that the Future Use of Lightstations report be immediately implemented by the federal government, along with the return of the 10 person-years cut from the program and the return of the budget dollars that were
Routine Proceedings
removed. This will ensure the safety, continuation and upgrading of the west coast lighthouse system in order to ensure the safety net for the transportation of British Columbians.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by a number of my constituents who are Canadians of Sri Lankan origin and reside in the Flemingdon Park area of my riding.
This petition relates to the recent Canadian human rights mission to the island of Sri Lanka and it requests that Canada take a lead to facilitate the international mediation of the conflict there.
It calls upon Parliament to express willingness to call upon the parties to the conflict in Sri Lanka, the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, to express their willingness to accept mediation of the conflict and also to commence negotiations with a view to entering an internationally guaranteed accord to establish an associated structure within which the Sinhalese people and the Tamil people may live in peace and freedom.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 266 will be answered today.


Ms. Langan: With respect to the survey being conducted by the Department of Health and Welfare on the experience of women with breast implants (a) will the Minister consult with opposition critics and the status of women sub-committee on breast cancer prior to appoint a company to conduct this survey (b) who is to be surveyed (c) when will this survey begin (d) when will the survey be completed (e) will the report of the survey be tabled in the House of Commons?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) The selection of a contractor to conduct a survey of Canadian women with breast implants has been done through the Department of Supply and Services according to government contract policy. The process does not include consultation on the choice

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
of contractor with opposition critics or the status of women sub-committee.
(b)	The survey is open to all women in Canada with breast implants. Women who respond to well-publicized invitations by calling 1-800-661-4437 will participate in the survey and/or be included on a mailing list for future information from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
(c)	The toll-free line will be operational until July 31, 1992.
(id) The survey and all related work is expected to be completed in August 1992.
(e) The survey will be made available to the public immediately following the review of the results.


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


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 308 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 308 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Angus: With respect to the Financial Administration Act, Section 88 and 89, for each fiscal year since April 1, 1985, has Transport Canada collected data on (a) the number of train kilometres travelled on each VIA service provided, per route, per year (b) the number of passengers carried on each VIA service, and total number of passenger kilometres travelled on each VIA service, and total number of seat kilometres on each VIA service, per route, per year (c) the amount of total revenues from each VIA service, per route, per year (d) the total of avoidable costs of each VIA service, per route, per year and, if so, for each case, what is it?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code (jury), as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is one motion in amendment on the Notice Paper at the report stage for Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(jury)-
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam will be debated and voted upon.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-70 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 7 and
8 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"deemed to have come into force only after the multicultural justice review and report commissioned under the authority of a reference from the Minister of Justice forwarded to the Law Reform Commission of Canada on June 8,1990, has been completed by the Law Reform Commission of Canada and tabled in the House of Commons."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Niagara Falls.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent in the House to deal with both the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-70 today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am not prepared to give unanimous consent at this point. I wonder if we could deal with my motion. I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary reply to it. My response depends on what he says. If he says the
June 11, 1992

appropriate words I will be prepared to give consent to finishing this bill today. However, I do not want to do that beforehand.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there were no formal undertakings with regard to completing Bill C-70. However, I think there is a clear disposition on this side of the House that we would like to proceed with both the report stage and third reading.
I find it rather objectionable that preconditions would be established by members of this House before continuing on with debate on a particular piece of legislation. I would hope that my colleague who has raised an amendment with regard to Bill C-70 will have an opportunity to debate it. Of course the government and the Official Opposition would have an opportunity to intervene. Then perhaps an adjudication could take place and we could then proceed with the completion, if necessary, of the bill.
I want to make it perfectly clear to the parliamentary secretary that we are not trying to obstruct in any way. We wish to facilitate the debate. I find it somewhat objectionable that preconditions-in other words, a form of blackmail-would be placed on the floor of the House of Commons before we proceed. That is totally unacceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that these agreements would take place behind the curtain. I do not consider this the place to debate this.
Motion No. 1 is now in front of the House and the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has the floor on debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition House leader can call it whatever he likes but I hope he will listen to my remarks. He will see that it is no such thing. I think, and hope, that he will agree with me when I finish.
I introduced the amendment to alleviate some of the concerns that many of us have about Bill C-70 and the jury selection process. Allow me to explain to the House what the bill is and what we are trying to do.
The bill before us today is a result of the decision in the case of Regina v. Bain. It is a major decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment was rendered
Government Orders
January 23, 1992. In that decision the Supreme Court ruled that sections 634(1) and (2) are inconsistent with section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in so far as they provide the Crown with a combination of peremptory challenges and stand-bys four times the number permitted the accused.
As the court noted:
The observer of the process is bound to conclude that, absent some control, the Crown possesses a substantial advantage and can effectively influence the make-up of that jury under partisan considerations.
Let me translate that into plain English. We have a system in which the Crown prosecutor has a different level of challenges. The Crown can follow a different process. It has a better crack at excluding people from a jury than does the defence. The Supreme Court basically said: "Make it a level playing field".
The court gave Parliament six months to bring forward a remedy. That was on January 23, 1992.1 know that the parliamentary secretary has acted and the government has acted. It has introduced a bill and we have expedited it in committee.
However, the government's legislation deals specifically with the narrow and very limited recommendations that come from the Supreme Court decision, which was limited to the very specific questions that were asked in the case. I believe that it was a case concerning sexual assault and the lower court's ruling that the Crown could not use stand-asides to influence the make-up of the jury-
My concern, and I know I am not alone in this, is that we have gone through the process of drafting and debating amendments to the Criminal Code without making full use of this opportunity to really effect meaningful and innovative change that will bring the code into the modem age and into the future.
Instead, we have done the least that could be expected of us and left the real work for another day. What kind of real work am I talking about? There have been numerous studies and inquiries that have shown that the justice system is not always fair. Justice is not always equally available to Canadians as a result of procedural flaws, including the jury selection process. This is not only because of the use of stand-asides by the Crown-even back in 1980 the Law Reform Commission drew this to

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
our attention-but because of the nature of what we call peremptory challenges.
I will give an example. The report of the aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba found that aboriginal people were excluded from the jury in the Osbourne case because of their race. The defence used a peremptory challenge to exclude six aboriginal people. This was a case concerning the murder of an aboriginal woman in a community with a large aboriginal component.
As the report states:
The jury was not representative of the community from which it was
drawn and in which the crime was committed.
In modern Canada there are instances in which people have been excluded from juries because of their race.
It is my understanding that one of the ideals we strive for in the justice system is to provide for the selection of a jury that does represent the community. The peremptory challenge may in fact stand in the way of achieving this goal. Perhaps it should be incumbent upon counsel to provide cause for every challenge. After all, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bain decision noted that:
The peremptory challenge is purely subjective.
Perhaps we need greater objectivity; if you do not like the person's face or you do not like the colour of his or her skin, you can challenge and you do not have to justify why you are challenging.
This is one of the concerns we could have looked at when we opened up this part of the Criminal Code. We are going to have to do it in the near future. I know the Attorney General of Ontario-I have a letter from the Attorney General of Ontario to the Minister of Justice of Canada-is determined to see these concerns addressed and these flaws remedied. The Attorney General said so publicly just a month ago in Toronto.
We have yet to have any substantive assurance from the federal government in this regard. In fact, by introducing legislation that killed the Law Reform Commission the government has given every indication it is not prepared at all to do the kind of work that needs to be done in this area. There had been some hope when the minister asked the commission to begin work on
multiculturalism and the law that we could begin the process of updating our laws.
Were it not for the articles of Mr. David Vienneau in The Toronto Star after he obtained a copy of a consultation paper from the Law Reform Commission which was looking specifically at a trial by jury and had drafted well thought out and researched recommendations in its final report, we would not have known that the government was even looking at this area. This is a copy of the draft consultation paper by the Law Reform Commission. It is incomplete.
I suggest to the government and to you, Mr. Speaker: just take The Toronto Star for today and look at the headline "Anti-Black Racism Deep, Lewis Warns Ontario". This is a very relevant issue. Mr. Vienneau of The Toronto Star really did us a service to get this report public and get it out. We did not even see this in our committee.
This is not the way government should work. It should not hide things from Parliament, especially when racism is such a huge issue in our major cities in Canada today.
This report has recommendations that address the issue of proportional representation of the accused's racial, religious or other minority characteristics on juries, recommendations that would improve our ability to ensure that juries represent a fair cross-section of the community, and recommendations on page 38 regarding peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. I suggest some members of the House, including the House leader of the Official Opposition who I know is a lawyer, might want to have a look at this because it deals with stand-asides and peremptory challenges.
Basically, if I can summarize, it says maybe we should look at this because it is a purely subjective standard. As I said before a defence counsel or even Crown counsel could have people stand aside because they are black, Jewish, aboriginal or whatever. They can do that.
I am not saying they are doing it, although there was one instance in the case I have cited. At least we need to have some study of that and we need to look at that. I am not trying to hold up the government's bill. I understand the parliamentary secretary has to get this done in six months, although he could go back to the court as the government has done in the past and say we need more time. If the court does not like it, he could blame it on
June 11, 1992

the socialists down here and say they caused all the problem and ask for more time.
The Law Reform Commission's report called Minister's Reference, Jury Selection on Multicultural Issues would provide members of Parliament with a learned impartial non-partisan opinion. That is why I do not want an in-house study by the government or by the Department of Justice. I know that the government likes that but we want a non-partisan report. We want something that can be tabled in the House of Commons. In short, we want this study completed.
If the government were prepared to say firmly that today, now in the House, I am prepared to consent to going to third reading and putting this bill through today. If not, I am not prepared to consent.
The member from Nova Scotia, the official government House leader, can call that blackmail or call it what he likes. I call it good parliamentary tactics and doing my job as justice critic for the NDP and trying to get the government committed. I know the government really is committed and I know the member from Niagara Falls, the parliamentary secretary, is committed to having these issues looked at in the best possible way.
It is my hope that we can bring this in and we can get this report completed before the law is challenged because visible minorities, women or others are excluded from juries through abuse of the peremptory challenge. We do not want this to start going back to the court.
These kinds of time constraints can only result in hastily written and often barely adequate legislation, that is the six months, the stop-gap legislation.
I suggest that Canadians deserve better. By bringing forward this amendment it is my hope that the government will agree to look at least a short distance into the future and that it will agree to at least giving us the tools, if not the time, to come back to the jury selection process and make some real and meaningful amendments that will make the justice system fair for everyone.
That is what I am trying to do today. I will be pleased to hear the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Government Orders


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are supportive of the intent and direction suggested in this particular motion. We all recognize the problem that exists and the need for change in the area of jury selection and in particular to do everything possible we can to make the system function properly so that there is not racial discrimination within that system.
We are also faced with the problem of doing the possible. My understanding is that under the Supreme Court decision about the middle of July, July 22 or July 23, we have to correct the problem which the Supreme Court found, and that is what Bill C-70 does.
I would hope the government and the NDP could work out an arrangement to accommodate that. I would hope they would see to it that there is a commitment as to time for that report to be brought forward, a commitment by the government to act on that report and to conduct the full study necessary in order to make amendments to jury selection to accommodate what the report brings forward.
We are supportive of where they want to be as far as the motion is intended. We just do not know if it is a doable situation given the time constraints we are involved in. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary coming forward with a solution to that time constraint.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, time constraint is the problem we have at the present time. As was pointed out in the Regina v. Bain decision, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down certain provisions of the Criminal Code as they relate to jury selection.
We had a specific problem on our hands at that point. The Supreme Court of Canada indicated that it would suspend the operation of its decision for a period of six months. That period of time expires July 23, 1992.
We have a situation where we are at report stage on June 11. I hope the House deems it appropriate to continue with the third reading stage of this debate so that it can pass this House and move on to the Senate.

Government Orders
The bill is specific. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam talked about that and we have nothing to hide in that regard.
It was specifically directed toward the issue raised in the Regina v. Bain decision. It was not meant to be a comprehensive look or solution to all the issues or questions raised in the jury selection process. It was for this specific purpose. We did not dawdle with this. Within I believe she weeks of the decision of the Supreme Court we tabled Bill C-70. Prior to that we consulted with groups such as the Canadian Bar Association and others that were generally interested in commenting on new initiatives from the Department of Justice and took their advice on this.
As well the minister has consulted with provincial attorneys general. I can tell hon. members of the House that this particular bill has their blessing and approval. I do not think it is unreasonable they would give it.
We took this through the committee stage. At that time there were no amendments, no briefs, and no witnesses who appeared before us. I think that was a result of the consultations that took place prior to the introduction of the bill.
I hope I have addressed the question of whether the government is hiding something on this. We are not.
With respect to the motion that the hon. member makes, he asks that the application of this bill be suspended until there is a review and a report commissioned on the authority of a reference from the Minister of Justice to the Law Reform Commission.
I do not think he will be too surprised when I say that the government will not be supporting it because it puts an indefinite time period for the application of this bill. I do not think that is something the courts, the judiciary, the bar or Canadians interested in seeing Parliament act would want at this particular time.
However, I can tell the hon. member that he is quite correct. He raised issues in his comments that are of concern to the government. I believe that he and I, the member from Moncton and others at the committee stage discussed this very question in terms of a review being undertaken by the attorney general of the province of Ontario. I can tell him, as I think I indicated then, that the government will be very interested in hearing what
the attorney general of Ontario, or indeed any others in this country, has to say on this particular issue.
With respect to the specific reference in the motion vis-a-vis the Law Reform Commission, I want to tell the member that the issue that was referred to the commission is being studied and will continue to be studied by the Department of Justice itself. The minister, I and everyone would like to see that concluded as quickly as possible.
I cannot say to the hon. member or to anyone else that we will therefore bring in amendments when we do not know what the report is. It is reasonable to see what the report is, to see what the attorney general of Ontario recommends to us in this regard and then to decide the appropriate action. But I cannot in advance of a report being completed say that we will accept whatever the conclusions of the report and therefore bring in amendments to the Criminal Code.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member.
I just want to point out to him so that we can expedite this matter. What I asked in my speech was that he give a commitment to this House that there be a report, an independent study, and that this study be made available to members of the House. I did not ask for an internal Department of Justice study but an independent study that is available to the members of the House. If he were prepared to give that commitment I would withdraw my amendment.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the issue being studied by the attorney general for Ontario is not one that is controlled or directed by the Government of Canada. He can be assured that there is independence in what the Attorney general of Ontario will be doing vis-a-vis the federal Criminal Code. I can only tell him what we are doing at the present time. Yes, we are having a look at it.
He is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General as are several other members of the House. I would indicate to him that if he would like to study this as well as the study that is going on within the Department of Justice, then by all means he should propose that to members. That is certainly within his purview and that of his colleagues on the Standing Committee of Justice and Solicitor General. If they want to undertake a study that would act in parallel or in concert with what we are doing at the Department of
June 11, 1992

Justice, then by all means do so. That would be the appropriate route.
If the member is asking me to make a commitment that we will have a royal commission, all I can say is that I want to see first the Department of Justice review. Let us see what the recommendations are from the attorney general.
With respect to the attorney general for Ontario, provincial attorneys general want this bill passed and they want it passed by July 23. As far as an independent inquiry is concerned, I say to the hon. member, please go before the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. That is his right as a member of Parliament to make that recommendation.
We heard that the hon. member for Moncton. I know my colleagues on the government side are interested in all aspects of the justice system and all attempts to create a fair justice system for everyone in Canada. I would suggest that is the route.
At this point, I do not see why it would be a good idea for us to stop the internal review being undertaken by the Department of Justice. I would suggest that we let that proceed and find out what the attorney general of Ontario or anyone else in this country has to say about it. Let us hear what the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General has to say on it and then we can formulate an action plan at that particular time.
This is very important. Time is running out in Parliament and I hope that hon. members will not proceed with this. It would suspend the application of this bill to an indefinite period of time. I hope that we will get on with it and pass this bill.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance to all members of this House, the judiciary, the bar, and all those involved in jury trials in this country, I would seek the unanimous consent of this House to proceed with third reading debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I asked the parliamentary secretary if he would undertake to continue this study that is going on, not just internally at justice department. I asked for an independent report so we would actually see it in the House and it would be tabled. He refused to do that so reluctantly I will not give my consent.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. members:: At the next sitting of the House.


CUSTOMS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-74, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act, as reported (with amendment) by the Standing Committee on Finance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have a ruling on Bill C-74, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act.
There are three motions in amendment on the Notice Paper at the report stage for Bill C-74, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Thriff and the Excise Tkx Act.


Some hon. members:: Yea.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 1 applied to Motion No. 2.
Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott Russell was moved, debated and negatived in the Standing Committee on Finance which studied the bill. Consequently, Motion No. 3 will not be selected.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I obviously accept the Chair's ruling in terms of Motion No. 3. I will make my remarks to all three of the motions. I invite the parliamentary secretary to avail himself of the answers to some of the questions that I will be raising.
First of all, I indicated at second reading that it is my intention to vote for this bill and to recommend that my colleagues do the same. I want to indicate to the government that we have no interest in blocking, stalling or otherwise delaying the passage of Bill C-74.
It should be made clear to all Canadians and to all members of this House that the reason Bill C-74 is needed is because of an action by the government across the way some years ago. It decided in its so-called wisdom to make all parcels coming into Canada under $40 exempt from customs duties. In so doing, it has created an industry in the United States.
I have here a magazine entitled The Guide to CrossBorder Shopping, Tourism and Entertainment. This little publication comes from the U.S.A., right across the border in Ogdensburg, New York. It tells of all the great ways Canadians can cross-border shop.
I understand that Canada Post is busy right now in the United States soliciting this kind of business to encourage Canadians to shop in the U.S. We will deal with that some other time. Right now, we are going to talk about the amendments that are before us.
The bill does two things. One, it reduces the tax free amount from $40 to $20. I had proposed in the amendment that has been ruled out of order to reduce that amount to $5. The government said at committee: "Don't worry because all articles even under $20 will be subject to a $5 fee at the border by Canada Post".
That is not true, because in the bill there is what is known as a foreign certification program by which a large mail order house in the United States will be able to apply, collect the taxes themselves, and exempt themselves from the $5 surtax.
The long and the short of it is the following: A company in the United States will be able to by-pass the new $5 fee that the government is proposing by registering under the foreign certification program. Okay? Now, say a Canadian small retailer imports by mail some small article made in the United States to resell in Canada. It has no possibility of being so exempted.
What have we created? We are going to make it harder for a small business in Canada to compete with a large business in the United States because the certification program is only made available to foreign companies and not Canadian ones. We are actually creating a new device in order for foreign companies to exempt themselves from paying the $5 surcharge we are initiating in the Ml.
That is why the government has to answer for this. I invite the parliamentary secretary or one of the ministers across the way to explain to this House and to Canadians why yet another loophole has been created in a law that is supposed to get rid of loopholes this government created in the first place.
We really need to clarify that. As far as I am concerned, that foreign certification program should not exist. There is no reason for it. Why are we so desperate on wanting to export jobs out of this country? I cannot understand it.
If a Canadian mail order house wants to sell something to the U.S., it has to pay $8.40 U.S. at the border in order to get the privilege of sending a parcel across the border. That is roughly $10.50 Canadian at the time we are speaking today.
We are proposing to charge them $5 for what they charge us $10 and then we are proposing to exempt most of them from paying it anyway. Do they exempt us? Likely not. We are proposing to exempt all the large mail
June 11, 1992

Government Orders
order houses that are able to avail themselves of this foreign certification program. I really think the government has to answer for this.
There is another element in the bill I want to address. The purpose of the two amendments on the Order Paper in my name is to reduce the gift exemption the government is creating. Under the present rule, there is an exemption for someone receiving a gift from offshore. If a gift is received from offshore, this particular tax does not have to be paid.
Someone was mentioning to me in the lobby a little while ago that if her mother sent her a gift from offshore, she would have to pay the $5 surtax. Well that is not so. That only applies to goods purchased offshore. If a gift is received from offshore, right now one does not pay customs or any kind of administrative fee on the first $40 of value of the gift.
The bill proposes to increase the $40 to $60 and the amendments I have proposed would delete those clauses. At the very least, let us leave it the way it is now at $40. Let us not give an advantage to companies outside of this country. Let us give every advantage we can to the ones operating within Canada.
The Minister for International Trade and a few others across the way have recited to us at length the phrase "operating on a level playing field". That is their favourite line across the way. What is level about the playing field I have just described when we are plugging up loopholes in our system and creating new ones that will not make the plugging up we are trying to do half as effective?
Again, I repeat that we want those provisions to be tight but we cannot help but wonder why the government created this new loophole in the bill under this foreign certification clause.
I have here briefing documents for people working in Revenue Canada. These are questions and answers. These are prepared questions for the officials. This information was sent to me. I do not know whether I should call this information a leak or what, but anyway I have it. The information works this way. Proposed question No. 6: Finance has announced the foreign certification program, how does it work?
The proposed answer for the government official who is supposed to recite those prepared lines goes this way: A foreign mail order business can apply for certification which would allow it to collect duties and taxes on behalf of the Government of Canada. It would collect duties and taxes from its clients in Canada when the Canadian pays for the good and then send a cheque to the federal government on a periodic basis. This would in turn reduce the number of dutiable/taxable parcels to be processed by customs.
Then there is a supplementary question in case the person is real nosy and wants to know more. Question No. 7 goes this way: If I understand you correctly, by allowing foreign businesses to collect duties and taxes, Canadians can bypass customs altogether along with the Canada Post handling fee and have the parcel delivered right to their door. Is this not really facilitating crossborder shopping through these American mail order houses?
Well, thank you for asking, Mr. Speaker. Listen clearly to the proposed answer the official is supposed to give because you might find that it does not quite answer the question. As a matter of fact, I submit to you it does not answer the thing at all. Here is the proposed answer the government official is supposed to give to whoever is nosy enough to ask this supplementary question. Answer: Not at all. Foreign firms of course will have to consider this option in light of the cost that they will have to absorb or pass on to perform the collection and remittance function.
That is very clear, is it not? That is the proposed answer.
Again I recommend to this House the two amendments that I propose to close in on the loophole for gifts, but in addition I ask the government to really reconsider this foreign certification program because it is itself creating a new loophole that will not make its bill half as effective as it would be otherwise.


Mr. Horner:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking unanimous consent of the House to table a report from a standing committee. Could we revert to that now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, in both official languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee has considered certain questions concerning the Christine Lamont and David Spencer case and has agreed to report it.
In its report the committee makes two recommendations: First, the committee unanimously urges the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request without undue delay the expulsion of Christine Lamont and David Spencer in accordance with the laws of Brazil and Canada's international human rights law obligations.
Second, the committee urges that the minister enhance the program of informing Canadians as to the number of Canadians in foreign jails and the importance of conducting oneself in a way so as to avoid any conflicts with laws in other countries.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-74, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Thriff and the Excise Tax Act, as reported (with an amendment) by the Standing Committee on Finance.
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by complimenting the committee that just reported. It is another example of how parliamentarians can work together in a very complex matter and come to agreement that I think all Canadians will be proud of. I hope that the minister will respond appropriately.
With regard to the group of amendments put forward by my colleague from the Liberal Party, I want to say that I do not support them. We have to recognize that in our two countries, Canada and the United States, there are a lot of intermarriages and a lot of families who live on both sides of the border. By restricting the exemption for gifts between families, between friends, between business colleagues, to the current amount as opposed to what the government is attempting to do which is to increase it is wrong.
For that reason I will be opposing the amendment. I certainly do agree with the member in his comments about the registry and giving the opportunity for American-based direct mail firms to have an advantage over Canadians. We have to recognize that all this bill does, and I will come back to this on third reading, is facilitate cross-border shopping. It also facilitates cross-border driving because there are no fees attached to the processing when you drive across the border and bring goods in, but if you are using the mail or courier services, there are. In effect the Government of Canada has made it more attractive to drive south to buy goods than reducing that opportunity.


Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the amendments of the hon. member for Glengarry-Pres-cott-Russell, I would just like to say that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would force the gift exemption to remain at $40 instead of being increased to $60. The gift exemption was increased to accommodate families and friends sending gifts from abroad. It brings it in line with the gift exemption in other countries. Gifts must be sent by an individual, not from a company, in order to qualify for the gift exemption.
As regards amendment No. 3, this amendment would restrict the exemption for postal and courier imports to $5 instead of the $20 proposed in the legislation. Dropping it to $5 would mean additional costs to customs because it would require processing an additional nine million parcels. Dropping it from $40 to $20 would result in an additional five million parcels being processed.
The proposed changes in Bill C-74 which we are advancing is in direct response to Canadian business demands that this government make the necessary changes to existing legislation to balance the scales. Representations were received from the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Direct Marketing Association, independent retailers and other small business people.
June 11, 1992

Government Orders
So we have responded to these changes. Some of these changes were also requested by members of this House.
I have a response to the hon. member from Mr. Light of the department who says: "We open a number of gifts that arrive in Canada and if we find an invoice from a company in the package we know it is not an unsolicited gift. Basically, when a package is sent from an individual to an individual and the declaration declares it as a gift, we basically accept that, except where we have evidence to the contrary. Since we sample parcels on a regular basis and if we find something that indicates it is not a gift we then disallow the gift exemption".


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Mr. Boudria. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are therefore defeated.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be concurred in.
Motion agreed to


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Barry D. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to begin today third reading of Bill C-74, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act.
This is an important piece of legislation, important to both Customs and Excise, and important to Canadian business. It is designed to enhance voluntary compliance in the importing community and also to assist Canadian businesses by ensuring a level playing field and greater opportunity to compete in the global trading environment.
This bill is composed of two main parts. The first is directed to the elimination of the imbalance that currently exists in the interest provisions of customs legislation and to introduce penalties for the lack of compliance in certain instances.
It is noteworthy to mention at the outset that Customs and Excise has a veiy large commercial clientele who for the most part are very familiar with and who comply with customs legislation. For these importers then the proposed amendments will have no impact on their day-today operations. It will be business as usual.
Rather, these measures are aimed at those commercial importers who find it financially rewarding to delay filing their accounting documents or paying their fair share of duties and taxes. Current legislation requires Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, to pay interest on moneys owing to an importer. However, the same obligation is not required of an importer who owes money to the Crown.
These proposed interest and penalty provisions have been designed to bring customs and excise business operation more into line with current commercial operating practices and they are fair to both the importing community and to customs, as the regulator. The proposed amendments are quite straightforward. Moneys owing by either party would be subject to interest provisions. As well, to further encourage compliance, the proposed amendments dealing with penalties will provide an incentive for the provision of timely and accurate information to customs.
The second part of Bill C-74 is directed to the importation of parcels through the mail. This aspect of the proposed legislation would modify current policies

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
which encourage significant Canadian shopping through foreign mail order houses. As well, the system today encourages Canadian mail order houses to establish direct marketing operations outside Canada to sell back to Canadians. The net effect of the current policy on postal imports is a significant loss of revenue to the government and is a subsidy to those who use the mail to import goods.
We have mentioned the government's commitment to ensure that Canadian business has the effect of competing on a level playing field. Perhaps the most serious ramification of today's policy is that it puts Canadian business at a disadvantage in a highly competitive industry.
The proposed changes hon. members have in front of them are a direct response to Canadian business demands that this government make the necessary changes to existing legislation to balance the scales. Representations were received from the Retail Council, the Canadian Direct Marketing Association, independent retailers and other small business people. Changes were also requested by members of this house.
The necessity of these changes is well borne out in fact. Over the last two years customs has experienced a 46 per cent increase in the volume of dutiable and taxable, parcels. Estimates put 1990 Canadian purchases from foreign mail order houses in excess of $900 million, almost a staggering $1 billion. All indicators point to a worsening of the situation as foreign mail order houses direct aggressive marketing and sales campaigns to Canadians.
This has become an important issue affecting an important sector of the Canadian economy, the Canadian direct marketing industry. When trying to make the argument for a case, in this instance the bill before this House, sometimes it is good to have all the facts in front of oneself. The industry over all has an annual sales volume of $7.8 billion. The catalogue direct marketing business represents $2.2 billion of these sales or approximately 28 per cent. Catalogue direct marketing represents approximately 600 firms and employs an estimated 35,620 people.
The proposed amendments before this House are critical to the health of this industry and it is our responsibility to put an end to the competitive disadvantage under which Canadian firms presently find themselves.
During second reading of this bill hon. members may recall some of the statistics that have provided further impetus to the necessity for revised legislation.
The facts continue to be alarming. Estimates are: $260 million in lost sales in 1990; 4,170 jobs lost since 1986; a once healthy growth of 7 per cent annually has declined and stagnated since 1986 at 3.2 per cent per annum. The comparable U.S. growth rate in this industry was 8.3 per cent in 1985 and a very significant 12.4 per cent through 1990. The facts are there and they speak for themselves.
Why the difference in growth rates? This has been previously explained but bears repeating. Simply put, an Ontario-based firm selling a Canadian-made article for a $40 catalogue price would deliver it to a customer in Canada for $50.26 including GST, provincial sales taxes, shipping and handling. However, the same company could ship the Canadian-made good to the U.S. and deliver it to the same customer in Ontario for $45.36 with the same dollar value of profit margin and allowing for differences in postal rates. It does not make sense and it is easy to see how the duty and tax exemptions for parcels valued at $40 or less create a serious competitive inequity for Canadian retailers competing for Canadian mail order business.
The bill in front of us today is designed to provide the Canadian businessmen with a relief from the present day onerous legislation.
You will agree, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure most members of this House will agree that there exists very solid valid reasons for the proposed legislation that would lead to the implementation on July 1, 1992, of the following changes which I would like to highlight: duty and tax-free entry of postal or courier imports valued at $20 or less; collection on behalf of Customs and Excise by Canada Post of a $5 handling fee to cover the costs of services such as collection of duty, provincial sales tax where provinces are harmonized and GST on importations over the $20 threshold; Canada Post will bear the cost of clearing priority courier items through customs as is done by private couriers; voluntary registration of foreign mail order firms for the collection of GST and duties; and, options for non-resident mail order houses to collect and remit applicable duties and taxes on all
June 11, 1992

shipments over the $20 exemption limit sent to Canada destinations.
The review of the exemptions for postal and courier imports provided an opportunity to reassess our policy on gifts and to consider the merits of amending current exemption levels to make them more liberal.
As a result of the review and in response to numerous recent representations received from Canadians, the gift exemption level would be increased from $40 to $60 under this proposed legislation.
It is important to note that the gift exemption is intended to deal with unsolicited gifts sent to Canadians from family and friends abroad.
Mr. Speaker, you have in front of you a comprehensive piece of legislation that has been carefully thought out which is designed to improve existing legislation both for the benefit of the user and the regulator. It is not the cure-all for some of the complex issues with which we are faced. Specifically here we refer to cross-border shopping. Rather, this initiative proposes fair, balanced measures to restore the level playing field and gives Canadian mail order firms the opportunity to compete on an equal basis with foreign competitors in Canada.
As well, the bill proposes to bring customs legislation more into line with other statutes administered by Revenue Canada and continues concerted efforts by Customs and Excise to streamline operations and to manage in a more business-like fashion.
Bill C-74 has been a joint effort between the department and the Department of Finance. It is the culmination of many months of thoughtful hard work, work that has been directed toward being fair and trying to balance the different interests that inevitably collide when you are in the process of change.
I would like to thank all those who helped bring the bill to third reading and to suggest that we hear from members who may wish to contribute.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of this bill at third reading. I must indicate, however, and reiterate the fact that the government is only partially plugging loopholes that it says it is plugging. The difficulty is, of course, that it has created a system within the bill that will make the measure it is announcing only half as effective as it would otherwise be.
Government Orders
Let me be perfectly clear, however, that this bill even with that loophole is going to be much tighter than the present legislation. No one is denying that. Right now, a person can ship goods into Canada worth $39.90 by mail from the U.S. exempt of all duties, exempt of the GST and everything else. It means that the large mail order houses, the L. L. Beans of this world, ship into Canada several goods in individual packages. They will ship a tie in one box, a shirt in the next and so on. They will send those goods into Canada in individual parcels and completely bypass our Canadian taxing system.
With the bill, the exempt amount will only be $20. We are referring to purchases not gifts. It is still possible that many goods will be shipped into Canada duty free because the $5 surcharge will not apply to large mail order houses for the reasons that I have previously indicated.
I first brought this issue to the attention of the House on May 30,1990. In a speech in the House at that time, I asked the Minister of National Revenue what he was going to do to plug that loophole in our law which makes it possible for U.S. retailers to ship into Canada and completely undercut Canadian retailers, not because Canadian retailers are taking too much profit but for a reason totally different. They are exempt from taxes.
The member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle indicated in his speech a while ago that a $40 parcel costs $50.26 if purchased in Canada and the taxes have been paid. Similarly, a $20 parcel will cost $25.13. For a U.S. company taking advantage of the registration system, when it sends a $20 parcel to Canada, the parcel will cost $20 plus postage. That's it.
Canadians selling the same goods will have to charge its customer $25.13, using the hon. parliamentary secretary's own calculation. There is still going to be a $5.13 advantage on a $20 item.
The Canadian Direct Marketing Association issued a press release on February 12, 1992. It expressed its concern about this exemption system in the bill. It stated: "The changes in the postal and courier emission policy are definitely a step in the right direction". No problem, I agree with that. The hon. member across said that a while ago. However, let us read the next sentence: "But we still have concerns about goods valued under $20

Government Orders
being shipped to Canada duty free, tax free and exempt of the $5 handling fee".
That is because of the registration system that I described a while ago. They will not have to pay the $5 fee in question to Canada Post. That is what is wrong with that loophole that exists.
The particular concern of the Canadian Direct Mail Marketing Association is the following, and I read the next sentence: "Many Canadian companies, those that specialize in smaller ticket items such as nursery, garden products, small tools or books will still be facing unfair competition". Most books shipped from the United States into Canada are under $20, particularly when they are sold in large quantities. When they are to be shipped across the border, large book distribution companies will obviously use the certification mechanism. They will ship their books in the mail and be exempt from the $5 fee. That is what is wrong. That is the hole in there. It will eliminate some of the cross-border shipping by mail.
Yes, a small fishing and tackle shop located in Massena may not be able to do it any more, and that is good. I accept that. I am in favour of the bill. I will vote for it. However, we are not going to eliminate the large ones because of the certification program we have created. That is the deficiency in the legislation before us. In other words, it is good but it could be a lot better had the government not put in that particular exemption.
I want to speak briefly about the damage caused by the present policy, the one that exists now, the $40 exemption. Let me read from a letter I received from McIntyre and Dodd Marketing, a company located in Hawkesbury in my riding. They sent me this letter on May 22, 1990 and it reads as follows: "I would like to draw to your attention a loophole in our laws that an American company is making use of, that if it continues may force us to close our Hawkesbury plant. Our plant in peak periods last year employed 165 people".
I had my assistant, Francois Giroux, make a phone call just recently to the company in Hawkesbury. We asked how many people were on staff right now. Here is what
McIntyre and Dodd said to my assistant. They have 52 people on staff versus 165 in 1990. All these jobs have been lost in my constituency, 113 jobs lost in that one business alone because this loophole existed. That is why it is so important for us to fix it. We could fix it better if the government would listen to my last minute plea to plug this new loophole it is creating.
I read on from the letter sent to me by McIntyre and Dodd. "The U.S. company in question, Direct Marketing Enterprises out of Westbury, New York, is using Canadian media", I am almost tempted to say the Canadian Post Office, but I will not, "to promote its mail order products with a return address in Windsor, Ontario".
Get a load of this. The orders are dispatched to a fulfilment operation in Detroit where the orders are processed and shipped to the border, ready to be mailed at the closest Canada Post parcel centre.
Here is how it works. The U.S. company places ads in a Canadian magazine, The Canadian Weekender that we get in our newspaper and says: "Do you want to order our such and such widget? Write in giving your Visa or MasterCard number to box so-and-so, Windsor, Ontario". Canadians are first of all misled into believing they are buying this through a Canadian store, outlet or a Canadian mail distribution company in Windsor. It is not true. It is not even in Windsor.
Someone from Detroit crosses the bridge into Windsor, opens a little box, takes the orders out and brings them to the United States, fills them over there and ships them back in the mail. That is the loophole we have created and that we are trying to plug today.
That will still exist for the large mail order houses because we have only partially plugged it. Nevertheless, that is the damage caused by the previous policy, one I raised in this House over two years ago and at that time begged the government to have it corrected because we were losing all these jobs in Canada.
Now, of course, the government is partially addressing the issue in question. I say only partially because of the situation I described only moments ago.
June 11, 1992

The Canadian Direct Marketing Association in its press release -and I want to come back to that for a minute-told us that there were 700 member companies of that organization involved in $7.8 billion worth of Canadian direct marketing. That is the amount of sales we are talking about. This is not small potatoes. This is big business, very big business in Canada. Many people purchase goods by mail.
Some people living in large downtown centres might perhaps be under the mistaken belief the only people who use mail shopping are those wanting to avail themselves of these loopholes and buy something in the United States. It is not so.
I know my colleague from Thunder Bay represents a rural riding as I do. He will know many people order from the Sears catalogue or wherever else within Canada. It is a large business within this country, particularly in rural Canada but also in urban Canada for some people, elderly people or people for whatever reason who do not want to go out, cannot go out, or just enjoy shopping that way because it is less trouble than standing in line before the cash register at one's not so favourite store in the shopping centre. People do a large amount of business that way.
The Canadian direct marketing business is certainly a very legitimate business. There are many jobs there. They provide a very useful service to Canadians.
There is the odd person involved in direct marketing who advertises in a comic book or something and sends a little plastic piece of junk instead of the item we thought we were buying from the photograph. I am sure that is generally not the case. Those are the unfortunate circumstances we are sometimes made familiar with as MPs. We usually complain to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs when we see people using devious methods to sell products. I do not think that is the general case. As a matter of fact I know it is not.
In closing I want to say it is about time we tightened up on that rule. My speech today is not to say that it is about time we charged Canadians more taxes. That is not the point. The point is that no one should be exempted from those taxes because he or she can cross the border to shop by letter or by the mail system.
If all taxes were collected equitably it would mean that each and every one of us paying taxes would have to pay proportionately less. Those who are less fortunate than others and cannot avail themselves of the loopholes are being punished right now because they are paying taxes
Government Orders
that others are not. That is the point in tightening up on loopholes.
The issue is not whether one is in favour of higher taxes. I am certainly not in favour of having more tax increases after this Canadian government across the way has had 34 tax increases since it came to power in 1984. That is not the issue.
The issue, I repeat again in closing, is to ensure there is fairness, to ensure that a person who owns a store in my riding, in Thunder Bay or elsewhere in Canada does not see his or her business undercut by an envelope ordering something across the border and a product being sent back using, of all things, the Canadian postal system as a method to avoid paying Canadian taxes. That is the unfairness right now that many people are living with.

I intend to support this bill, which is badly needed, although unfortunately it still contains a loophole. I predict that the big multinationals and mail order companies will take advantage of the loophole which the government put there, in a piece of legislation that is basically a good bill.
I also think the $5 fee to be charged by the Canada Post Corporation should be $10. Fees should be reciprocal. The American fee is $8.40, which is about $10 in Canadian funds. The government across the way always insists on a level playing field and wants the rules to be more or less the same on both sides of the border. That is not the case here since their fees are twice as high as ours. Fees should be almost identical for the sake of fairness. They should be about $10 and we should eliminate the loophole that allows American companies to register and by-pass the whole fee system.
Finally, I hope Canadians can soon look forward to having fairer laws, especially Canadians who own small businesses in this country and who feel they are not getting fair treatment. They are right. At this very moment Ontario's entrepreneurs are faced with federal legislation that is not to their advantage. At the provincial level, they will soon have to contend with new labour

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
legislation about which they are apprehensive, to say the least. I would say they are more than apprehensive about these new developments. Merchants in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, which is a border area, simply want a chance to do business and make an honest living. That is all they ask and I do not think that is unreasonable.
In any case, I am sure that the 113 workers at McIntyre and Dodd in Hawkesbury would rather have jobs than be on unemployment insurance or welfare. They want to be able to earn a living.
I hope the bill will be adopted today and that it will be a step in the right direction towards reducing transborder shopping. In concluding, I would like to repeat my request to the parliamentary secretary.

The parliamentary secretary-and I will predict it now-is making a mistake by going ahead with this clause that will permit large, foreign mail order firms from using what is known as the foreign certification program.
If they want a foreign certification program for administrative simplicity, so be it, but let us not use it as a way for them not to pay the $5 fee at the border. If they want to do it all at once, fine. If they want to send one cheque at the end of the month, fine. I am not going to object to that, but if we say to those companies that they can avoid paying a fee that others are paying then I think it is wrong. That is the problem. I repeat it again for the parliamentary secretary and the government officials who are listening in the lobby.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in third reading debate of Bill C-74.
At the outset let me say that when my children were very young-and I suspect this is the same for pretty well every other parent on this continent-and they came in with a scratch or a scrape that was not bleeding but was sort of roughed up, they demanded a bandage. The parents complied and gave them a little bandage to put over the cut even though the parents knew it was not needed. However, for psychological purposes the child needed to feel secure and needed to feel that there was some kind of treatment happening.
That is what this bill does. It really is a very tiny band-aid to try to give the impression the government is taking some action to stem or stop cross-border shopping. The reality is there is so much else that can be done to reduce people's need or desire to travel across the border to buy consumer goods. They do it personally as people in my community do. They travel to Duluth, Minnesota; Superior, Wisconsin; and Grand Marais, Minnesota. People in other communities also go across the border to get goods at a price less than they can buy them in their home community.
This bill deals with the symptoms, not with the problem. I regret that the government has chosen not to act seriously about the real problem.
Prior to this year's federal budget I wrote to the Minister of Finance and offered some suggestions to him. One of the suggestions was that he conduct a pilot project in northwestern Ontario to take a look at the cost differentials to see what really were the causes of the higher prices in Canada.
I used as an example two-by-fours produced in Thunder Bay from Canadian trees that were available at a price in Duluth, Minnesota, which was much less than the price at Beaver Lumber that was about one-half mile away from the sawmill. I asked the minister to take a look at those input costs to see what the impact of transportation was, to see what kind of mark-up there was, to see what impact hydro costs had in terms of the over-all costs of doing business in northwestern Ontario, and to take a look at all of the inputs to see if there were any areas where we could do better, where we could be more competitive.
I premised my remarks on the basis that I did not believe anyone in the system was ripping people off, that they were all legitimate costs. The minister never replied.
However, another organization did a national study because it too wanted to find out what the causes were. The key element it discovered-and it is one this government should be reacting to and working on-was in terms of the number of times that goods were handled in Canada compared to in the United States.
In the United States there is much more factory to retail outlet direct. In Canada it goes through two or three middle people whether it is domestically produced or whether it is imported. If the government really wanted to get serious about stemming out-shopping, it could work to assist the retail, manufacturing, transpor-
June 11, 1992

tation and handling industries in terms of reducing their cost elements.
When I raise this matter with my constituents they say: "Look, I have no choice. I don't have enough money every month to get by on. If I can save $100 or $200 by buying product x in Duluth and get a short holiday out of it to boot, I am sorry but I am going to do that because I need to it for my survival".
Some people feel very guilty about do that because they know it is their consumer purchases in Thunder Bay that help to pay the taxes for the municipality, to pay the wages for their neighbours and what not. But they feel they have no choice.
This government could act on that. This government could also act on the high cost of the Canadian dollar. There is no question that as long as our dollar is strong as compared to the American dollar imported products are much cheaper. If we allow the dollar to go where the marketplace says it should be, somewhere between 75 cents and 79 cents, then those products from the United States will become less attractive.
There is another thing we need to look at in a serious way. We need to re-examine our taxation policies as they relate to our competitor to the south, not to give corporations a break per se, but to make sure that our products are affordable and to make sure that we are not really tempting people to go south of the border.
Let me specifically deal with gasoline taxes. In the same letter to the Minister of Finance I indicated that perhaps it was time that all of us, whether all of us are the political parties or whether all of us are the federal, provincial and even municipal governments, re-examine how we tax fuel. There is a strong belief that the higher the tax on the fuel, the lower the consumption. From 1981 to 1989 the total cost of automobile gasoline went up by 198 per cent. What happened to consumption? It declined to just around 3.5 per cent.
If we look at that isolated statistic and at the number of people in Fort Francis, Rainy River, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor and Cornwall who go across the bridge or down the road to cross the border to buy their gasoline because of the big difference in price we must recognize that if
Government Orders
we do not change our gasoline pricing system, including taxation, there will continue to be that kind of draw. While they are down there getting gas they will pick up some milk, hurting our dairy producers, they will pick up some other consumer goods, hurting our retail operations, and on and on and on.
I suggested to the Minister of Finance that he convene an inter-ministerial, inter-governmental team to re-examine gasoline taxation and re-examine how that money is used. Obviously we need tax revenue of some kind or user fees of some kind to maintain, build and rebuild our highway infrastructure. We cannot just say that we would no longer tax it, we must look at it and find a way that treats the north fairly, treats the south fairly, treats the regions fairly and so on. We need to re-examine that because therein lies part of the solution to cross-border shopping.
One of the ironies of this particular bill and the steps the government has chosen to take is that it is actually working against the environment. It is discouraging the use of an integrated postal system that has economies of scale and the ability to take in a diverse range of items into one particular method of transportation and move them short and long distances for redistribution. Compare that to a neighbour of mine driving down to Duluth to buy that same item and only that item and then coming back. Think about the difference in fuel consumption and in emissions. There will be that many more vehicles on the highways, and it goes on and on and on.
Ironically by choosing to target mail order rather than any other method of bringing the goods into Canada the government is saying that it wants us to use the less environmentally friendly way of transport. People will do that. People will drive a hell of a long way to save $5. They do it all the time, even though it may cost them more in the long term. That is how they will approach it.
Let me conclude by saying once again that this is just a band-aid and for that reason we will not support this bill. We will not force a vote on it. We will do it on division. The government needs to know that it must find better ways to deal with a veiy real problem that is costing Canadians thousands of jobs in both the retail sector and the manufacturing sector.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
I would like to leave members of this House and the people who are watching with one final comment. Let us all go out and buy something Canadian today.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate at third reading of Bill C-75, which has passed committee stage without amendment.
First, I would like to express my gratitude to the members for their co-operation in facilitating the passage of this bill. I am confident that there is general agreement on the nature of the bill, and on the importance of a healthy and vibrant transportation sector in Canada.
This bill amends the Excise Thx Act and Income Thx Act to implement two key measures announced on December 6, 1991 to boost the transportation sector.
The measures included in this bill are a temporary loss offset program with a partial rebate of the federal excise tax on diesel and aviation fuel, and an exemption from
non-resident withholding tax for payments in respect of cross-border aircraft leases. The temporary loss offset program will provide a benefit of $120 million in each of the next two years to transportation firms experiencing temporary cash flow difficulties.
The withholding tax exemption will provide an on-going benefit to Canada's airlines at a cost to the treasury of about $15 million per year.
In December the government also announced changes to the capital cost allowance structure and funding for an institute for research on trucking issues and an owner-operator's trucking co-operative.
These measures, along with the measures included in this bill, respond in a meaningful way to issues raised by the transportation sector. As well, the measures announced in the budget to bolster the economic recovery and build confidence will reinforce the transportation sector as more Canadian goods are shipped to markets at home and abroad.
Response from this sector to these measures has been positive. Of course, this bill does not include everything the sector requested. However, it does provide considerable benefit to transportation in a fiscally responsible way. For example, the temporary loss offset program will yield significant benefits to the transportation sector.
This program provides transportation firms with a 3 cent per litre rebate in exchange for reductions in income tax loss carry forwards. For each dollar rebate received businesses will have to reduce their loss carry forward by $10, reducing future tax deductions.
This 10 to 1 ratio was chosen in order to target the cash flow benefits to those firms that need them most. This targeting will allow the program to deliver significant cash flow benefits while still being fiscally responsible.
I would like to remind the hon. members that maintaining our fiscal strategy is the way to achieve long-term prosperity for the Canadian economy, and therefore for the Canadian transportation sector.
There is an administratively simpler option available for truckers. This option provides a rebate of 1.5 cents per litre of the 4 cent per litre federal excise tax on diesel fuel, up to a maximum of $500 per taxpayer per year. Individual truckers have responded to this program very positively.
June 11, 1992

Although some members of the opposition may differ with the government on certain aspects of these measures it is encouraging that partisan differences have been set aside to ensure the speedy passage of this worth while bill.
It is clear that all parties in this House are in agreement on the importance of transportation to the Canadian economy.
For the information of members, application for the rebate can be made at customs and excise offices across Canada. Application forms will be made available as soon as the bill has received Royal Assent. The sooner this bill is passed the sooner rebates will be received by the transportation sector.
In closing, this bill will provide a timely and substantial boost to the transportation sector while maintaining the government's commitment to sound fiscal management. This is a responsible package of measures that deserves the support of this House.
I urge members to pass this bill without delay.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise in this House on third reading of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income lax Act.
When the bill was tabled in this House back on May 1 it was largely a result of the situation with respect to Canadian truckers and trucking firms. I am sure Canadians can vividly remember the situation involving truckers last summer when major highways and many of our international bridges were blocked by these trucks.
Trucks parked in front of Parliament Hill for a number of days. Truckers and their families were and still are angry and frustrated with this government because of the high cost of doing business as truckers in this country. Their business is becoming increasingly competitive, and compared to their counterparts in the U.S. doing business is much more expensive in Canada.
The protests by the truckers centred on that fact. They were demanding help from the government. This legislation is supposed to respond to those concerns. While it merely attempts to deal with a very real situation affecting Canadian truckers it falls far short of what we
Government Orders
would have liked to have seen in this bill, in other words, practical solutions to a complicated problem.
According to the government the trucking option would be a simpler option for small truckers and independently owned operators. It would consist of a rebate of 1.5 cents per litre of excisable fuel to a maximum of $500 per year. Such a rebate would have no effect on income tax losses according to the government. It would be included in income in the year it was received which is the normal practice. I will have more to say on that aspect in just a moment.
Another failure of the bill is that it does not help those truckers with capital cost struggles at the present time. The proposed capital cost allowance on a trucker's rig will only cover acquisitions made after December 6, 1991. The thousands of trucks parked on highway 401 last summer were purchased before December 1, 1991.
We are not talking about those truckers who may encounter difficulties in the future but those who have difficulties today. Some operators might be able to take advantage of the capital cost allowance in the future. Therefore we agree with the thrust of the bill in that direction. However, we must re-emphasize our concern that the legislation does not affect those purchases made before December 1991.
Another aspect of this legislation is the temporary excise tax transportation rebate, the proposed loss offset program. A general rebate will apply to the purchase of diesel fuel used for the purposes of transportation. The second component of this scheme is the loss offset that would reduce tax loss carry-forwards by $10 per $1 of rebate received.
In plain English it means that while the government is attempting to provide assistance to truckers in the purchase of fuel it is pulling the rug out from underneath truckers on the other side. It is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. Is that the responsive, responsible way to deal with the situation? While Canadians are plagued with a very high level of taxation, and as businesses fold and our economy continues to struggle, in fact some would say crumble, where is the government? While the cost of doing business is less expensive in the United States, and we know that because many of our businesses and

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
thousands of workers are moving south of the border, the government cannot even offer a helping hand.
The truckers are not looking for a handout they are looking for a helping hand.
As an example of this Peter robs Paul scenario with respect to the diesel fuel rebate, it will be in effect on fuel purchased in 1991 and 1992. The only way it helps small firms and independent truckers is by easing their temporary cash flow problems, which of course is acceptable. However, to cut off the program at the end of the year, if this bill is passed soon, is frankly too little and too late.
In summary, while I welcome the measures contained in this bill I am critical of the extent to which they would assist the trucking industry in regard to the depreciation of highly expensive capital equipment and the amount of tax relief on diesel fuel as it relates to the loss carry-forward provisions.
We support the bill and we will not attempt to delay it. However, the government's response to what is nothing short of a crisis in the trucking industry is veiy disappointing.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to make a few comments on Bill C-75. I will not take very long at all.
The need for this bill actually goes back a number of years. It goes back to the white paper Freedom To Move and it goes back to the deregulation of the aviation industry, the rail industry and the trucking industry.
That deregulation of the trucking industry, which was not only passed by this House but also put forward and passed by the then Liberal government of Ontario, led to the situation that we saw outside of this House, in Toronto, in Windsor, and elsewhere in this country. Block after block, if not mile after mile, of rigs stopped at the side of the road, their operators and their owners protesting against the lack of government action.
We ended up with too many trucks chasing too few cargoes. That was something that we predicted.
Under regulation there was a balance. Public necessity and convenience had to be met and people could only get into the business if there was sufficient demand for the service. While the system was not perfect it did ensure that there was some stability. It did not allow
someone with a dream to invest his or her life savings into a rig on the chance that they might make a good buck.
When deregulation came into being we opened the floodgates. A lot of decent men and women decided to get into their own business. They were entrepreneurs, they felt they could do it, and they felt they could out-hussle. However, they did not count on everybody else having the same thought and everybody else convincing the bankers to give them the money and put them in hock for many years to come. They did not count on the competition from United States carriers. They did not count on the kind of consolidation that began to occur, even though there were enough warnings out there about what was going to happen. They did not count on the fact that there would not be enough work to keep them going.
They said: "Help". They demanded action from both the federal and provincial governments to make it possible for them to survive.
What did the federal Government of Canada do? It talked a lot for a long time and it had meetings and consultations. The end result was Bill C-75, a token effort.
In terms of the fuel tax rebate $500 will be a lot for my car but for a transport truck operator it is one, two, three or maybe five tanks full. I am not sure about the capacity and the costs. That is all that means, only to have it pulled back down the road, almost like sleight of hand.
In terms of depreciation, it still does not match then-competitors in the states. In the previous bill I talked about band-aids. This is a band-aid to try to make the truckers feel better, to convince them that the government is really concerned about them and is going to great lengths to do something about them. I would bet that a lot of the truckers will not even agree to dance. They will not participate because it is meaningless.
As my colleague, the member for Hamilton West, pointed out quite rightly it does not do anything for those folks who already have their rigs, their trailers. It is only for new people or new acquisitions. If the existing truckers go out of business there will not be any new acquisitions. They certainly will not be buying a new rig, replacing their trailer.
June 11, 1992

It is a meaningless attempt by the federal government to do something for the truckers. If it was really serious it would re-examine its own philosophy about deregulation. It would allow the Standing Committee on Transport to enter into its own review to find a way to provide stability in the trucking industry, stability that would protect those carriers in the industry today and give them a chance to survive, but also design a system in co-operation with the provinces to make sure the chaos created by this government is never allowed to happen again, whether it is next year, in 10 years or whatever.
I will be supporting the bill because even though it is a minimal bill we must at least get it passed so those who are able can take advantage of it. If we can save one trucker somewhere out there in this country then great, but I sure wish we could have saved a lot more.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act, as reported (with amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean J. Charest: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have a ruling on Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. There are two motions standing in the name of the Minister of Transport on the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
I	shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Marcel Danis (for the Minister of Transport) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-45 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 1 to 3
at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) any person who is responding to the occurrence or imminence of the release in accordance with an emergency response assistance plan approved under section 7; or".
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-45 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out lines 7 to
II	at page 11 and substituting the following therefor
"20. A person directed or required under subsection 17(3) or (4), 18(2) or 19(2) to do or refrain from doing anything is not personally liable, either civilly or criminally in respect of any act or omission in the course of complying with the direction or requirement or doing any".


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you reading the motions just to give the House and those watching an idea of what we are doing here.
I am pleased to rise at report stage of Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. We expect speedy passage. I think there is

Government Orders
general agreement and I hope we will be able to continue in the fine spirit of co-operation that was exhibited in Legislative Committee E, as we addressed the two further amendments that have been proposed.
To address Motion No. 1, members will know that Bill C-45 is directed not only at preventing accidents but also at ensuring that the industry will respond properly to any accidents that may occur. To ensure rapid response our Canadian industry has established a most comprehensive and highly professional network of response teams from various companies. It is the response team nearest an accident that responds even though it may be another company's product.
In order to promote and support this industry response Bill C-45 provides such teams the measure of liability protection. It was intended in the drafting of the bill that this protection would clearly apply with respect to all the emergency response teams carrying out an emergency response plan approved by the Minister of Transport.
As unfortunately sometimes happens we have had recent advice that paragraph 10(3)(b) covers most but not all such teams as it is presently written. We want to ensure that we absolutely do cover every such response team. That is Motion No. 1.
Motion No. 2 refers to clause 20 of Bill C-45, which contains a reference to clauses 17, 18, and 19. Unfortunately, we have been advised by the drafting experts that while the words used in clause 20 do appropriately reference clauses 17 and 19, the reference does not work for clause 18. Hence, the wording of Motion No. 2.
I hope the House will be disposed to accept these two amendments. I appreciate the co-operation of the opposition parties on this bill.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition I do support those motions being put forward by the government.
I would like to rise at this point in debate on this reading of Bill C-45. The entire piece of legislation is welcomed by the Official Opposition. While not as' completely thorough as we would have liked, it nonetheless greatly improves the safe transportation of dangerous and hazardous goods.
The bill provides for a clearer framework for regulating the transportation of dangerous goods and places
additional emphasis on steps that must be taken prior to the transportation of those goods.
In legislation passed back in 1980 a federal-provincial transportation of dangerous goods program was established and adopted by all the provinces and territories as set out by federal regulations. The bill would make it an offence for any person who displayed a safety mark on a vehicle transporting dangerous goods that was misleading in terms of the product being transported. This aspect comes down to an important issue which the Canadian fire-fighters have been seeking within the framework of legislation.
Fire-fighters who are engaged in the containment of goods released as the result of an accident or impending release of goods as a result of an accident are rightly concerned about dangerous and toxic substances. They are, after all, our first line of defence.
They also want to make sure that the product the vehicle or any transportation mode is carrying is the same product that is appearing on the vehicle's manifest. On the outer side of vehicles is a box displaying a card with a number identifying the hazardous product being shipped. This card is supposed to be displayed from the time the vehicle is filled with the substance until the time it is emptied.
Let me give you an example of the type of goods transported and the identification displayed.
Transport Canada provides an important booklet. It is entitled the "Initial Emergency Response Guide". If an accident occurs the identification number on the vehicle is referred to in the booklet and suggested procedures for emergency response crews such as fire-fighters or police or our medical teams are set out.
For instance, identification number UN2806 refers to lithium nitride. The "Initial Emergency Response Guide" procedures say that crews must not use water or foam but should use sand, lime or soda ash to contain that fire.
If the identification label, heaven forbid, were improperly displayed, if the wrong label were placed on the vehicle, or when another product was pumped into the vehicle and the card was not removed, the results would make a very difficult situation, especially in an emergency situation with respect to a fire.
June 11, 1992

Some other products might be contained by water only or foam. Some types of accidents require a local evacuation. We saw evidence of that a few years back in the city of Mississauga in which we had a train derailment and many units of that train had turned over on their sides, some of them spewing their substances. Those substances were highly toxic and when released into the atmosphere could do great damage to the population living nearby and so the order was made to evacuate. As I recall, being a reporter and walking the streets of Mississauga on that very quiet day, the plume of smoke was in the distance and there was no one to be found on the streets and sidewalks of Mississauga.
There are many potential cases where if an accident were to occur, improper containment methods could be used. This is why fire-fighters have been pressing for legislation that would encompass the right to know what is being transported on a vehicle and what the response is.
What this means is that fire-fighters want to enhance the manual system that is now in place in which a card is placed on the outside of the vehicle in that little box and the contents of the vehicle, its manifest, are known through an electronic data base which can be accessed immediately.
Currently in our trains when the locomotive is up front and it carries the manifest of what it is carrying behind the locomotive, oftentimes, and sadly so sometimes, the main locomotive is involved in the collision or the accident that occurs on those tracks and with the damage to the locomotive can come the loss of the manifest and you can understand the concern when we or the firefighters or the police or the medical response teams will not know what is contained within those train units behind the locomotive.
What the fire-fighters have been asking for is this electronic data base and all vehicles transporting dangerous goods would be required to register on a nation-wide data base at the source of transportation and destination. Certainly accessing the most current information this way would be a vast improvement over what we have in place today.
Although the right to know is encompassed in this bill in its language, the bill does not set up such an electronic system of information. That is too bad, for we have the opportunity. Such a system would undoubtedly have be
Government Orders
to arranged with the co-operation of labour and business and government.
We look forward to such a system eventually being put into place.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief remarks in support of the latest amendments that the government has proposed to this bill. They are welcome and we do support them.
I will briefly comment on some of the background to the point that we have reached today. I would like to take the opportunity even at this stage to pay some tributes. One may seem self-serving but it is to the transport critic for our own party, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, who has done a great deal of work over a long period of time on this bill and the components that go into it, including extensive public meetings and hearings in his own area and elsewhere with virtually all of the parties that are affected by this legislation in order to ensure that we got it right this time as much as humanly possible.
While there are always deficiencies in any piece of legislation, I think the efforts of all parties, the Official Opposition, ourselves and the government, on this one have been excellent. The co-operation has been excellent. There has been a willingness to horse trade back and forth, to share concepts and ideas.
I would also like to congratulate one of my other colleagues, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, who is not here today. She is out in British Columbia. She presented three private member's bills, one which touched on the same area of the right to know and the computerized tracking system that has been referred to by my colleague from the Official Opposition a few moments ago.
The basic thrust of that private bill and the amendments which the International Association of Fire Fighters has sought in its two legislative lobbies in the last two years are incorporated in this bill. The government accepted and put forward an amendment which we suggested in order to accomplish that. Again, I thank the government for its openness in that regard.
The final tribute I would like to pay at this stage is to the International Association of Fire Fighters. In the eight or nine years that I have been around this place, although it was interrupted on one occasion-time off for good behaviour, as I like to put it-I would like to pay

particular tribute to the International Association of Fire Fighters and in particular to its Canadian Director, Doug Coupar. Of all the various lobbies, especially the labour lobbies that I have seen on the Hill, I have found the association to be the most specific and the most effective of any of the ones that I have ever had the pleasure or sometimes not quite the pleasure of dealing with. It got to the point. It dealt with everybody openly and specifically on issues with which it had immediate concern and experience. It made its points. In large part the points were accepted insofar as it was within the capacity of the legislation before us to deal with those.
I am particular pleased again to have had incorporated into this legislation the wherewithal, the enabling legislation, to allow an electronic computerized tracking system to occur.
This is all I want to say at this point. I will address it perhaps in a little more at length when we get to third reading.
Again, I want to thank all parties and all individual members who have been involved as well as the staff of the Ministry of Transport which was very co-operative in giving its assistance and background knowledge in the furtherance in what I think is essentially a very good bill.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 1?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 2?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize it has been a long day already. You may find that there is a willingness to call it one o'clock and we can come back to government business at 3 p.m.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 12.27 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the riding I have the privilege to represent, Thunder Bay-Nipigon, through the Chamber of Commerce and its Citizens Outshopping Committee led by Roy Smyth, have taken the initiative in asking this House to proclaim July 4 "Shop Canada Day".
Shopping outside Canada means billions of dollars are not spent at home, resulting in the loss of many thousands of jobs. What Canada most needs today are jobs and a return to the prosperity we once knew.
By adopting July 4 as Shop Canada Day, we can start to journey back to what we once knew as full employment and prosperity for all Canadians to enjoy.
I compliment the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, the executive director Rebecca Johnson, the president Dick Dolphin and all those involved in taking the initiative of committing July 4 to Shop Canada Day and allowing all of us to buy back into Canada.
June 11, 1992


PENSIONS
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, when is an agreement between two countries not an agreement?
I believe the Canada-Italian Pension Protocol that has been implemented since January 1, 1988 has no legal authority. The protocol states: "This protocol shall enter into force on the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification and its provision shall have effect on the first day of January, 1988".
This was confirmed by a letter to myself dated November 28, 1990 from the Minister of Finance.
The instruments of ratification have not been exchanged, leaving the agreement in limbo. The agreement allows the Canadian government to tax approximately 60,000 Canadians of Italian descent on $250 million of yearly pension benefits. The agreement is flawed, unjust, unworkable and at this moment, illegal.
On behalf of these 60,000 Canadians my question to the Minister of Finance is, what are the consequences of having collected these taxes on $1 billion of revenue if the agreement is never ratified. Are the cheques in the mail?


CITIZENS AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, young children are the heart of any great nation.
One group that is attempting to provide a better system of protection for our children is CACE, or Citizens Against Child Exploitation. This organization is headed by Mrs. Monica Rainey of Kelowna, B.C.
They have a plan that would go a long way to providing a safe environment for our children at school, at day care and in our neighbourhoods. Much like legislation already in existence in some American states, CACE proposes changes to our system that would:
(1) Establish a central registry for convicted child sex offenders in order to allow schools, day care centres and children's clubs to ensure that our children are not at risk by being placed in classrooms with known child sex offenders.
(2) Pass both provincial and federal legislation prohibiting a sex offender from holding a position of trust or authority with children.
A recent provincial study in B.C. specifies that 82 per cent of all sex offenders outside the home are in professional positions of trust. This is obviously a frightening thought for all Canadian parents. Now is not the time for further study, now is the time for action. The foremost priority of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to protect society, and what segment of society is more in need of our protection than our children.


CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, when will Quebecers understand that they are a minority here in Ottawa and that they will get nothing more to help them develop to their full potential?
Let us take a look at what is happening in the constitutional negotiations. Mr. Castonguay himself had to quit because he saw the rug being pulled from under him. The same thing happened to the hon. member for Outremont who was losing his credibility on the Belang-er-Campeau commission. The same thing goes for the hon. member for Jonquiere who realized that his own party did not even respect his proposals on his amendments to the bill on a renewed Canada.
Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare, withdrew after being laughed at for two years although he did not know it, because here in Ottawa he can do nothing to change the Constitution.


FUTURE OF CANADA
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to announce in this House that on July 11 my riding will host a conference on young Canadians' commitment and attitude to the future of Canada.
This conference is part of the Forum for Young Canadians project, a joint initiative of the Government of Canada and the private sector. Its purpose is to give young Canadians, age 18 to 25, from 15 ridings in Canada an opportunity to study the economic situation of their riding and of Canada.

Following the regional conference in Quebec City in July two young people from my riding will have a chance to share with young people from the other provinces and write a national report.
These young people are expected to meet with officials from the House of Commons and the government in the fall to present proposed solutions to them.
Finally, these young leaders will appear on a special television program to ask Canadians to work toward building a more prosperous and more economically competitive nation.
I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for London-Middlesex who initiated the project, and the organizers of this event. I also want to wish all the young participants great success.


MINERS' MEMORIAL DAY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, today, June 11, is Miners' Memorial Day in Cape Breton. This day holds a special place in the hearts of Cape Bretoners as it commemorates the work of coal miners.
The life of a coal miner has changed through the years, but danger of working underground continues to be a haunting element of that industry.
Today is a day when we recognize the hard work of our miners and remember those who have sacrificed their lives for that industry. Today is an emotional day for many. In particular one must remember the miners whose lives were lost at the Westray Mine explosion on May 9, 1992.
The coal industry has taken many of our miners. Today we reflect with respect, admiration, and a sense of loss upon those men who have died in our mines.
Today we also remember the families of our coal miners, the mothers, the wives, and the children who waited on the surface only to find their worst fears coming true.
On behalf of my constituents in Cape Breton-East Richmond I salute miners for their contributions, not only to the economy of Nova Scotia, but also to our
culture, our history, and our sense of pride on our great island.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, Macedonia has always been an integral part of Hellenic history and Hellenic civilization that dates back almost 3,000 years.
Therefore the usurpation of the name Macedonia which from ancient times has been identified with Greece by a republic whose population is mainly of Slav origin is totally unacceptable and would constitute a destabilizing effect and an ongoing concern in the Balkan region.
On the other hand, a timely settlement of the question of the name of the Republic of Skopje without reference to the Greek historic name Macedonia constitutes a stabilizing factor and paves the way for co-operation and support from Greece for Skopje within a framework of security and stability in the region.
Let us hope that Skopje will follow this course of action which would assure a more peaceful and secure future for the country and its people.


URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday at the annual convention of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities the Minister of Transport said that his government would not participate with the municipalities in the $15 billion project to renew urban infrastructure. In addition to the billion dollars which this government took from the municipalities in 1991, the minister had the nerve to suggest to the convention of municipalities that $14 billion should be invested in the Trans-Canada highway system instead of urban infrastructure.
The Liberal Leader at the same municipal convention called for a shared-cost infrastructure program between the three levels of government.
June 11, 1992

This new partnership would stimulate the economy, create 60,000 jobs and address the decaying urban infrastructure problem while decreasing the ever-growing unemployment and welfare payments.


THE LATE WILLIAM SMITH
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian agriculture suffered a great loss with the untimely death Tuesday of Canadian Wheat Board Commissioner Bill Smith. Mr. Smith died as the result of an accident while on a trade mission in China. He was 55.
Bill Smith was raised on the family farm at Inland, Alberta. After graduating from the Vermilion School of Agriculture, he worked his way up through the Alberta Wheat Pool from elevator agent to manager of grain sales.
Appointed a commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board in 1983 he was very active in international marketing and developed an expertise in dealing with the Chinese and Russian markets, two of Canada's major customers.
As Wheat Board Minister Mayer said: "Bill will be sadly missed. This marks a great loss for his family, friends, the agriculture industry, and Canada as a whole".
Besides his many friends and colleagues in the grain industry, Bill Smith leaves his wife Kathy and five children.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members join in extending condolences to Mrs. Smith and her family.


JUSTICE
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on June 9 on Poundmaker Reserve in northwestern Saskatchewan about 300 western Canadian judges, lawyers and law enforcement people met as part of a six-day seminar on racial, ethnic and cultural equality.
The seminar, the first of its kind in Canada, included a talking circle that heavily criticized a court system which makes little sense to aboriginal people.
Poundmaker Chief Blaine Favel said that the non-Indian court system seeks to punish offenders while the native model strives to heal and bring the offender back into the community.
I commend the people of Poundmaker Reserve, the seminar organizers and the judges of western Canada who participated in this unique and ground-breaking seminar for their recognition that a new judicial relationship must be created and for their willingness to make the seminar a success.
The work they have undertaken is an important step in opening the lines of communication that must eventually lead to fundamental changes in structures and attitudes and a fair judicial system for aboriginal people.


SENATE REFORM
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I returned from the Eco Summit in Rio. Thousands of people from some 140 countries have gathered to try and achieve consensus on the future of the globe.
Ninety per cent of these people would give their eye teeth to have a Canadian passport because to the world Canada is the best place on earth.
Meanwhile back in Canada, rather than an Eco Summit, we have the ego summit wherein some provincial politicians have discovered that by being intransigent at the constitutional bargaining table they can become national TV stars. Now constitutional renewal has come down to the issue of Senate reform.
Mr. Speaker, I believe most Canadians would simply like to see the Senate abolished. However, if Senate reform is a priority with western Canadians then let us reform it rather than scrap it.
Reform and renewal mean compromise. Canadians are tired of constitutional bickering. They simply want their country preserved. So do I. Perhaps if our constitution ministers would hold a few sessions in Panama or Sri Lanka they would realize how trivial their pious constitutional principles may really be.
So I say to them all: Quit horsing around with the Senate. Get on with the job. Stop putting the future of the greatest country on earth at risk.

June 11, 1992


DR. GEORGE CHANG
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, this week I received a visit from Ms. Chen Chu, a member of the National Assembly of Taiwan and human rights activist, regarding the wrongful imprisonment of Dr. George Chang, a democratic reformer who was jailed immediately upon his return to Taiwan last December after 30 years of exile.
Dr. Chang, a professor and dean at Cooper Union University in New York, is presently being denied proper medical attention by the Kuomintang government of Taiwan.
As confirmed by Amnesty International, Dr. Chang suffers from acute high blood pressure and a tumour which was recently discovered in his neck.
At the very least Canadians abhor the incarceration of political dissidents but to deny medical attention to prisoners of conscience strikes at the heart of our most cherished and fundamental respect for human rights.
The eyes of the world are watching now. I call on Premier Hau to demonstrate Taiwan's commitment to human rights and free Dr. Chang before it is too late.


NATIONAL NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, this coming weekend, Sunday, June 14 to be exact, marks one of the main events in Canada's 125th birthday celebrations, the National Neighbourhood Party.
In communities large and small across the country picnics and block parties are being organized to bring Canadians closer together in a spirit of pride and goodwill as neighbours and fellow citizens in this great nation.
In my own riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury, a host of volunteers calling themselves the Fredericton Civil Pride Committee and representing a broad range of organizations and associations will put on a block party to please every age and to make us proud to be Canadians.
I am particularly pleased that we have been able to include my own annual public constituency picnic as an integral part of this 125th anniversary salute to Canada.
These national neighbourhood parties are open to everyone. Just like the future of our country, the potential of coming together in a sense of common Canadian citizenship is limited only by our own imagination.
Let us all join in toasting Canada with conviction and commitment as we celebrate its 125th birthday party this Sunday.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, earlier today this House passed a bill to curb cross-border shopping. At the same time, the left hand of the government across the way, namely Crown-owned Petro-Canada, was busy opening a gas bar in the well-known Canadian city of Plattsburg, New York. There displaying proudly the Maple Leaf of Canada, Petro-Canada advertises cut-rate gas, discount cigarettes and everything else that this great Crown-owned corporation can use to entice Canadians to cross the border and shop in the great U.S.A.
The milk of this U.S. cash cow is so plentiful that Petro-Canada wants to repeat the same exercise in other northern U.S. cities, namely in Vermont and elsewhere. One American is reported to have said to the media: "I can't get over your Canadian government. They tax everything so sky-high you can't pay it and then they go and open a gas bar down here. What are they trying to do?" That is what all of us are asking ourselves as well.


GROSSE ILE
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to Grosse ile, an island in the St. Lawrence River just east of Quebec. The island was a clearing house for European immigrants and served as a quarantine station between 1832 and 1860. Over-population and general starvation forced many Irish families to immigrate to Canada on what were later dubbed coffin ships. Disease was rampant because living conditions were poor and in
June 11, 1992

very cramped spaces. Many immigrants were hospitalized on arrival at Grosse tie and thousands eventually died.
Since more than 12,000 Irish immigrants are buried on the island, Irish Canadian communities continue to have a special concern for its future. Parks Canada has proposed the creation of a national park on Grosse lie commemorating and celebrating European migration to Canada. Canadians of Irish descent are requesting that this historic site be attributed to our Irish ancestors.
I hope the parks department can accommodate this request.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
In light of the information we are now receiving on the constitutional conference and the inability to reach agreement, could the government tell this House what it intends to do in the coming days?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for the report from the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. Once it has received this report the government will make a decision on what comes after.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday we saw the minister of health walking out of the conference. As everyone knows, he was named by the Prime Minister to be there to help the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Was the departure of the minister of health authorized by the government or was it just another Laurel and Hardy show?
Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition will know, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has enormous portfolio responsibilities. He has been attending the constitutional meetings as a senior minister from Quebec. He indicated yesterday that he felt that he could contribute no more time to that process since his portfolio responsibilities required his attention. If I can quote him, he said: "I repeat once again, I didn't walk out. I didn't want to protest against anything. I just want that we realize that this step for me is over, that we have to move on to another step". He continues to be very supportive of the government's activities and hopeful, as all of us are, that the process will result in success.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, how can the government believe that the people of Canada will take this government seriously in the matter when two senior cabinet ministers representing Canada at this negotiating table cannot agree? We would like to know from that side of the House what this government intends to do next and give some example to the nation that first the government will have order in its own House before trying to solve the problems of the nation.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to say what the government will do next when this step of the process is not completed. We will see what the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs reports.
One thing I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition is that this government will do everything possible to ensure that this country remains united.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister. There has been a lot of agreement on fundamental issues of critical importance to Canadians, for example, the aboriginal question, distinct society, linguistic duality, the social charter.
Will this government now call a First Ministers Conference to try to unravel this constitutional impasse, to solve this constitutional labyrinth?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would simply repeat that we do not yet know what the final results of this

Oral Questions
stage of the process will be. When we do know, we will be in a position to evaluate what is the most appropriate next step.
Once again I underline that we are committed to the preservation of this country and doing whatever it takes to ensure that end.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare talked about a new approach, "a new way", of taking another step, of pursuing a new path when he left the meeting last night.
Can the minister tell us what this new path or further step to be taken is? Can he tell us what Canadians can expect from this government in this constitutional crisis situation?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is impossible to define a new approach until we know what the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs will report to the government and the House.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I want to turn to the proposed purchase of helicopters at a cost of $4.3 billion. The government has defended this purchase by saying that 15 of these 50 new helicopters will be used to replace search and rescue helicopters.
There is no question that it is necessary to upgrade the search and rescue helicopters and the service we have. We know that rather than buying new ones, these helicopters could be upgraded for another 20 years of life for $200 million.
The Deputy Prime Minister often says as Minister of Finance that he has no choices. Here is a choice: $4.3 billion or $200 million. Which is it going to be?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the hon. member that quite honestly that information is not correct.
To just put this project into context, for some long period we have been looking at a replacement helicopter project, both to replace the existing Sea Kings on the ships and the search and rescue. This has been a longstanding project. It is a project that will take about 13 years to come to completion. The department has been allocating within its budget appropriate funds to provide for this new equipment.
Obviously, no decisions have been made at this point. The minister will be looking at a variety of alternatives. All members would agree that we do need to look at this in terms of what will serve our needs best over the long term, the kind of helicopter that will enable us to provide the capability to do all the different tasks that are required, that will lead us into the 21st century up to the year 2035. Indeed, it may be more appropriate to spend some money now and over the next 13 years to enable us to have that up-to-date modem capability for the long term.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that in 20 years technology will change radically.
If we are able to upgrade those helicopters to make sure that we can provide search and rescue efficiently and with safety for those pilots, that is what we should be doing and doing it now.

My supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The other day, the Prime Minister said in the House: We can't spend money we don't have. I assume the Prime Minister can spend the money he does have. I also assume the government now has $4.3 billion to spend. Instead of spending this money on helicopters to defend us against enemies that no longer exist-the Soviets-will the government spend this money on Canada's children who need daycare since that problem does exist?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, again I would ask the hon. member to look at this issue in its proper context.
We have within the Department of National Defence an allocation of funds that is required to enable us to carry out missions that the government and the defence committee agree upon. Within that budget, we try to
June 11, 1992

allocate funds between personnel, infrastructure and capital.
We have over the years, in the 1970s, not spent the amount of money on capital that is required to maintain our capital equipment effectively. We need to change that to provide the equipment that our men and women can utilize to provide the sovereignty patrols, fisheries patrols, drug interdictions, search and rescue and to protect our sovereignty on both our coasts.
If the hon. member looks at that within the context of the over-all defence budget, this indeed is going to be a requirement to replace our existing equipment such as helicopters with new modem equipment that can take us well into the 21st century and assure that we can undertake our responsibilities effectively.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, since 1975 there has been a 57 per cent increase in real dollars to defence in this country.
There are many long term investments this country has to make. One of them is in this country's children and in training for this country's citizens. We are busy fighting a country that no longer exists, the U.S.S.R. Maybe it is time to invest in a country that does exist and that is Canada.
I want to say to the minister that for the cost of one-third of one helicopter we could restore the Court Challenges Program for 10 years. We could introduce a decent student employment program for the cost of one helicopter and for the cost of 10 helicopters, we could have a real training program in this country.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance scrap this $4.3 billion boondoggle and invest the money in Canadians so that we can go into the 21st century with pride and with well-trained citizens?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that all of the outrage does not really respond to the actual situation. The government responds to all the various needs of its citizens in terms of all of our departmental responsibilities.
Oral Questions
Would my hon. colleague indeed want to scrap the Department of National Defence to make us incapable of providing defence of our sovereignty, so that we are unable to do the kinds of operations on the east coast dealing with fisheries interdictions and unable to work at drug interdiction and search and rescue?
Can the hon. member not understand that we have a long-term planning process within the Department of National Defence. We have been planning for years for replacement equipment, a 13-year program. We will be looking at all of the options and the minister will be bringing forward recommendations to cabinet in due course.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
One day before his departure for Rio, the Prime Minister stated in this House that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are firmly on Canada's agenda at home and at the earth summit.
However that position was contradicted by the official position taken by the Minister of the Environment at the summit when he called not for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but rather stabilization.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Which is the position of the Canadian government, reduction as stated by the Prime Minister or stabilization as stated by the Minister of the Environment?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister arrived in Rio de Janeiro today. He was greeted by many good reports. He said that the biodiversity convention was signed this morning. We expect to sign the global warming greenhouse gas convention within the next few days.
But I must mention the number of people who have spoken about what Canada has done at the United Nations. It says: "For years Canada has set the example of the green country that we hope all countries will use as an example". This is the administrator of the United

Oral Questions
Nations Development Program. Eve Savory from CBC says: "Canada's delegation has won the respect of other countries by going out of its way to be helpful".
We are going to be working very closely with other delegations. We will be signing the convention at Rio in the next few days.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is a good press release, but it doesn't answer the question, which was very specific.
We already know that Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Italy and Denmark have endorsed a policy for the reduction of greenhouse gases. However, there is a contradiction between the position taken by the Prime Minister on reduction and the Canadian government's official polity which wants to stabilize levels at those existing in 1990.
My question is simple: Which policy does the Canadian government endorse? The policy announced by the Minister of the Environment or the policy announced by the Prime Minister? Mr. Speaker, we can't do both!


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, we will be signing the global warming convention in the next few days. But I want to say that within the green plan we have the stabilization of the greenhouse gases by the year 2000 at the 1990 level.
But the green plan has gone further than that. We have allotted more than $150 million directed at the uncertainties within the global warming issue in order to reduce those at some point in time.
We are working with the provinces. We have a national action strategy dealing with the provinces as to how we are going to reduce the greenhouse gases. We are on course and we will be signing that convention in Rio de Janiero in the next few days.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of external affairs and in her absence the Deputy Prime Minister.
The justice committee this morning unanimously passed a motion asking the minister of external affairs to request the expulsion of David Spencer and Christine Lamont from Brazil. The committee heard clear evidence of a travesty of justice and discrimination against these two Canadians.
The minister continues to drag her heels. When will the minister make that request?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am prepared to advise the hon. member that I understand the report will be going to her. I believe she will be back next week and I am sure she will take the committee's recommendations under advisement and will be back to the House.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, that response is not good enough. The Lamont family and the minister's officials met with the judge who told them that he was under extreme pressure to bring in a clean sweep verdict.
The minister has agreed that 28 years is excessive and the trial was clearly flawed. Canadians and members of all three parties want the minister to act.
Why will the minister not do the right thing and act now?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the report of the standing committee was just tabled this morning. I think my hon. colleague must recognize that the minister and officials will obviously want to read that report and to discuss it. Upon her return next week I am sure she will have that opportunity.


GUN CONTROL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
I want to read a quote from a gun store owner in Los Angeles. He says: "It's scary-they're buying guns; they are going to carry on them-Some of these people have never held a gun or even seen a gun close up". Gun sales in L.A. have gone up from 50 to 500 per cent, depending on the gun store.
June 11, 1992

Is the minister aware that British Columbians are concerned that the dramatic increase in guns being bought south of the border will spill over into British Columbia?
Is the minister aware that this week during the hearings on the draft regulations on gun control, Staff Sergeant Neal Jessop of Windsor, Ontario said that officials at the border are, and I quote: "only scratching the surface of the cross-border gun trade"?
I want to ask the minister: What steps is the government taking to prevent the flow of prohibited and illegal guns into Canada?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member has not noticed, a great deal has been devoted over the last 18 months to strengthening Canada's gun control legislation and bringing forward regulations and an implementation scheme that would in fact give full force to that legislation.
Among the legislative amendments are not simply amendments to the Criminal Code but also amendments to the statutes affecting customs and excise that are important.
Those who are opposed to gun control sometimes point out that no gun control legislation will ever completely succeed in preventing crimes committed with firearms or the smuggling of firearms. However, I believe that what we have done in this House in passing the gun control legislation is to increase the number of tools in the hands of police and customs officers to enable them as much as humanly possible to protect Canadians from the illegal traffic in arms.
I congratulate members of the House for passing that legislation. I thank them for the consideration they have been giving to the regulations. The recommendations of the committee will be taken into account before the final enactment of the regulations. I think we are doing as much as is possible in this House to try to make sure that we do not have the same kind of situation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, I am not talking about the good work we have all been doing on the gun control
Oral Questions
regulations here. I am talking about the guns flowing across the border.
In front of a committee of the House, here is what a customs officer said: "It is a virtual paradise for anyone who may be inclined at this point to do any smuggling of guns. As I say, you should be alarmed because we are alarmed". The government has been warned. We want a safe, gun-free country in Canada.
Is the minister prepared to toughen up controls at the border? Is she prepared to bring in tough new laws for the criminal misuse of guns and is she prepared to crack down on the illegal violation of the new gun control laws?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member had not noticed, we have brought in tough new sentences for firearms related crimes. We have tried to clamp down legislatively on the criminal use of firearms. Alas, we have no control over the firearms climate in the United States.
It is clear that the majority of people in the United States favour a national gun control scheme. They do not have it there. Perhaps they should consider adopting a parliamentary style of government which would enable the government to reflect the wishes of the majority of Americans, instead of people here looking south to adopt inefficient American institutions of government.
Canada and the United States have the longest undefended border in the world. In many ways that is good; in many ways that is negative. I think many Americans are looking at the kinds of decisions that have been made in this House and the ability of this Parliament to reflect the wishes of Canadians. They are beginning to seriously question the will of their own legislators to translate the concerns that Americans have into effective legislation.
The example we are providing here is perhaps one of the best ways that we can influence in an extraterritorial way the developments south of the border.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He knows that last week a

June 11, 1992
Oral Questions
scientific report was tabled which shows that the northern cod stock is in such poor condition that the fishery may have to be closed.
This has really come as no surprise to the people involved in the fishing industry. What is a surprise and a disappointment to them is that this government refuses to talk about specific plans about compensation.
I ask the minister, as an Atlantic Canadian, will he have compassion and show some leadership and tell us what compensation plan he has in mind with this situation?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday and that answer remains valid today.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer yesterday was that he could not give me answers to a hypothetical situation and he needed more specifics. If he needs specifics, I will give him specifics.
Specifically, in mid-February a specific plant in Port Union on the Bonavista peninsula closed down and 80 specific families were without compensation because they did not have enough time to qualify for unemployment insurance. Right now, specifically, they have no fish, they have no jobs, they have no compensation and they have no idea how this government is going to look after them.
I will now ask the minister as a supplementary what specific action plan he has for those specific people under this specific situation?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, specifically, the government has committed over $600 million for the fishery crisis in Atlantic Canada.
If he wants more specifics, I could send him a copy of the Fisheries Adjustment Program. I could also be specific and send a detailed account of the hundreds of millions of dollars that UI spends in Newfoundland and Labrador to help those people.
He refers to 80 people who are not in receipt of UI. Last year we had an emergency response program of some $53 million to help those veiy people. As I
indicated yesterday, if the past is an indication of what the future will be for people that need help, they can count on the government.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced today that Canada would start negotiations with France to give France fish quotas inside Canada's territorial zone outside of the zone awarded to France yesterday in New York.
Does the government not realize it is scandalous to be giving France these extra cod bonuses when our scientists, our fishermen and the world community all agree our cod stocks are in danger of extinction?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, what is scandalous is that the hon. member will issue a press release that claims certain things will happen at the will of this government when in fact what he is asking this government to do is to ignore the words given by Canadians in a treaty signed by a Liberal minister under a Liberal government in 1972.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is 1992 and not 1972. A lot of water has flowed under the bridges of our fishing boats and there ain't no fish in it.
The Government of France, in these new negotiations announced today, is claiming fishing rights and this government is not disputing those rights to use ten French trawlers, each 50 metres long, with factory freezer capacity "to fish along the coasts of Newfoundland, of Nova Scotia, with the exception of the Bay of Fundy, and in the Canadian fishing zone within the Gulf of St. Lawrence". That is on the coast of five provinces in this country.
Does the government not realize that from an environmental point of view, given the state of our stocks, giving France these bonus cod stocks is nothing short of criminal negligence?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was going to stand up and congratulate the government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for having obtained at Rio an international conference on the failing stock.
I thought he was going to congratulate the government for having piloted this case into an international court
June 11, 1992

that gives almost a 92 per cent victory to Canada. Today he stands up and he again blows a lot of wind.
He talks about negotiations. The minister was clear this morning in Newfoundland and Labrador. The government is entering into discussions with France pursuant to the 1972 treaty that provides access for both countries to fish in the other's waters. That is all the discussions will be about.


LUBICON BAND
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In consequence of questions asked in the Austrian Parliament on May 5, the Austrian ambassador to Canada sought an audience with the minister during the week of May 18. He expressed the Austrian government's concerns about the situation of the Lubicon Indian people and their treatment at the hands of successive Canadian governments.
The minister being unavailable, the ambassador met with the deputy minister for the better part of an afternoon.
Can the parliamentary secretary advise whether or not the ambassador discussed what further steps, in addition to his meeting with the deputy minister, the Austrian government was considering taking regarding the Lubicon situation?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first I thank my colleague for notice of this question.
I can confirm that the deputy minister did meet with the Austrian ambassador at his request. They spent a long time discussing not only the current status of the Lubicon negotiation but particularly reference to the accusation in the motion from the Parliament that talked about clear-cutting.
The deputy minister made it very clear to the ambassador that while Daishowa holds the rights, they are not and have not been logging within that sensitive area.
Oral Questions


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the parliamentary secretary for an answer, although of course it was only glancingly related to the question.
Among other matters raised it is my understanding that the ambassador spoke of possible Austrian overtures to the CSCE and other European countries and, as well, consideration of Austrian imports of Canadian lumber.
In any event, let me ask the parliamentary secretary whether or not the government now is sufficiently concerned with the impact of the Lubicon situation on Canada's international reputation to undertake at the very least to provide the Lubicon people with a detailed, point by point response to the band's draft settlement proposal which it has had now since the late 1980s and to which it has never yet responded.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to win in this House. You get accused of not answering the question; you get accused if you answer too much. So I will try to keep to the question.
The minister met on June 5 with Chief Ominayak and they discussed a number of things. The most important thing is the mutual commitment by the Lubicon and by the government to seek a successful, fair and appropriate negotiation and resolution to this dispute.
Both sides have committed, first, to pursuing that result and, second, they have both committed not to negotiate in public. Certainly for me to take a step in that direction would not serve the interests at all.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Several months ago the minister called for proposals to establish three research centres for family violence and violence against women at regional locations across Canada.

June 11, 1992
Oral Questions
In a similar vein some years earlier, in 1985 to be exact, steps were initiated toward creation of such a research centre on family violence in the city of Fredericton with an alliance struck between the University of New Brunswick and the Senator Muriel McQueen Ferguson Foundation to pursue that goal. Naturally these original New Brunswick proponents strongly aspire to being included under the federal government program.
Would the parliamentary secretary please tell us what is the present status of the selection process for these research centres on family violence? Does the New Brunswick application remain under serious consideration?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member reminded us that proposals were put out for national research centres on violence against women and the problems of children.
Yes, the New Brunswick proposal was received. It has undergone intensive review both by the Department of National Health and Welfare and SSIRC, the Social Science Immunities Research Council.
I would also like to assure him that the New Brunswick proposal has been short-listed and will undergo another review. I would hope that within the next three or four months a decision will be made.


EMPLOYMENT
Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Unemployment in Elgin-Norfolk is higher than the national average. As such, constituents in my riding welcomed the news that additional federal funding would be directed toward retraining programs.
Can the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell the House when local Canada Employment Centres will know their share of this funding so plans can be made to retrain workers?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member
noted that indeed $150 million more will be spent to train Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: It is a pertinent question because even in the other party's caucus members have asked questions about these moneys. These moneys have to be divided into some 525 Canada Employment Centres throughout the country.
It will be done according to needs as expressed by the local work force. These decisions are being made today and tomorrow so that next week the money should be in the regions to help with training those unemployed Canadians.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister is aware that in Westmorland, workers must work 17 weeks to qualify for employment insurance, while in Kent they only have to work 10 weeks, although they all work in the same plants.
Does the minister intend to take steps to deal with this unfair situation since he only has to take his pencil and say that both Westmorland and Kent are rural ridings and that the people of Westmorland are not part of the city of Moncton?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Leader of the Liberal Party that I spent a lot of time working on this issue with his predecessor, the former member for Beausejour, Mr. Fernand Robichaud, and because of the symmetry required with respect to the statistics we get from Statistics Canada to establish unemployment insurance areas, we have already changed the entire map. I know this creates a problem for the people in the riding of Westmorland, but the hon. member will admit, knowing his riding as well as I know he does, that these people are very close to Moncton's urban area and that their circumstances are entirely different from those of the people in Kent.
June 11, 1992


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is very evident the minister has not been there. Some people in Kent are closer to Moncton than some people in Cape Tormentine and places like that which are at least 45 miles away from Moncton.
If the minister knew how to do his job and accept his responsibilities, he would make sure that fishermen qualified as fishermen and the people who live in cities qualified as people of the city. He should do that now that he knows the problem. If he does not correct it, it is because he does not want to correct it. We will fix that problem after the next election.


An hon. member:: There will not be any more elections. [Translation]


Bernard Valcourt: I am surprised, Mr. Speaker. When we were in Beausejour not long ago to announce several million dollars in funding people thought I was doing an excellent job. It is too bad the hon. member does not share that view. But in any case-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Call an election and you'll see.


Bernard Valcourt: Be patient, Sheila. I will take the representation made by the Leader of the Liberal Party under advisement just the same. It is an important question, and as they say, nothing is graven in stone, and I am prepared to look at the situation to see how we can help everyone in Beausejour.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
In the aftermath of the serious racial protests which occurred in Toronto over a month ago, the federal minister announced on May 7 in Toronto that the federal government would bring forward "an integrated plan of action to address the urgent concerns of the black community in metro Toronto in four weeks' time".
Oral Questions
Could the minister share with this House and Canadians that federal integrated plan of action?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, the four levels of government committee has already started work with members of the black community. As we are speaking today meetings are continuing. We expect that by the end of the month we will have a report from that committee.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
While Stephen Lewis has reported to the Ontario government and while municipal levels of government, both metro and the city of Toronto, have programs for employment for visible minorities this summer, this federal government lags behind with empty words which has little comfort for anyone. There is no action plan and there is none in the conceivable future from the mayor's office this morning.
Given that the minister stated this problem was an urgent one and given that he stated and committed that there would be a federal response by way of a solution within four weeks, when can the Toronto community expect real and meaningful action from this government, not words, not more meetings and not more press releases?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: We have been carefully bringing forward this program, Mr. Speaker, for the last four years beginning in the spring of 1988. We made fighting racism and racial discrimination and programs of immigration and quality a high priority of this new department in particular.
We very quickly initiated this particular committee. It is being chaired by my special assistant, Mr. John Dennison, along with staff and officials of all levels of government.
They are working very well with members of the black community at the moment. I have every inspiration that they will bring forward suggestions for a very immediate kind of solution within our own program area and for some longer range ideas over the next six months of what we can do together.

June 11, 1992
Oral Questions PORT OF QUEBEC


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board in that capacity and that of the political minister for Quebec City.
As the minister knows, the port of Quebec, with the permission of Treasury Board, has leased a parcel of land on the Quebec waterfront for $28,000 a year so that a private company can build an IMAX theatre. The minister also knows that this theatre will destroy the view of the old city, which is Canada's only world heritage site, and that it is opposed by nearly 60 community groups.
My question is simple: Will the minister act and have this lease revoked?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan that this project has still not been processed because its promoters have not indicated that they want to proceed in the immediate future.
Before the approval was given, the projet went through the necessary EARP process, consultation with the municipal and provincial authorities, and everybody was in agreement that it should be processed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that work has come to a standstill at the site, but the reality is that the people of the port of Quebec do not want a theatre such as IMAX blocking the view of the cruise shipping industry, of the marina, and destroying the raison d'etre of the old port.
Will either the Minister of Transport or the President of the Treasury Board immediately act to take the federal government's responsibility seriously and cancel the lease so that the land can be turned back to a viewable point and access to the river and the port?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think the member will acknowledge that we live in a democratic country where everybody has a chance to say their words.
This project has gone through consultation by Quebec City. It was approved by all the authorities. The fact that there are some people against it is recognized, but in a democracy it is the majority that rules.


AIRCRAFT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Canada has led the way on the development of regulations which have now had an influence around the world regarding ultra light advanced aircraft.
Is Canada now ready to do the same thing for our recreational category of aircraft which could mean thousands of jobs and thousands of opportunities for Canadian investments?


Jean Corbeil: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to inform the member that this is a problem we have been looking into very seriously over the past few weeks.
We are making progress and hope to be able to give a valuable answer to the member and to the industry in general over the next few months.


PRINTING INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism recently unveiled the new logo for the Canadian Printing Industry Association, he was justifiably proud that this initiative was strong support for the government's own buy Canadian program.
In light of the numerous difficulties that this government's economic policies have caused to our printers, will the minister reaffirm today his commitment to do everything possible to support this printed in Canada program?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my hon. friend has raised this question about the printing industry. It is a very important part of the manufacturing sector of Canada. That is why the Minister of Finance in
June 11, 1992

his last budget increased the capital cost allowance which is of great value to this industiy.
He also lowered the tax on manufacturing and processing from 23 per cent to 21 per cent.
It is an industiy of small entrepreneurs and it is very important that we have kept in place the lowest rate of corporate tax on small businesses in the OECD. All of this is there to help this very important industiy.
Anything else we can do through NEBS and NEXIS and export programs, we stand ready to help them out as well.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is a full colour, 92-page publication entitled The Official Travellers Guide to Canada, published in co-operation with and financed in part by Tourism Canada.
This was the minister who unveiled the printing industiy logo. On page 3 of this publication beneath a smiling picture of the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that there is a rule here about using props. I am sure the hon. member could put the question without waving the magazine around.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: On page 3 underneath a picture of the smiling minister are the words "Printed in the U.S.A."


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if this government will not honour its own buy Canadian program, who will?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is holding up a copy of an American publication for American markets.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


POINTS OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I might have inadvertently misled the Minister of Justice in the House. I spoke about a gun-free Canada. I meant to say a gun-safe Canada.
Business of the House
I did not want the minister to think that we were not supporting strong but effective gun control and of course we are aware that we have guns in Canada. I wanted to make the point that I was talking about gun smuggling not dealing with the existing regime in Canada.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the House not be misled. This publication is distributed in Canada and elsewhere. If the government of Saskatchewan publishes a book for distribution in the United States but has it printed in-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is a continuation of an earlier debate.


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a correction to Hansard. I think through some inadvertence Hansard misprinted a word on June 9,1992, page 11659. It used the word "will" when it should have used the word "was".
If you check on June 8, you would see that the tabling was done the day before and not to be done in future.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, today being Thursday, I would like to ask the government House leader if he can tell us what the House business will be for tomorrow, Monday, Tbesday and the remainder of next week.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, we hope to complete this afternoon Bill C-41, energy efficiency, at third reading; Bill C-71, the Criminal Records Act, at third reading; and Bill C-7, status of the artist act, report stage and third reading. If there is time available before the normal hour of adjournment, Bill C-58, oil and gas production, at report stage and third reading.
There is general agreement that in view of the progress, and so on, we would strive to get out at the normal hour of adjournment.

Government Orders
On Friday, June 12, the government will call Bill C-55, Public Service Pensions Act, for debate at report stage.
On Monday the order of business will be Bill C-82, the National Housing Act, on which I understand there is general agreement and we could complete that at all stages; Bill C-49, the sexual assault act, for debate at report stage and hopefully third reading. If not completed Thursday, June 11, we will proceed then with Bill C-58, the oil and gas production act, as well as Bill C-51 and Bill C-52 which are the Northwest Territories Waters Act and Yukon Waters Act, respectively, and Bill C-79 the divorce act, for debate at second reading.
I would like to formally designate Tbesday, June 16 as the last allotted day.
In terms of the rest of that week, and indeed up till June 23, we will carry on the usual discussions among House leaders to see if we can schedule the business in a way that is to our mutual satisfaction.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources, be read the third time and passed.
Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, just very briefly I want to note that first of all we were pleased at the changes made in committee study of the bill, especially the inclusion of door and window systems in the bill's scope.
We believe there is much that is yet to be done. We believe that the bill can still be made significantly better and we are looking forward to what we hope will be amendments to what will now become the act, to be introduced by the government even before the next election.
However, having said that, we note that this is a good albeit small, step forward in the fight for energy efficiency and conservation in Canada. On that basis I am
pleased to say that the New Democratic Party caucus will support the bill at third reading.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate this afternoon on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the third reading of Bill C-41, the energy efficiency act.
It is of great interest to watch and see how Bill C-41 moved through the legislative process in this House. You may recall that at second reading the minister suggested that Bill C-41 was a good example of the kind of legislation that could be improved at the legislative committee stage. I am happy to say that he was right. The legislative committee on Bill C-41 has proposed amendments to this bill that will enhance the effectiveness of the legislation.
Several proposed amendments were technical in nature, related to the compliance provisions. However, most of the significant amendments approved by the committee expanded the scope of the legislation to include doors and windows.
The committee members agreed that the scope of the bill should include doors and windows because of their significant role in achieving greater energy efficiency in buildings and their amenability to the regulatory scheme contemplated by the legislation. I am pleased to note that the legislative committee took great care in developing the appropriate wording for this amendment.
The legislative committee also agreed on proposing amendments which would strengthen the compliance system, primarily by allowing inspectors to direct an importer of a non-compliant product to remove it from Canada, and explicitly providing for court orders as alternatives, or in addition to fines as punishment where a person is convicted of an offence under the act.
Bill C-41 has been improved as a result of the legislative committee deliberations and decisions. Useful insights were offered concerning the operation of regulatory programs under authority of this legislation. The committee's hearings confirmed the value and importance of proceeding expeditiously with this legislation. The legislative committee is also to be commended for its pragmatic review of Bill C-41 and for the useful amendments it has brought back to this House. I would
June 11, 1992

like to take this opportunity to thank members of the legislative committee on Bill C-41 for a job well done.
I would like to turn my attention for a few moments to the specifics of Bill C-41, the energy efficiency act, which provides statutory authority for initiatives related to energy labelling, minimum energy efficiency standards and the collection of statistics and information.
With regard to labelling, the bill will facilitate enhancement and expansion of the existing Energuide labelling program which currently applies to refrigerators, ranges, ovens, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers. Energuide regulations require that new appliances bear a specified label providing information on a product's use of energy. This is to encourage and assist more energy-efficient purchasing decisions.
Bill C-41 will provide EMR with statutory authority and Energuide regulations which have been the responsibility of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. EMR is redesigning the label to make it easier to read and comprehend. The department is analysing how the program could best be expanded to cover other products.
The bill will permit the government to make regulations requiring that specific products provide at least a minimum level of energy efficiency before they can be marketed in Canada. This meets requests from the provinces, territories and industry that the federal government help establish a consistent national energy efficiency regulatory regime.
I would like to stress that the regulatory actions will only be taken following consultations with affected parties. Regulations will be developed so as to avoid unnecessary costs to manufacturers and to facilitate co-ordination with provincial authorities. They will be developed with due regard for Canada's international trade obligations and the nation's ability to compete.
I feel that it is worth while to note that EMR will seek to ensure that new energy efficiency standards will be consistent with those in force in provincial and American jurisdictions.
Part II of the bill concerns the collection and use of statistics pertaining to efficiency of energy use and the adoption of alternative energy sources.
Government Orders
It is hoped that most of the data and information required by EMR's new efficiency and alternative energy program can be obtained from existing data bases held by Statistics Canada and others, or from voluntary surveys, so that recourse to the energy efficiency act can be avoided.
I would like to stress to this House that this government will ensure that regulation will be used in moderation in co-operation with other authorities and in consultation with those who will be most affected.
This government is confident that the energy efficiency act, along with the efficiency and alternative energy program it supports, constitutes an important and responsible step for Canada to take toward the issue of global warming. The EAE program will have net environmental and economic benefits. The environmental benefits include improvement of air quality, preservation of water and land resources and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
Canadian consumers who consider energy efficiency carefully when making their purchasing decisions will be able to reduce their annual energy costs, thereby freeing up some of their income for other uses.
Through investments in energy efficiency and alternative energy sources, Canadian industry can lower its energy costs, raise productivity and improve the ability to compete internationally.
There is a growing international interest in competitive products, technologies and services offering energy efficiency or employing alternative energy sources. Thus, Canadian companies responding to increased domestic demand in these areas gain international opportunities to expand their markets.
In conclusion, I would like to say that Bill C-41, the energy efficiency act, is part of a broader program to help Canadians use energy more wisely.
This government believes that the improvement of energy efficiency is an essential component of any responsible response in the use of global warming.
However, governments alone cannot resolve the issue. Individuals and organizations need to re-examine how these energies are used. This government's new energy efficiency alternatives energy program emphasizes actions that are economic in their own right.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
It also emphasizes co-operation since we can only hope to achieve our global warning objectives with the help of all Canadians.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, if I may, before beginning to talk on third reading of Bill C-41,1 might bring to the attention of the House what happened at the energy committee this morning relating to the Westray Mine.
If my hon. friend disagrees, I hope that he will get up after and tell me if I have not given the facts to the House correctly. The hon. member of the New Democratic Party and I moved that the committee examine the federal role in what had gone on at the mine, not to look at issues of safety such as are going to be discussed by the Nova Scotia public inquiry.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I believe that we are debating Bill C-41 in the House and the relevance of that bill. What happened in the committee earlier today really should not be discussed here in the House. We are dealing with Bill C-41.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair was listening very carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast. The Chair was hoping that he would very shortly come around to the bill and not bring back to the House events that took place in a committee.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I had one more sentence because I think it is important. The parliamentary secretary was there and voted against the motion. I believe in a stronger Parliament and a stronger role for MPs in parliamentary committees. We should have been entitled to look at the federal aspects of that catastrophe and I regret profoundly that the government members voted unanimously to stop the energy committee from looking at that tragedy.
On this bill, energy efficiency and conservation now occupy a central role in the energy policy of all industrialized economies. Their importance as tools for balancing energy supply and demand has risen with each new supply, disruption or price rise.
I understand that my colleague from Cape Breton was at the hearing on behalf of our party. Most of the witnesses wanted the matters of this bill to be extended to things like windows, Canada 2000 for building homes. The government members again in committee resisted opening up the bill. Most of us on this side feel that the
bill does not go nearly far enough in terms of energy conservation, particularly at a time when the conference in Rio is discussing the state of the world environment.
All industrial nations have curbed their use of energy after the 1973 oil crisis and even more after the 1979 one. During that time, Canadians "found" twice as much energy through conservation as was added in new oil, gas and electricity supplies. Experts are of the opinion that the potential for further energy efficiency is believed to remain very large. In the mid-1980s, the International Energy Agency estimated conservatively that further efficiency gains of 30 per cent are feasible among its member states.
For Canada specifically, Dr. John Robinson of the University of Waterloo, not far from the member's riding, has calculated an untapped, cost-effective energy conservation potential of up to 43 per cent. A 1988 update of the soft energy path analysis first carried out in 1983 by Friends of the Earth argues that Canada might achieve a 50 per cent reduction in primary energy intensity between now and 2025.
The comparison of costs of confirming electricity with those of generating it, in other words, saving a dollar by not developing a new mega project, is better than investing taxpayers money, in many cases, in new energy mega projects with all of their environmental costs.
It clearly indicates that improving electricity efficiency is more economic and reduces the demand for fossil fuels. Even if energy saving technology is available now, how do we get people to buy it? The public, our fellow citizens, must make a conscious decision to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, realizing that improved efficiency will not necessarily lead to a decline in living standards or the work environment.
The member who just came in is laughing. I assume that is because he used to be in the oil business at the pump level.
The buyer's financial criteria typically emphasize short-term benefits but more efficient end-use devices generally have a higher cost than the inefficient ones. Besides, it is common knowledge that the purchasers of residential appliances tend to place a higher priority on product characteristics such as colour and brand identification than energy efficiency. Consumer reluctance for energy instruments could be overcome through aggres-
June 11, 1992

sive marketing of high-efficiency models of appliances. New standards alone are not enough, I would submit.
Insufficient information is a powerful barrier preventing efficiency from being improved. The introduction of energy-efficient housing technologies is slower than it could be because many builders and architects are still, unfortunately, unfamiliar with energy-saving technologies. For example, "Energuide" labels which show the annual energy consumption of appliances do not translate these figures into annual operating costs. Why? Why would it not make sense to do so?
Probably few consumers are able to make this calculation and therefore the program may not lead to more rational decision making by consumers. I would sincerely hope the government is prepared to deal with the issue of promoting customer acceptance of new energy-efficient technologies.
Perhaps I can say that I very much believe that our party, when elected, will give attention to those matters. Forgive me for pointing out today that 44 per cent of Canadians indicate they are going to vote for this party to form a new government. When we are elected, if the Canadian people so will it, I believe that will be the case. I hope we will then put genuine, sincere stress on conservation and energy-efficient appliances and so on.
Have our energy planners considered, for example, the introduction of information, demonstration programs on energy efficient targets for industry in an attempt to shift market demand in favour of more energy-efficient items?
The bill is a step, a very small step, in the right direction but its scope should have been broadened in order to leave the door open for examining energy-efficient trends and other sectors, like commercial and residential lighting, improved voltage regulations, transportation mode shifts, use of waste heat to generate electricity and fuel-switching options. We should take advantage of all feasible options and there are many options available around the world. Many of them were developed in Canada and, if I may say, were cruelly defused by the budget policies of this government since 1984.1 am thinking of wind energy, solar energy, alternative energy, photovoltaics and many, many others.
Government Orders
If we had taken advantage of all the feasible options for saving energy more cheaply than producing it, our need for new production facilities would be reduced.
If a consumer replaces a single 75-watt bulb with an 18 watt compact fluorescent lamp that lasts 10,000 hours, the consumer can save the electricity that a typical Canadian power plant would make from 770 pounds of coal. As a result, about 1,600 pounds of C02 and 18 pounds of sulphur dioxide would not be released into the atmosphere. What is Rio about if not things like that?
In 1990 Ontario Hydro estimated reducing demand in houses heated by electricity could save 1,350 megawatts. Even half of what was saved would defer and perhaps eliminate the need for a large nuclear reactor with all of its risks and hazards in the view of many people living outside of Algoma.
Increasing energy efficiency should become a priority with this government. As I said before, I believe this will be a priority with the Chretien government to be elected as soon as Canadians have a chance to get to the voting booths.
When the U.S. introduced conservation laws which years ago prompted the manufacturing of energy-efficient appliances, our regulatory authorities in Canada did nothing. Now, instead of the threat of confiscation and destruction of private property, the government might better set an example by emphasizing energy efficiency and conservation in its overall operations, particularly in government-funded facilities.
Energy-efficient operations and cost-effective energy retrofits should be increased to demonstrate to our fellow citizens everywhere the many opportunities for improvements. After all, if the government approves of wasting energy, it should not be surprised if other people, citizens, react accordingly.
Energy efficiency could be given increased priority when purchasing new government vehicles and equipment. Madam Speaker, you deserve enormous credit for what the House of Commons is doing to try to promote energy efficiency, a green House of Commons. Perhaps the rug colour here was an early prediction of what you would be doing now in terms of the environment around this budding. Could you please talk to the people in the

Government Orders
Senate and see what they are doing? They should be green as well.
More than 3 million personal computers are in use in our offices and the number is increasing. According to Ontario Hydro as much as 90 per cent of the energy consumed by computers can be saved by introducing more laptop models, inkjet printers, new PowerKey technology, which allows users to control computer times, peripherals, et cetera.
Industries such as appliance manufacturing are global in scope. Products are designed and manufactured to meet the needs of a market which is much broader than our Canadian market. In 1987 the U.S. national appliance energy conservation act established standards for minimum energy efficiency in 13 classes of major household appliances.
I could not agree more and most members on this side would agree as well with the view of the Canadian Manufacturers Association that the standards used in the United States should provide a benchmark so that Canadian companies are not put to a competitive disadvantage by more stringent requirements in the United States than in Canada.
A thorough regulatory analysis of the U.S. standards and provincial standards, both those currently in place and planned in the future, is needed if the bill before us now is to benefit Canadians and our economy significantly-
This issue becomes of utmost importance especially in view of the fact that our industrial infrastructure might not be able to cope with new regulatory initiatives that are too intrusive and out of step with current economic realities.
In its submission to the energy, mines and resources committee, the National Energy Conservation Association stated that:
The industry infrastructure as it now exists in Canada falls
significantly short in its ability to deliver the conservation products
and services demanded by tomorrow's market.
There is unfortunately a lack of skilled trades to implement energy efficiency measures, a lack of access to capital financing for energy efficiency improvements, a lack of provincial incentives for investment in energy efficiency.
There should be some vehicles designed which would assist manufacturers, especially small and medium-sized ones, to change over to the state of the art technologies. Small Canadian producers are particularly vulnerable, as they would have to gear up their operations to deal with new regulatoiy standards and at the same time with a larger marketplace and stronger competition.
The concerns of manufacturers have also been the level of stringency with respect to proposed standards, deadlines they would have to meet, additional costs and so on. Consideration should be given to offering tax credits to manufacturers that exceed existing standards.
In fairness to the bill, regulations would phase out some inefficient equipment from the Canadian market and impose restrictions on imports of electricity guzzling appliances to Canada.
The bill will not prevent our manufacturers, as I understand it, from clearing their inventories by exporting substandard appliances to countries where government efficiency standards are non-existent or less than our own.
The widespread public concern about our natural environment which is at the heart of the debate on energy efficiency and conservation is of global proportions. Exporting inefficient equipment for instance to developing nations would only undermine efforts undertaken by Canadian consumers and manufacturers.
As the Friends of the Earth put it: "We do not want to see a repeat of the tetraethyl lead issue where lead was banned for use in gasoline here but the manufacturer is still allowed to export to developing countries". Is that not exactly the kind of thing that the developing world is objecting to both at Rio and in many other fora?
As reported in the Scientific American, economic projections show that if nothing is done to hasten energy technology development and to introduce existing efficiency technology in developing countries, global climate change and other major environmental problems will escalate beyond unacceptable levels.
Even if our so-called developed countries manage to reduce our LCO2 emissions by 50 per cent, population growth and economic development in the so-called developing countries would most likely increase their

CO2 emissions from 450 to about 900 kilograms per person annually by the year 2030.
World-wide emissions of CO2 will then be two and a half times what they are per year now. In addition, Canada does not have specific policy objectives in its foreign aid and trade policies and programs that encourage and enhance the transfer of environmental technologies, including energy efficiency technologies to developing nations.
This legislation is a small mini-step in a better direction. If properly implemented, it could assist Canada not only in supplying other countries with such technologies but could also provide Canadians with competitive trade opportunities.
In closing-my colleague from Prince Edward Island will be speaking momentarily I believe-we will be supporting this bill but are profoundly regretful that the government did not take a large step in the right direction, rather than what I think can fairly be called a milli-step-"milli" as in millimetre-in the right direction.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and speak in favour of this legislation, Bill C-41, which is the government's long overdue energy efficiency legislation.
This bill, among other things, will allow the government to establish minimum energy efficiency standards for energy-using products like stoves, fridges and dishwashers. It also will allow the government to require labelling of energy-using products to say how much energy they use. It will compile statistics and other information on energy use and alternative energy, and promote energy efficiency and alternative energy like solar power, for example.
I want to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton Southeast, who has just spoken, on his very excellent speech on Bill C-41.1 also want to applaud his efforts at prodding the government to promote energy efficiency in this country.
As a former opposition energy critic, I can appreciate the difficulty he had in trying to persuade the government to increase its effort in the energy efficiency area. I tried repeatedly do this when I was the critic, but the government did not seem to get the message that energy efficiency not only helps Canada's environment but it helps the Canadian economy as well.
Government Orders
By using less energy, Canadian industries make their product more cheaply and that makes them more competitive internationally.
It is no wonder that the government did not get the message when you look at the record of what has happened since this government was elected. In 1990, this government allowed Canada to become the first in energy use per capita among industrialized countries. It also allowed this country to become the second in per capita energy carbon dioxide emissions.
We all know that carbon dioxide is the gas that is released when fuels are burned and which is believed to cause global warming.
This is the same government that cut the energy conservation and renewable energy funding from about $500 million in 1984 to roughly $30 million in 1990-91. It cut the funding for research on solar, wind and hydrogen energy to name a few.
This government also closed down energy department offices across this country, offices which provided information and grants for energy conservation and renewable energy projects. I know in my own province of Prince Edward Island we had an office that provided very valuable information to people living not only in my riding but in all of Prince Edward. It provided information on how we could save on energy and it also provided grants.
This government closed those offices and therefore took away the outlet that provided this very valuable information as well as the grants for conservation and renewable energy projects.
The programs to financially help people insulate their homes, to inform people about energy efficiency of home appliances and so on and to advise industry on how to reduce energy consumption were all discarded by this government.
Largely because of this government's abandoning the energy efficiency programs established by the previous Liberal government, we in Canada, as a result, have a more polluted environment and a less competitive economy.
The statistics that I mentioned earlier prove this fact, but I want to mention a few other statistics. In the early 1980s there was a 10 per cent reduction in per capita carbon dioxide emissions in this country. We also know that less carbon dioxide emissions means cleaner air. Yet over the last five years there has not been any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the energy industry. In

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
fact there have been increases. Carbon dioxide emissions have been allowed to increase by 8 per cent in the last five years.
Clearly this government has a long way to go to match the record of the previous government on carbon dioxide emissions.
I am pleased that the legislation we have before us today shows that the government has finally answered calls from environmental groups and from this side of the House. Certainly the passage of this energy efficiency legislation is necessary if the government is going to come even close to meeting the target of stabilizing the C02 emissions at the 1990 level. We on this side of the House have been saying this all along. It is what environmental groups have been saying as well. Reducing energy demand is one of the best ways to reduce pollution.
In commenting on the current environmental summit in Rio, one expert said recently: "The ultimate environmental issue is how we use energy, the technology of energy for fueling our cars, heating our homes, producing goods and services".
I am very pleased today to see that the government has finally started to get this message. It has proceeded with Bill C-41, legislation which I said earlier is long overdue.
I want to turn for a moment to my home province of Prince Edward Island and to the progress that has been made there on alternate energy work.
A waste plant at Charlottetown bums the local garbage to provide heat for several nearby buildings including a hospital, a high school, two shopping malls and two colleges. The garbage that would otherwise get landfilled is turned into steam for local use. This plant was given a beautification award not very long ago by the local community. My province is extremely dependent on imported oil for its fuel needs, yet the energy from this waste plant has reduced the amount of oil needed to be imported. At the same time, it has helped to clean up the environment.
I will conclude my remarks by saying I am pleased that this government has finally moved in this direction and has brought in legislation for energy efficiency and diversity in energy. Certainly, it is legislation that is long overdue.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-41. This bill is certainly a very minor step by the government with regard to energy efficiency and energy efficiency for Canadian industry.
I doubt this bill will actually take us to the situation we were at in 1983 or 1984. The former Liberal government had a very aggressive program for energy conservation and alternate energy use. It was a massive national program to try to take us off oil and fossil fuels.
This legislation sets some standards. It makes provisions for efficiency in appliances and prohibits the use of appliances which are traded or moved across provincial or international borders. It regulates the sale of such equipment which is transported interprovincially. It establishes minimum levels of energy efficiency for household refrigerators, freezers, ranges, ovens, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers. It tries to do it in parallel with the United States so that whatever is produced in either country would be compatible for trade and useful in that regard.
But if we look back to where we were in 1984 before this government came to power, the Main Estimates will show that with conservation and renewable energy the Government of Canada was spending $575 million then. By 1988-89 the actual expenditures had been reduced to almost nothing. In 1989-90 it was something like $44 million. Since then there has been no commitment for energy conservation and renewable energy.
That is a tragedy. During all those years that the Government of Canada was putting energy conservation and renewable energy mechanisms in place the carbon dioxide level was falling down. Since that time, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been going up.
This is really one small step back to the future, back to the past. I hope that the government, having made this one small step, will move on to making more steps with regard to energy conservation. That surely is the future.
June 11, 1992

In my constituency in the last couple of years Ontario Hydro has put in place a massive program to reduce energy use in the town of Espanola which has a population of about 6,000.
Ontario Hydro operates on the basis that if one kilowatt of demand can be saved, it is willing to spend up to $3,000 because to provide that in new generating capacity the cost would be even greater. What it has done in the community of Espanola is to provide some $9 million to go through every home that is heated by electricity. A composite program is put in place in which Ontario Hydro pays up to 80 per cent of the cost of reducing the demand. It will spend up to $3,000 to reduce the demand by one kilowatt per year.
That is an excellent thought. I have heard it said that whatever the cost of the Great Whale project is in northern Quebec, if we spent an equivalent amount of money on the island of Montreal we could save the amount of power that is going to be generated by the Great Whale project.
The genius of conservation and saving energy is it is not saved once, it is saved every year. For example, one of the programs the Liberal government had back in the early 1980s provided, I think, $800 to replace an oil-fired furnace with a gas-fired furnace. I took advantage of that, along with everyone else on my street. I spent something like $800, the government provided $800 and I had a new gas furnace in my home. It was a big advantage because the oil-fired furnace was 20 years old and getting worn out in any event.
Now a typical home on that street is heated for about $450 to $500 whereas with oil it was costing at least $1,000 or $1,200 a year. With electricity it was even more.
It is not the initial cost, although that is a stumbling block. But even with the program the former Liberal government had, that cost was reduced. So in that example, at least $500 to $700 is saved each and every year. At the same time, the fuel being used does not contribute nearly as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
I am touching on the program in Espanola because, as far as I know, it is the first community in Canada and perhaps in the world where audits have been conducted
Government Orders
in every electrically heated house to determine the heating and lighting costs.
Replacing light bulbs reduced the demand for electricity by some 70 per cent. Homes were completely reinsulated. Heating costs for hot water were cut by installing new shower heads. Windows and doors were replaced.
In this program being carried out over these past two years by Ontario Hydro the energy demand has been reduced significantly. There is a weakness in the program in that it should have been used for all homes in the community including those not heated by electricity. However, the idea of spending money on energy conservation really is a good one.
Bill C-41 of course does not do anything like that. It simply establishes standards for appliances, equipment and those kinds of things. We are running out of oil in the western sedimentary basin. As a northern nation we should be looking at ways of converting to natural gas and ways of reducing demand for electricity through conservation. To that extent, I support the bill.
In the community of Elliot Lake there are a great many homes which were originally sponsored by Ontario Hydro. Unfortunately, they were built in the early 1980s and were not particularly energy efficient.
One of the diversification projects we have planned for that community is one in co-operation with Ontario Hydro to make it a very energy efficient community. A proposal was presented to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources just this week where we would like to see the federal government establish standards for retrofitting existing homes.
The R-2000 program has been going for many years for new homes and has been very successful. I believe it is being used now in Japan.
The federal government has a responsibility and we are proposing to the minister that we should be developing those standards in Elliot Lake in co-operation with what Ontario Hydro is doing in retrofitting that community. I certainly hope that the government will look at that as an important energy conservation and an alternative energy mechanism for that community.
If Ontario Hydro carries through with what it was talking about which was in terms of $2 billion and $4 billion of energy conservation and retrofitting of homes throughout the province, it seems to me that that would be a major industry. Just as building the Great Whale

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
power project or building new dams, there is no question that in many circumstances we can reduce the demand and provide a lot of employment for people.
There comes a point in a free and democratic society where standards cannot be imposed below a certain level, but clearly with incentives we can reduce the demand for electricity, for our fossil fuels and at the same time help the environment.
This bill is one small step. If the government would maintain the support that was there in the early 1980s, we not only would have much lower levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere today, but we would also be a much more efficient energy user. We have one of the highest uses of energy in the world and that certainly is nothing we want to brag about.
What we were able to achieve in the early 1980s shows that if the government has the will and determination to move in that direction we can become a very efficient country. It must be a co-operative operation because it involves the general masses, giant provincial utilities like Ontario Hydro, the entire energy industry, and natural gas pipelines and so on.
I am told that the building of the natural gas pipeline to New York had a powerful impact on the State of New York and New York City deciding to cancel their contract with the Great Whale Project. It meant they had relatively cheap natural gas for energy conversion to electricity and for energy heating purposes in that state and city.
Last year we had an important seminar on the greenhouse effect and the impact of carbon dioxide. It was chaired by the hon. member for Perth-Wellington- Waterloo, who is the chairman of the agriculture committee. Many members of our committee on agriculture took part along with those in transport, environment, and energy.
No one could sit through that seminar and participate in it without believing that the world faces a quantum change in the environment because of the use of fossil fuels. We must use every mechanism whether it is converting to natural gas, which is still a fossil fuel but produces less carbon dioxide, or moving in other directions.
There is a private members' motion next week from the member for Lambton-Middlesex about the use of ethanol. Clearly that will have a powerful impact if we in this country are able to switch to the use of ethanol in our automotive fuels. We will see a dramatic reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide produced by the use of ethanol as a blended fuel with gasoline.
There are many things we can do in this country. We simply must put in place the standards, incentives, and the directions we want to go if we want to reach our objective of keeping carbon dioxide levels in the year 2000 at the level they were in 1990.
I am sorry we did not maintain the momentum we had in the early 1980s to switch away from fossil fuels, but that was a decision made by the government of the day in 1984. It is regrettable but at least the introduction of this bill shows that it realized the errors it made. We hope we can get back on track and move toward a society that is less wasteful of our natural resources and more concerned about our environment.
This bill is one small step in that direction and that is why we will be supporting Bill C-41.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Debate? 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:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with an amendment) by the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean Corbeil (for the Solicitor General of Canada), moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? With the unanimous consent of the House, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean Corbeil: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin third reading debate of Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.
I would like to begin my remarks by stating that I am extremely appreciative of the spirit of co-operation that has brought us to third reading in what may be a record time for legislation of such importance.

These changes directly respond to serious concerns about the pardon granting process that have been raised by members of this House on behalf of constituents and by representatives of the wider criminal justice system.

I believe that the broad support of my colleagues reflects the pressing need for this legislation. Our goal was to find a way to reform the system without disrupting its basic objectives. These include providing fair and timely service to eligible ex-offenders, creating a more efficient records system, and, most important, ensuring public safety.
The government has reviewed various options for reform. We were assisted in our review by some very useful consultations with affected constituencies. These included the police, victims groups, offender-assisting
Government Orders
agencies and provincial government representatives. They all provided excellent advice and suggestions which helped us develop our final proposals.
I would like to thank officials of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for undertaking the very important task of canvassing constituencies with a stake in this legislation. The Department of Justice also deserves a vote of thanks for its assistance and careful drafting of a bill that reflects such a broad range of interests.
I would also like to thank the members and chairman of the Justice and Solicitor General Standing Committee for their timely review and support of this bill. The government was pleased to accept an amendment proposed by the opposition during clause-by-clause review of the bill. The fact that this amendment passed with the unanimous consent of all members of the committee demonstrates once again the positive and co-operative spirit in which this committee works.
This being the government's final opportunity to address the House on this matter, I would like to again praise the work done by the member for Mississauga South who proposed a Private Member's bill which identified and sought to remedy an anomaly in the Criminal Records Act. I commend my hon. friend for the time and effort he put into preparing his Private Member's bill C-238, for our consideration, and for his ongoing interest in this government initiative.
You are already aware of the proposed changes and I do not intend to spend too much time today going over ground we are all familiar with. However, I would like to address some important points.
As parliamentarians, we have all responded to requests from Canadians to help expedite the granting of a pardon.
It is usually for someone who has been living in the community without criminal activity for many years and who needs a pardon for work or for another personal reason.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
We have all been frustrated that it can take up to a year and a half for the pardon to be granted, even in the most straighforward and deserving of cases.
Why, we ask, does it take as long to investigate and decide on a pardon for a law-abiding citizen with an old record for a minor offence, as it does to investigate and determine if a pardon should be given to a person with a record for serious crimes of violence. This does not make any sense.
We have also been frustrated to learn that a person who has been granted a discharge in court and thereby has not been convicted of an offence must apply for a pardon to have the fact of the discharge removed from his record at a later date.
Why should a person who has never been convicted of an offence be put to the trouble and expense of applying for a pardon if the courts have granted a discharge? This makes no sense, particularly since the pardon has invariably been granted.
I would now like to briefly address concerns about good conduct raised by the hon. member for Brant. The government has considered the cases of those convicted of summary or less serious offences. The current system requires a period of crime-free behaviour in the community before being eligible to apply for a pardon. As well, there is a provision for a community investigation of good conduct.
We have chosen to increase the waiting period to three years from two for summary convictions but to require only that the ex-offender be without conviction during this period to indicate a crime-free lifestyle. There will no longer be the requirement that a decision be based on a judgement of good conduct in addition to the criteria of a conviction-free waiting period.
It should be noted that fewer than 100 pardon applications per year are denied. Of those denied following an investigation of good conduct, most were for people with more serious records for indictable offences. It is these offences on which the government has chosen to concentrate its investigative and decision-making resources.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to take much more of your time. I would like to add that I think the changes which are before us clearly follow a middle ground between various proposals which have been previously discussed. I believe that the changes respond effectively to the various problems in the current system.
All members of Parliament will no doubt find that the proposed changes to the Criminal Records Act are intended to create a more effective pardon system, to improve service to increasing numbers of eligible ex-offenders, to achieve cost savings and reduce delays in the granting of pardons.

The amendments will assist the government to achieve these goals while protecting the integrity of the system and continuing to provide protection for the Canadian public from offenders who have chosen to continue their criminal lifestyle.

That was the goal which the government had in mind as it drafted these changes and I believe that is the goal that we will all achieve when these changes become law.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-71, which deals with amendments to the Criminal Records Act.
I want to indicate at the outset that the Liberal caucus fully supports all of the amendments. It is not a begrudging "Yeah, we support it but it is sort of a weak bill". The Liberal caucus fully supports the amendments and they have been fully discussed in committee. They have been dealt with quite well by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
I do want to put on the record a number of remarks to clarify some issues for the public, for my constituents and for the record because I believe that this matter will have to be addressed again in the future as the judicial system evolves.
Perhaps most members come into contact with what is known as the Criminal Records Act when constituents have difficulty accessing the pardon mechanism and encounter delays or other administrative obstructions. That is how most MPs come into contact with it, and I have noticed a bit of an increase in the number of complaints by constituents.
June 11, 1992

I suppose it does not speak so well of the past, in that people who have criminal records must come forward and acknowledge the fact that they have these records, but it does augur well for the future in that many more individuals are able to come forward and put an unfortunate part of their past behind them and approach the future fresh with a new start. That augurs well for the individual and for the community.
The changes that have been proposed and are in the process of being adopted here were all needed. There are five key areas of change. The first is a totally new process being adopted within the National Parole Board that will actually grant the pardon instrument.
Previously the pardon instrument was granted by a special committee of the cabinet. Given the great increase in applications over the last few years-this bill has been around since 1970-this has created a bottleneck at the cabinet level because all the National Parole Board did was make recommendations for pardons.
You had the circumstance in which cabinet ministers were simply provided with lots of paper. They probably did not have a chance to look at it in too much detail and they probably accepted in most cases the recommendations of the National Parole Board. It created a bottleneck. That meant that sometimes we were ending up with one and two-year delays and in some cases maybe longer in a decision on whether a pardon should be granted.
That bottle-neck now is removed because those who used to recommend the pardon are now going to be in a position to actually grant it. That is a good thing.
The second item is that the act provides for revocation of pardons where a subsequent offence is committed. This was not as clearly provided for in the existing act and most Canadians would find that very fair and most appropriate when a person is pardoned of an offence and subsequently reoffends. It would not be appropriate for that individual to say, "I have no criminal record because I was pardoned and you must deal with me as a first offender". The act speaks very clearly on that.
Government Orders
The third area is that the waiting period for the non-indictable, less serious offences that were dealt with summarily in the court system, is extended by one year, from two years to three years. That provides a better window for the administrators, the National Parole Board, to review the circumstances and perhaps to be more certain about the appropriateness of the pardon application.
In return for that, the process has been expedited, as we have already mentioned, so that it should not take two years to have the application dealt with.
The fourth item I have always regarded as the area that needed reform first. It was bizarre that this circumstance actually came into existence. In the Criminal Code there is a provision for granting to an offender a discharge for the offence, conditional or absolute.
The code states very clearly that when a discharge is granted, conditional or absolute, the offender is deemed not to have been convicted of the offence. That makes sense to me. In the process that developed into the Criminal Records Act that statute reversed the whole process and stated that even though you were deemed never to have been convicted of an offence, this act deemed you to have been convicted of the offence and so your criminal record was there.
That was bizarre. It meant that all of these people who had committed relatively minor offences, because the court does not give discharges for serious offences, for subsequent offenders and for multiple offenders, had this circumstance in which they were drawn back into the administration. They were brought back in to apply for pardons when the court and the judge had already made a decision that the person should not have a criminal record.
Foolishly in a bizarre twist, that was creating extra work for the National Parole Board and the special committee of cabinet. I do not know how the system evolved. I know that the Criminal Records Act was passed in 1970. At about the same time the provisions for conditional discharges and absolute discharges were passed and implemented. Somewhere in the system the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. The government of the day let it evolve to the point at which now, some 20 years later, it is undoing that unfortunate administrative overlap.
That is a good thing. We have a conditional or an absolute discharge at the time of conviction within one or three years depending on whether it is an absolute or conditional discharge and automatically the criminal records are removed.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
I guess I should not call it the criminal record. The act specifically refers to the record of the discharge being removed because, as I will point out later, there are still some problems in the field dealing with the definition of criminal record.
The fifth area is that the act envisages special guidelines now to assist the board and the public in developing criteria in relation to special kinds of offences when maybe we should be looking more closely at the process of pardons. Here we are talking about serious offences of violence and certain types of sexual offences.
It may well be that our society should be looking closely at the whole process by which we pardon individuals who may find themselves locked into patterns of conduct that are unsociable and it may be that we should look at that more closely.
The act envisages that and requires those criteria to be developed.
In the end after those five changes and some more minor changes we have a much more effective administration of the process of applications for pardons. That is better for individuals and for the community.
We also have a more expeditious disposition so that when an individual has reached the point in his or her life that time has passed, whether it be three years, five years, or whatever other period is appropriate, when they feel they are entitled to the "pardon", they can come forward and have it disposed of within a reasonable period of time so that they can get on with the rest of their lives.
If they need a pardon to apply for a job, a certain type of job, a career change, go to school, whatever entitlement or advancement they are looking for, hopefully they will see that the pardon can be there and they can move on and leave the past behind.
For the sake of the record, and not to detract from our indication of support for these amendments, I want to address some areas in the existing act that remain in my view unaddressed. In some way I want to be critical of those who drafted the law some 22 years ago because they made some errors which are visited upon this generation two generations later.
The act is called the Criminal Records Act. In point of fact, this act does not even deal with criminal records. It
does not even try. It does not even use the concept of criminal records. It is an act about pardons. It is a statute that deals with pardons.
I should pause here to say that the act does not even define what a pardon is. That is a problem for the technocrats, the lawyers. I will leave that one.
I want to go back to this criminal record issue. Because the title contains the words criminal record, people tend to think in terms of criminal records, but the act does not tiy to deal with criminal records.
It does not even tiy to deal with the specific item called a record of conviction. That is the document that is created when an individual is convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code. That is called a record of conviction and it is a real piece of paper in a file and copies of it are forwarded to the appropriate filing locations in the country. Ultimately outside the original court files it ends up with the Canadian police information system, which we call CPIC.
It is regrettable that this act which tries to deal with this field of all of the records, the records of conviction, the records of the evidence, the letters going back and forth, the record of decisions by the prosecuting attorney, the submissions by the defence counsel, the records in the press-all of that-does not deal with it. It just leaves it sitting there and that is a bit of a problem which we will ultimately want to address.
Here are some of the reasons. The act does not deal with destruction of the criminal records. The act says you get a pardon. The layman out there and the MP right here do not really understand what that means because the act really is not clear. The act does not define pardon, but it tries to show the effect. It states what the effect of a pardon is without defining what the pardon is. One of those is that "in the case of any pardon the conviction in respect of which the pardon is granted or issued should no longer reflect adversely on the applicant's character". The verb here is should-should no longer reflect.
The individual who applies for a pardon really expects that the conviction will not or may not or cannot-not should not-affect adversely on the applicant's character.
June 11, 1992

That remains unaddressed by this. When the pardon is given you would expect something to happen to all of the records of conviction and criminal records but nothing happens. This bill does not try to do anything and the system does not either. All the records that were in the courthouse, all the records that were with the police, all the records that were in the media and all that were sent out remain exactly where they were. There is no destruction of any of the records. The record of conviction is still out there; it is still in the police files, still in the court files, and it is still with CPIC.
What happens is that the federal government requires that CPIC delete the record of conviction, delete the notation of the criminal conviction from the CPIC record. That is really all that happens. That only happens in this great Canadian computer data base. It does not happen in the province. The province does not change any of its records. Do not forget that the individual was convicted in a provincial court. The province and the court still have all the records and the police still have all their records; no changes in their computer system.
One of the other things that is still unaddressed is that when Canadian authorities convey the record of conviction or a notation of the conviction to American authorities-which they sometimes do to the border patrol, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and the FBI-the policing authorities, border services and the customs services exchange this data on their memoranda of understanding which this government enters into. Those notations are given to our American friends and they give us theirs also. There is no mechanism to require the Americans to delete the notations from their records. This bill does not provide for it, there are no regulations to provide for it. That is unfortunate because most Canadians would think that when they get the pardon it is a clean slate. All they get is a deletion of a computer record on CPIC. All those other records I have just mentioned remain there, including the American records.
We are told that the Canadian authorities do not have the ability to force the Americans to delete the record. That is nonsense. We have memoranda of understanding and there is no reason why the memoranda of understanding cannot be amended to require all the parties to
Government Orders
delete the records when the pardon is given under Canadian law.
I want to point out that this act does not affect any of the records of conviction in private hands such as insurance companies, bonding companies. All of that is still out there.
All of this is for another day when we can attempt here in Parliament, and hopefully we can do it as well as we have worked with and expedited this bill, to address in a more comprehensive fashion, with more definition and more certainty, all the areas of these criminal records.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to enter the debate at third reading of Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof. As the previous speaker mentioned in considerable detail the act in a way is a misnomer. I am not saying that it misleads but it really is a misnomer.
However, despite its shortcomings my party is pleased to support Bill C-71 because it makes an honest effort at updating an act that goes back to 1970 and at least brings it into the 1990s, perhaps not as a completely as we would have liked but it does improve the present situation with respect to that act.
The government has gone some way in improving the whole pardon system. I appreciate what it has done and I thank the government for that. However, we have some concerns with this bill. The first one is that nowhere in this bill is there a definition of criminal records. We have searched the revised Statutes of Canada and have been told that nowhere is there any definition of "criminal record". Therefore, we are really talking about something that we have not clearly defined and we are amending a process of something we have not defined. We do not know whether we are in fact amending the Criminal Records Act because we do not know what criminal records are.
As the previous speaker pointed out there are records of conviction. However, there are also all kinds of other criminal records relating to a specific crime and the perpetrator of that crime that are held by the police that investigated the crime, by the court that convicted, by the newspapers that covered the trial and by the various libraries that keep those records. Probably carrying this

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
to its extreme, there is the memory of those who were involved in one way or another with that crime.
One could argue that it is virtually impossible to completely expunge the entire record of a criminal act. Perhaps that too is for another day.
I still think that sometime in the near future a government is going to have to come to grips with that anomaly. It is one thing to purge the record of criminal conviction from one computer bank, CPIC that is administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is another thing to entirely eliminate one's criminal record after a pardon has been granted. Therein lies the anomaly. While the person receives the pardon that person still has a criminal record, even though the record of conviction has been removed from the central data bank at the RCMP headquarters here in Ottawa.
We have other concerns as well. I mentioned the lack of definition of a criminal record. I am also still not satisfied that we know what good conduct is. I know the member has gone a long way in her remarks in defining good conduct by saying that good conduct is an absence of criminality. That is what the officials said at our committee hearings. I am satisfied that is one definition, but I think it is a very limited one.
If the Parole Board restricts its interpretation of good conduct to that narrow interpretation then I am satisfied. If the person who applies for a pardon has not committed another offence, has not been charged and convicted of an offence, then I would say the person should be granted the pardon, all other circumstances being equal.
However, if good conduct has something to do with one's behaviour in society, if it is a community-based assessment, then I am not so certain.
I may have a neighbour who lives beside me who has not committed a criminal offence since the original crime. Perhaps he committed it as a teenager in this hypothetical case. I am asked whether I think my next door neighbour has displayed good conduct. On Sunday morning in the summertime when we want to sit out in our backyard and have a quiet cup of coffee he decides to turn on his radio full blast and play rock music. I would say that is not good conduct. I do not like it and go and tell him to turn it down or turn it off. That might
somehow influence my assessment of that person's conduct.
It could be some narrow religious or moral interpretation of his or her behaviour, about which I should not have any concern because it is none of my business. I might say to somebody investigating that he or she is doing this or doing that and I do not think that is right because it is contrary to the Judaeo-Christian sense of morality. I hope it is not given that broad an interpretation.
If the Parole Board sticks to the one important criterion, an absence of criminal behaviour, then I would say that good conduct is acceptable from our point of view. I hope this will be the restrictive approach that the Parole Board adheres to.
The other point with which I still have some concern, as do some of my constituents-and no doubt I speak for virtually every member in this House-is the situation in which a young lad commits a relatively minor offence in his teens. We will say it is shoplifting. We have all heard the story. It is the same right across the country.
He grows older and he matures. He applies for and gets a job as a truck driver. On his first trip across the border he is stopped. They punch his name into the computer and out comes a criminal record. He is prohibited from crossing the border. He could be going across the border for strictly recreational purposes or for a holiday. He says: "Well, good heavens, I was granted a pardon three years ago for this". However, that does not matter because it is still in the computer.
I will go over in some detail what can still happen, even with this bill that greatly improves the Criminal Records Act. Let us suppose that John Q. Public, a Canadian citizen, gets convicted of a Criminal Code offence on January 1, 1985. I am using this as a hypothetical case. He serves two years in jail with no probation. On January 1, 1987 his sentence officially ends. He must wait five years before applying for a pardon. In June 1989 he wants to go to the United States. At the border his record is called up on the U.S. immigration computer because it is linked to the Canadian information banks because of the reciprocal agreement we have, a memorandum of understanding, with the United States. He is denied entry. This information is now in the computer memory of U.S. immigration, not only his criminal record from Canada but the fact that he
June 11, 1992

was denied access to the United States. That is put in the computer at that time.
On January 1, 1992 he applies for a pardon. Within a few months, and this bill will fortunately hurry it up, he is granted that pardon. In May or June 1992 he tries to go to the U.S. again. They will have no record of his new pardon but will see the record of his 1987 conviction. He is denied entry again. If he has the pardon documents with him it is then up to the U.S. border immigration people or officials to decide. It has been my experience that most of the time they still refuse entry.
The point is that if this person had been granted the pardon and between the time of his conviction and the time that he got the pardon had not tried to enter the United States then the information that would come up on the screen at the U.S. border would include the pardon. The pardon would be there. Then he would probably be allowed in. If he tried to enter the United States after he was convicted and came out of jail and before a pardon was granted and then subsequently tried to enter the United States after a pardon had been granted he would be stopped.
That is the point I am getting at, and it is still a problem. I do not know whether this bill could have dealt with it anyway. I do not think it could have.
I hope that government officials in the Solicitor General's office will meet with their counterparts in the United States to try to get that anomaly worked out. A pardon is a pardon. I do not think a person should be penalized for attempting to enter the United States before his pardon has come through rather than trying to enter the United States after his pardon has come through.
There are two distinctly different records kept in that U.S. computer at the border. That is the point that must be addressed if we are going to be equitable and fair to the people who are granted pardons. I know we cannot force the United States to do anything in this regard. However, I am certain that by getting together a reciprocal agreement can be worked out. After all, this works in our favour too. We do not want their criminal elements coming into Canada and they do not want our criminal elements going to the United States.
Government Orders
When a pardon is granted-and in the overwhelming majority of cases pardons are granted for relatively minor offences, although I think they can be granted for all offences but possibly not capital. I am not sure about first-degree murder or capital offences.
Those are some of my concerns: the definition of criminal records itself, the definition of good conduct, and the problems that Canadian citizens who have been granted a pardon often experience when attempting to enter the United States.
We are supporting this bill. We do appreciate what the government has done. However, the fact still remains that we still have this situation in which a pardon is granted but the criminal record remains. The record of conviction is gone from the RCMP computer but it is in the files of the provincial police forces and municipal police forces, and private agencies such as bonding houses and insurance companies. That record is still there.
This bill is well intentioned in terms of employment, and one of the most common reasons for seeking a pardon is for employment purposes. When this bill goes through the federal government cannot, and I think even at the present time, demand to know whether a person has been pardoned. It can ask whether they have a criminal record and if they have been pardoned they are perfectly within their rights to say, in fact they should: "No, I don't have a criminal record". If they have committed one offence and have been pardoned for it the assumption is that the record is gone. Therefore they can say: "No, I don't have a criminal record".
I am still very concerned about some components of the private sector. A small company may ask: "Have you got a criminal record?" It has checked a bonding company and knows that the person was convicted of shoplifting when they were 17 and pardoned. There is still a record there, and they do not get the job. The company will not say that is the reason they did not get the job but it still works against people.
Unfortunately, that means that a relatively minor crime, and I think shoplifting at the age of 15 or 16 or younger is a petty offence, will dog the person for the rest of his life even with this well-intentioned piece of legislation. I do not know how to deal with it.
June 11, 1992

Government Orders
I think we can legislate and order those other groups and organizations to purge the criminal record, not just the record of conviction but the criminal record itself, from their files so that it cannot be used for any reason. Perhaps I will narrow that down and say that it cannot be used for crossing the border and cannot be used for employment purposes, and there are no doubt several others.
I know that there are times when we will still want a record of that conviction somewhere because that person could be suspected of committing another offence later in life or a few years later.
Obviously the investigative authorities and peace officers would want to have some source to which they could go to verify fingerprints, pictures or behavioural patterns.
Certainly for employment purposes and for travel purposes, I think the entire record should be purged and not just the record of conviction but the criminal file itself.
That is all I wish to say about Bill C-71. We support it, and I presume it will be passed today at third reading and go to the other place.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair-Visible minorities; the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception-Unemployment	Insurance;
the hon. member for Mount Royal-Broadcasting; and the hon. member for Calgary Northeast-Calgary Airport.


STATUS OF ARTIST ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 13, 1992, consideration of Bill C-7, an Act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada, as reported with amendments) by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on Motions Nos. 1 and 2.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-7 be amended in Clause 3
(a) by striking out line 16 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"nomic interests of their members;";
(b) by striking out line 20 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"other questions concerning them, and
(d) the right of artists to equity through programming and employment opportunities which serve the needs and interests of Canadian men, women, and children, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society."
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-7 be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 16 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"nomic interests of their members;";
(b)	by striking out line 20 and page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"other questions concerning them; and
(d) the right of artists to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability."
She said: Madam Speaker, first of all may I say it is a pleasure to finally rise to this bill and address the issue of the status of the artist in Canada. It is an issue that we have been trying to address for a long, long time.
The first amendment deals with the non-discrimination clause in the status of artist legislation to be found in the general principles and policy statement section of the bill. The principle behind this amendment is really to bring a sense of clarity and a proclamation of policy and directives that I believe all of us in this country wish to support and see brought into being.
June 11, 1992

In this particular amendment we are talking about the right of the artist to equity through programming and employment opportunities which serve the needs and interests of Canadian people. The first amendment deals, I believe, with the right of artists through programming and employment opportunities which serve the needs and interests of Canadian women and children, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society.
It is really vital that we ensure that Canadians of different cultures are seen as well as employed. The principle that we are placing before this House in this particular amendment is that it is not good enough just to have employment equity as a principle and that we would have people of all races, colours, languages and religions before us. We have to make a concerted effort to ensure that people of colour, people of different ethnic backgrounds are present and can be heard by all people.
It is in seeing the diversity of Canada on the screen, it is in hearing the different voices and the different accents, it is in an appreciation of this incredible diversity that is the reality of the Canadian picture. In fact, it is something that we have been talking about really through this whole constitutional debate, the debate about who we are as a people and what we are as a people. If the what we are as people and who we are as a people is fundamentally the differences that make the greatness of this country then you have to have those people involved, in front of the scene, behind the scene, helping us select the news and in helping us to understand the different messages that are coming because there are cultural differences. It is through these cultural differences and in the eyes and voices of these people that we are able to appreciate and understand not only local, regional, provincial and national news, but also the international milieu.
This amendment is similar to a provision that you can find in the Broadcasting Act. When the Canadian Actors Equity came before the committee they told us that we need to be able to ensure that, as an example, aboriginal cultures are not left to wither away and die not only because it would be tantamount to intellectual genocide for those who spring from those cultures but because those who do not must be able to have a knowledge and an understanding of it.
The more you see people, whether it is our aboriginal people who we are becoming more and more aware of, more and more sensitive to and have a greater and
Government Orders
greater curiosity about their life and and their lifestyle, or it is the newly arrived Canadians be they from South America, Asia, East Timor, the islands in the Caribbean or in the Pacific, all these people come to us with a different approach and a different lifestyle. It is through exposure to these people that we will have a better understanding of our society.
Actors Equity went on to say: "We need to be able to ensure that those who came here as immigrants from different countries have access to Canada's cultural life and the opportunity to participate in it".
A 1989 study for the Department of Communications by Eko's Research found that for affiliated visual and literary artists women on average earned 63 per cent of the artistic income of men and that this is even worse for unaffiliated female visual artists who learn less than half; they earn 46 per cent of the average incomes earned by their male counterparts. Unaffiliated female literary artists earn 57 per cent of the average incomes of their male counterparts.
I would suggest that while I proposed this amendment, there is a strong sense that when you are telling a story, when you are selecting a history, when you are picking the news that should be told, people must be in the news room. They must be there and available to be talked with to enable the information to flow.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts and ACTRA expressed their support for this particular amendment.
We have had an awful lot of discussion around the term "cultural appropriation". If we do not want to be concerned about cultural appropriation I would suggest we need to have the kind of people who will help keep around us this mix that is Canada. People must be around, be near us, in order for us to be able to collaborate.
There is some question as to whether or not this is relevant and necessary given the nature of other legislation we have had in the House. It is my sense we would be moving in the right direction if we would ensure employment equity that would bring us to the point of ensuring artists of these different backgrounds, both men and women, are seen as well as employed was put into place in this particular bill.
As the Speaker, you have seen fit to group two amendments. The first one is on employment equity where I sincerely hope there will be a positive move on the part of the minister to consider this. It does not have a kind of legislative action; it has a hope and direction in that it falls under the policy statement. It does not fall

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
under an action statement. It is part of the general principles and policy statement of the bill.
Similarly the second amendment I was dealing with in clause 3 directs itself to the question of the clause of non-discrimination. It is the clause that, as you probably recognize in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, ensures legal equality without discrimination.
Some of the characteristics have been regarded traditionally as objectionable grounds of discrimination and they are listed in the clause. We all know them pretty well: race, national and ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, mental or physical disability. This list is by no means exhaustive. One area of serious omission is the protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
When the Equality for All task force brought forward a recommendation in 1985, it was to the effect that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to add sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. I think any piece of legislation, until such time as this government chooses to make the proper amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, has to be noted in these provisions where they are of general principle. The general principle and the general policy is well suited to a policy statement that addresses the question of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The government responded in 1986 that it would act but it is now six years later. Nothing has happened, and there has been no action.
I believe all members of this House will recall when the Prime Minister of Canada spoke to the issue of sexual discrimination and sexual orientation. He said in regard to the question in the future, which refers to the Human Rights Act, on April 27, 1992, page 9714 that Canadians should be judged on their merit, not on their sexual orientation. He adds:
For my part I believe anything that discriminates against anyone's rights in any way, any discrimination of any kind, is unacceptable in a pluralistic society such as ours.
The Minister of Justice and others are examining these matters very carefully to see what they can do to advance the cause of elimination of discrimination in Canada.
I would ask the minister to give very serious consideration to both these amendments. I would hope he would
find favour with the non-discrimination clause and the equity for artists through employment and programming, both clauses in section 3 of the policy statement of the status of artist legislation.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, first of all perhaps I could express my thanks to the hon. member for Mount Royal for moving these amendments and giving the House the opportunity to speak to two very important matters.
I would also like to express a word of thanks, which I will repeat a little bit later when we are speaking on third reading, to members on all sides of the House who belonged to the committee for the spirit of collaboration and co-operation that has been shown throughout the consideration of Bill C-7. It has been truly remarkable. It demonstrates that it is possible to build a partnership that stretches between parties and which recognizes the important public interest which is at stake.
The degree of collaboration we have seen today and the amount of co-operation has really been something which has been very encouraging to me.
It is with regret that I have to indicate to the hon. member that the government cannot support the two motions which she proposes today, notwithstanding the fact that the gist of the motions, the substance of them, attempts to move the bill in the direction which we would like to see things going in Canada, all of us, I believe.
All of us are in favour of employment equity. As well all of us are in favour of anything that can strike down discrimination in Canada. Discrimination by its very nature is abhorrent to any of us. In my view the only thing it is acceptable to hate is hatred itself.
The fact that all too many Canadians find themselves discriminated against on the basis of irrelevant criteria is simply unacceptable in 1992. As we look at amendments to human rights legislation we have to do everything we can to ensure that Canadians are judged on their merits and what they can contribute as individuals and not on the basis of irrelevant criteria.
It has to be our goal in Canada's 125th anniversary year to promote a spirit of respect for one another and respect for humanity.
June 11, 1992

I realize that the spirit in which the hon. member poses these amendments is very much consistent with that.
My concerns about the motions are the following. As the hon. member will know Parliament adopted the Employment Equity Act which came into force on August 13,1986 and which covers people employed by an employer that hires 100 or more employees.
Trying to extend federal jurisdiction and private contracts with independent contractors would not be appropriate, nor in some cases would it be legally feasible. One has to remain mindful of our limited jurisdiction in this area.
Further, it is hard to see how the tribunal could force a producer to contract according to equity while selection of artists is usually based upon, for example, a scenario which dictates the type of performer required or musical partition which requires specific talents. It would be very hard to understand how this would work.
As drafted, the amendment deals with employees and would therefore not apply to Part II of the bill. Since Part I is not binding on Her Majesty, it is not clear who this would be aimed at or who it would be binding upon.
Certainly if we want to see amendments made, if we want to see broadening in terms of employment equity, the appropriate place for us to do that would be in amending the Employment Equity Act and it should be in the context of that act that we raise our concerns.
Finally the charter protects to some extent Canadians with respect to their right to work. Recently the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the court felt that the charter had been under-utilized with respect to economic rights and one should expect some judicial evolution on that matter in the coming years.
With regard to Motion No. 2, again I repeat and I support enthusiastically the comments that were quoted from the Prime Minister by the hon. member earlier, that discrimination in Canada is simply unacceptable.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to ensure that artists are not discriminated against on the basis of
Government Orders
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
For the most part it does not appear that this amendment is necessary because with the exception of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, all of the criteria enumerated in the motion are covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms already which supersedes this legislation.
The bill on the status of the artist is not the appropriate venue to introduce protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in one area which is not included in this other legislation as it should clearly be done in the larger context such as in human rights legislation.
Let me simply indicate with regard to employment equity that it certainly is the policy of the Government of Canada that it should be our goal to ensure that both in its portrayal of Canada and in terms of employment opportunities which are offered to Canadians the media, including the arts in Canada, should do everything they can to be as representative of the Canadian population as possible.
That is the goal which is shared by members on all sides of this House. It is one which we are all committed to work to try to achieve. It is unfortunate that in this particular case, it would not be appropriate to include these motions in the legislation. We will be forced to vote against them if we come to that point.
But I do want to indicate with great sincerity to my hon. friend from Mount Royal that I understand the direction in which she would like to go. I am certainly supportive of that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate at report stage of this bill after private member's hour.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1992

Mr, Vic Althouse (Mackenzie) moved: that Bill C-254, an act respecting interprovincial livestock trade, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill was drafted three years ago because of shortfalls in the existing Bankruptcy Act.
It is a coincidence that it has been chosen for debate at the same time as the members of this House have been debating the current Bill C-22 which also attempts to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
If producers do in fact receive protection from "inventory and accounts receivables and cash resulting therefrom" which is one of the amendments that has been proposed for Bill C-22, then there will be no need for the type of trust fund that this private member's bill would create.
Let me give a quick review. This legislation seeks to settle the problem of security for producers who sell livestock outside their own province. Most of the provinces have legislation built into their legal systems which sets up funds to avoid problems for livestock delivered to packing houses within the province. Livestock that is sold across provincial boundaries escapes that legislative coverage because it is federal legislation under the British North America Act. The amendments that we are proposing here today would attempt to provide similar protection to those producers who sell across the provincial border.
The bill attempts to set up a trust fund to which abattoirs and slaughterhouses purchasing livestock and poultry from farmers outside of the province would contribute. In the event of the bankruptcy of those processing firms, the producers would not be left wanting their money.
What prompted this legislation in part, as is often the case, was pressure and lobbying from affected producer groups. Experiences that I recall, growing up in a rural community, also influenced introducing this legislation.
I can recall when I was in my teens, one of my neighbours whose wife was a postmistress at the time decided to dispose of his tiny livestock herd. There were 18 head. They went from Saskatchewan to a plant in Winnipeg. In the process, a cheque was paid when they left the farm. The cheque bounced. The plant that purchased the livestock had declared bankruptcy. It was many months before the farmer received about 10 or 15 cents on the dollar for the disposal of his small herd.
A lot of producers, when they deliver product to the plant, are delivering one year's supply of livestock at that time, depending on the kind of production they are engaged in. Those who produce on their own farm for fattening and finishing often will send the whole year's production to the plant at one time. If that happens to coincide with the time when the plant goes bankrupt, they can be left with the loss of a whole year's work and absolutely no income, even though they still have all the bills to pay.
Ordinary suppliers to plants that might declare bankruptcy are never caught in that kind of situation because their billings take place weekly or monthly and so they do not get caught with a whole year's production on the line.
The model for this legislation is the U.S. Packers and Stockyard Act which is administered by the packers and stockyards administration of the United States Department of Agriculture. The trust fund which was started in 1968 covers all cattle transactions and has been expanded to include poultry and most perishable agricultural produce.
I understand that American legislators are now drafting protection for the dairy sector. In fiscal year 1989 the trust paid out $1.2 million to producers in the U.S. The figures for 1990 and 1991 are $4.7 million and $4.2 million respectively. Therefore, without this kind of fund and protection for producers, individual livestock growers would have been left carrying this bill and it would have effectively forced many of them into receivership or bankruptcy along with the processor to whom they had sold.
Many of the provinces in this country, as I have said, have set up similar types of protection to provide a fund for producer financed insurance to compensate livestock
June 11, 1992

producers against such losses. But these do not apply to livestock that moves across a provincial border because, as we all know, when we put agricultural trade across a provincial border it comes under federal jurisdiction and the responsibility of the federal government. Provincial jurisdiction does not apply. While the provinces have been more aware of this problem over time than the federal government, the provinces have been unable to act fully because of the reality of quite a lot of the trade in livestock going across borders.
In my province of Saskatchewan, for instance, for years and years most of the livestock processing occurred outside the province. That has turned around in the last couple of decades, but there is still a considerable amount of beef and pork that goes outside of the province for slaughter.
The plans that have been in effect in Canada work under different schemes. The Ontario financial protection plan is one that recognizes claims if the sale is deemed to take place in Ontario. It has a couple of wrinkles that provide for licensed dealers outside of the province. When we inquired there was one in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan and several located in New York and Michigan. Licensed dealers purchasing livestock outside of Ontario for slaughter in Ontario would in those few cases be protected by the Ontario financial protection plan.
This legislation, or if the House and the Senate adopt the amendment to Bill C-22 of which I spoke earlier and which would make this unnecessary, would provide the kind of protection in interprovincial trade to which Canadian producers are entitled. I would urge the House to support the thought behind this legislation. This has not been deemed to be a votable motion.
When we are dealing with Bill C-22 and when the Senate is finished with Bill C-22, I hope the joint concerns of this House will be such that Bill C-22 will contain an adequate amendment to the bankruptcy laws which will protect producers of livestock and other farm products that move across provincial borders for processing so that in the event the processor goes bankrupt those farmers will receive their money.
Private Members' Business


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill C-254.
The issue of suppliers being unpaid after a buyer has failed financially has been a longstanding and very difficult problem not only for livestock producers but for business people throughout Canadian industry as well.
In the agricultural sector various producer organizations have been involved in trying to find solutions to this problem for quite some time. For example, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association has suggested that a program like the United States Packers and Stockyards Act be established.
Under this act meat packers must hold all inventories, accounts receivable and cash in a deemed trust until full payment has been received by any unpaid sellers of livestock. But in Canada such comprehensive legislation would be beyond the constitutional power of the federal government and in any case would address the difficulties of only one sector of the Canadian industry.
Clearly a much broader approach to the problem of unpaid suppliers is needed. For that reason in June 1991 the government introduced Bill C-22, amendments to the Bankruptcy Act.
At present suppliers who are unpaid at the time of a buyer's bankruptcy have the status of ordinary, unsecured creditors. The proposed amendments would add to the act the right of suppliers to repossess goods for which they have not been paid in cases of either bankruptcy or receivership. This right would be subject to the conditions that the goods are both identifiable and in the same state as delivered.
For unpaid farmers and fishermen whose products are often not identifiable after delivery or are quickly reprocessed, these conditions limit the usefulness of the proposed section.
Therefore an additional amendment to the act introduced under Bill C-22 on May 5 of this year would provide special protection for these producers. This amendment provides unpaid farmers or fishermen with a priority claim on the inventory of the purchaser for the full value of the goods they have supplied.

Private Members' Business
Where a farmer or fisherman sells and delivers products within 15 days before the purchaser becomes bankrupt or goes into receivership, the farmer or fisherman has 30 days to file a claim on any unpaid amount. That claim would be secured by a charge on all of the purchaser's inventory and it would rank above all other claims except those of other unpaid suppliers.
Clearly this amendment which was proposed by the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in response to a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs would go a long way toward improving protection for fishermen and for all agricultural producers.
On the other hand, Bill C-254 in terms of what we wanted to do is extremely limited in scope and would give enhanced protection to livestock producers only on interprovincial sales and only on sales to corporate slaughterhouses. In such cases the company would be deemed to hold any unpaid portion of the sale price in trust on behalf of the producer.
Bill C-254 does not provide a time period after which the trust lapses. Since unpaid supplier protection would be provided under all circumstances, not just bankruptcy, the bill could conflict with existing provincial unpaid supplier legislation made under property and civil rights authority.
As well, because Bill C-254 does not allow for provincial co-operation and participation, as does the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act for instance, the legislation would be very difficult to implement.
I appreciate the remarks of my hon. colleague and recognize as well that when this bill is finally passed hopefully it will deal with his concerns as well. When he says that this bill has been on the Order Paper for close to three years, that is a long time and a lot of things have changed in that period of time.
The Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations completed its clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-22 on May 13, accepting the bill as amended including a special right for farmers and fishermen. When the bill is passed into law it will be closely monitored to determine whether fine-tuning is required in the future. In fact Bill C-22 requires that the amended Bankruptcy Act be reviewed by a parliamentary committee three years after coming into force.
In the interim the amendment to the act to provide unpaid farmers and fishermen with a priority claim on inventory represents a very real gain. At present unpaid farmers are unsecured creditors. With the enactment of Bill C-22 they would be ahead of the secured creditors, which we think would be a great benefit to agricultural producers.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to say a few words about the Bill C-254 of the hon. member for Mackenzie. This bill deals with a problem that many agricultural producers face from time to time when they ship livestock to a packing company, a grower or a buyer outside their own provinces. The individual goes broke. His cheque is no good for the livestock that he has purchased. The farmer is left holding the bag with no benefits.
This bill seeks to deal with the situation where it is a no credit sale. The money would go into a fund which would ensure that the bill was paid. If the livestock or whatever produce was kept, the farmer would be paid.
I was interested in the words of the parliamentary secretary when he talked about Bill C-22. Most agricultural groups were not happy with the amendments made in Bill C-22 respecting bankruptcy legislation which was just passed this week. The parliamentary secretary said that the bill would be closely monitored, that there would be a review after three years and all the rest of it.
There has been an ongoing review for the last three or four months in which practically every farm organization made clear they did not want to wait three years for a review. They did not want to worry about monitoring. They just wanted the bill amended as it should be.
The hon. member for Dartmouth brought forward amendments to the legislation which the government steadfastly refused to accept. The parliamentary secretary glossed over the super priority where a farmer or fisherman sells his produce to a company and the company goes broke. He would have a super priority on inventory, but on accounts receivable or other accounts payable it simply would not apply. If there is inventory in the company at the time it goes into bankruptcy then it works, but if it is a claim against accounts receivable it simply does not work.
June 11, 1992

For instance, James Goodhand of the Ontario Pork Association, Pork Ontario, wrote to members of the agriculture committee. In describing the deficiencies of Bill C-22, he said:
Specifically the proposed changes only allow livestock producers to be repaid from inventory on hand, which is inadequate. As with cattle, hogs are slaughtered and become which will remain in inventory for only a very short time.
If the inventory moves on there is nothing, but if there are accounts receivable for hundreds of thousands of dollars the farmer cannot claim that. The Tories know that, but they have their little deal all cooked up with the big companies. They are looking after them rather than looking after Ontario pork producers, beef producers or whatever other group.
Mr. Goodhand went on to say:
Hence, for this section to provide much needed help to the hog industry, it should be changed to allow claims to be secured by inventory plus accounts receivable and the cash resulting from the livestock originally purchased.
It is most unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary is trying to lead the House to believe that the agricultural industry is satisfied with Bill C-22. The bill of the hon. member for Mackenzie deals with a no cash sale. It would provide the greater protection that is required.
We turn to the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board and its comments with regard to Bill C-22 which is trying to alleviate some of the same problems outlined in Bill C-254.
In a letter from David Alderman, chairman of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, it is stated:
Section 81(2) of the bill was intended to protect suppliers of agricultural products from dealers who have become bankrupt or forced into receivership. It is the opinion of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board that this protection has not been accomplished under the present form of this section.
Our board, in support with other commodity organizations, is proposing the attached appendix, Minor Redraft of Section 81(2), which will help protect producers of agricultural products.
It is the same as the super priority for agricultural producers and fishermen in the bankruptcy legislation. They would be able to make a claim not only against inventory which moves on in the very nature of the production of farm produce but for cash on hand or accounts receivable.
Government Orders
I do not think that the parliamentary secretary was being completely fair and above board with the House by trying to present Bill C-22 as being adequate to cover the problems raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie in his Bill C-254. Clearly none of the mainline agriculture groups are satisfied with the way that Bill C-22 dealt with this problem. Surely it is inadequate and will ultimately have to be changed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture; and on Motions Nos. 1 and 2 (p. 11846).
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Madam Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the amendments introduced by my friend and colleague, the critic from the Liberal Party.
Most of us would agree with the amendments. The first amendment talks about employment equity. As the mover pointed out, it lacks legislative action but it is a policy statement.
Basically it would come at the beginning of Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of artist. It would set forth an ideal with which no one in this House would disagree. The minister, when suggesting why the government would not be able to support the motion, felt that it should be left to other pieces of legislation.
I am certain the minister indicated in his brief remarks that he in no way disagreed with the aims of Motion No. 1 regarding employment equity. It is a policy statement.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
It is a statement of ideals. It is a statement we all agree with. We will support that amendment.
The second amendment is to a clause on non-discrimination and is, as the minister correctly observed, in every way consistent with the charter of rights except that it does include one other important addition which the mover of the amendment included. That would disallow discrimination based on sexual orientation. Again we can make the argument that the battle really should be done in another way; changes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be introduced and therefore discrimination based on sexual orientation would no longer be tolerated legally by our society, by our country.
One could make that argument, though the fact is that we might not move toward that as quickly as the Prime Minister has done with commitments in the past, the way that I think most members of this House would like to see us move.
Therefore, I support the mover of the amendment in attempting to include it in Bill C-7. In some ways, what better piece of legislation to pioneer this area than in the status of the artist legislation.
Artists in many ways are pioneers. They are at the forefront of social thought as well as artistic thought and cultural thought. To have that section included to ensure that there will not be discrimination based not just on race, religion, creed, et cetera, but also on sexual orientation as a reason not to allow for discrimination is an excellent suggestion.
Again, my party will be supporting that amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 1. 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.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-7 be amended in clause 54 by striking out line 2 at
page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"paragraph 51(d), (e), (f) or (g), order an art-".
He said: Madam Speaker, the proposed amendment to clause 54 is a technical modification consequential to another amendment introduced during clause-by-clause study.
Clause 54 defines the circumstances under which the tribunal can make orders and take remedy against infractions to certain sections of the act.
Clause 51, which was also amended during clause-byclause review, is one of these particular clauses which deals with the duties of artist associations mentioned in clause 54. What used to be paragraph 51(e) became 51(g). The amendment now proposed simply puts back in clause 54 the reference to paragraph 51(g) which disappeared through a renumbering mistake.
I am sure that is abundantly clear to all of my colleagues. I am confident that it will secure the support of all sides of this House.
June 11, 1992


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, speaking for my party on this side of the House, we accept the amendments brought forward by the minister. They make good sense.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, speaking for my part of the House in this comer here, I also wish to indicate our support. I also wish to reiterate what my friend and colleague from the Liberal Party has said, it does make good sense.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 agreed to.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will now put Motions Nos. 4 and 5 to the House.
[Translation\
However, I may remind hon. members that these two motions are grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on motion No. 4 would obviate the need to vote on motion No. 5. However, if motion No. 4 is negatived, a vote on motion No. 5 will be necessary.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-7 be amended by adding immediately after line 20 at page 35 the following new clause:
"66. (1) In the seventh year after the coming into force of this section, the Minister of Communications, in consultation with the Minister, shall undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall immediately submit to each House of Parliament a report thereon including a statement of any changes the Minister of Communications would recommend.
(2) The report submitted to the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (1) stands permanently referred to the committee of that House that normally considers cultural matters."


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 5.
Government Orders
That Bill C-7 be amended by adding immediately after line 9 at
page 36 the following new clause:
"67. (1) Seven years after the coming into force of this Act, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act including the effect of those provisions shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(2) Within six months after the completion of the review referred to in subsection (1), the committee so designated or established for that purpose shall submit a report on the review to Parliament including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend."


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, both of these motions that are before the House seek to give to a committee of Parliament, with the responsibility for supervising this government's actions with regard to culture, the responsibility of reviewing after a period of time how this act functions.
These amendments initially were the initiative of my colleagues on the opposition side and I want to commend them for their initiative. All too infrequently we as members of Parliament put clauses in bills which trigger a review of Parliament's work and all too often what we find is that we pass legislation with the best of intent. It is very clear what each of us would like to see done with the legislation and yet we do not take the trouble years later to review the legislation and determine whether it is serving the purpose for which it was originally intended.
I gave the undertaking to my colleagues, the members of the committee at the time that we were before committee, that I would consult with artist organizations to seek their views as to whether they would agree to a review clause being in the bill. What we found was that this particular structure of allowing the bill to run for some seven years, then having the Minister of Communications prepare a report in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, tabling that report in Parliament and sending it to the committees of the House of Commons and Senate charged with the responsibility for cultural affairs was the formulation which they felt would be the most appropriate.
I will not disguise the fact that there was some disquiet within the artistic community as to whether any review of the legislation might mean that hard fought games, which it had won in this legislation, could be lost as a result of review.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
I can assure the artistic community that in this House, neither on the opposition side nor on the government side, is there any intention or interest in eroding any of the gains that have been won in this bill.
It is just the opposite. We want to ensure in this pioneering piece of legislation in which we have undertaken to make massive reforms to try to recognize the status of Canada's artists that we have done the job right and we have achieved what we were hoping to achieve. If amendments are subsequently needed to the bill at a later date which will ensure we can do the job better, those amendments will be made.
What we have done here is to say we will review Parliament's work, make a public report, give the opportunity for the committees of Parliament, which have the responsibility for reviewing artistic and cultural affairs, to ensure artists' needs are met as effectively as possible.
It is, I believe, a good amendment, one which is very positive. It could enable us to make improvements to the bill some years down the road. It in no way threatens the position or gains that have been won by the cultural communities in Canada. It does mean we as parliamentarians are accepting more fully our responsibility to examine our handiwork years from now to ensure we have done our job properly.
I would ask for support of Motion No. 4 which is moved by the government. I prefer it to Motion No. 5, although I understand the reasons for Motion No. 5 by my colleague for Mount Royal. They are entirely appropriate and consistent with the one proposed by the government.
On the government side we will be supporting Motion No. 4 because it is the one which has secured the support of the artistic and cultural community.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, through you to the minister, I recognize you have done some consultation with respect to a review procedure and I appreciate that. It was qur feeling in light of the fact this is an entirely new tribunal, a new experience, a new approach for our artists, that this will be successful in terms of the artists' economic and social goals.
It may be your finding that it would be in the best interests of the artists who have some concerns about majorities of the day and perhaps attitudes of majorities
in a parliamentary committee. They seemed to have placed their sense of trust with the minister and the minister's department. That does not prevent the review procedure from proceeding thereafter to the standing committee if the standing committee so desires.
Further to that, the standing committee is really master of its own agenda and it could under its own initiative, not withstanding this particular clause, undertake such a study if it seems inclined to or if so indicated by the arts community.
I therefore feel there is a responsibility on the part of the artistic organizations that will be involved in this new undertaking of the government. They as well as standing committees of the House should be vigilant. They should certainly be prepared to respond to the initiative of the minister at the end of the seven year term and if they do not do so it would be regretfully a lack of responsibility on the part of those organizations as well as perhaps individual parliamentarians or the standing committee.
I am pleased to support the amendment of the minister and I would be pleased to withdraw if I could get unanimous consent of the House.
This has been a very collegial committee and we have worked very hard jointly on this matter. As my colleague from the New Democratic Party has been very much involved in the on-going discussions, I would appreciate it if you would allow him to speak before you withdraw the amendment I proposed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I was not going to officially withdraw that amendment which was veiy similar to the one presented by the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Ap-pelle which had not been chosen because it was actually similar to Motion No. 5.
As I said earlier, a yes vote on Motion No. 4 would eliminate the need to vote on Motion No. 5.1 do not see the advantage of withdrawing Motion No. 5 at this time.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, we also, as you rightly pointed out, had submitted an amendment. I believe it was identical to Motion No. 5 as found in our papers. I am also quite happy in accepting the minister's Motion No. 4. I think for all intents and purposes it is almost exactly the same. Motion No. 5 calls for an automatic review within six
June 11, 1992

months. The minister's motion calls for a review by the parliamentary committee which could occur at any time.
Again there is no difference as the member for Mount Royal pointed out. The committee is in charge of its affairs. Therefore it could deal with the report almost immediately. The minister is specific in that it goes to the committee that deals with cultural matters.
Motion No. 5 is perhaps a little bit more vague on that in that it talks about the committee so designated or established for that purpose.
There is not much substantial difference at all in the two motions. To try to debate this would be, I think, splitting hairs and out of tune with how we have operated in this committee which has been very much on the consensus basis.
The general thrust is an excellent one. It is a new piece of legislation. We are pioneering a new area. The federal government is to be congratulated in having finally advanced Bill C-7. We are playing a leadership role in the world. As such it makes some sense that at a period in the future we should stand back and Parliament should stand back and have a look at how the legislation has worked and functioned.
I am sure at that time there will be some areas that will need readjusting, perhaps minor, perhaps major, but on the general basis it is always good when we introduce new legislation, exploring new areas, to build into it sort of an automatic review so that some time in the future Parliament will be forced to look at this again.
Quite often, as we have certainly seen in the past with copyright legislation, important pieces of legislation can sit on the back burner for many years. We certainly did not want to see this legislation sitting on the back burner for many years needing changes but never important enough to put on the front burner of the government's agenda.
In this way I think we have assured ourselves that Parliament will look at this or some committee of Parliament will look at this at some future time. If changes are needed at that time, I am sure the committee will recommend it.
Again, I will be voting on behalf of my party in favour of Motion No. 4.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 4 agreed to.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. It is my understanding that there would be unanimous consent in the House to move immediately to third reading of this bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. minister would agree with me, we might go for concurrence at report stage and then go to third reading.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? With leave of the House, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a very exciting and a very pleasurable day for me, as it is for many of our colleagues in this House.
At the outset, I simply want to acknowledge that I am particularly pleased that as we call third reading of Bill C-7 that you, Madam Speaker, as a distinguished former performing artist yourself, are seated in the chair. You have contributed a great deal to the artistic and cultural life of this country and in many ways nothing could be more appropriate than to have you in the chair at the time we in this Parliament move to recognize the contribution that has been made by artists from one coast to the other.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: It is too bad we did not have that bill 20 years ago.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders


Henry Perrin Beatty: Theatre director Jonathan Miller once said: "The artistic community is like a great forest which simultaneously alters and depends upon the composition of the air which surrounds it".
Canadians live in a society which is coming to understand that our artistic community influences our sense of identity as much as our sense of identity influences our artists. A symbiotic relationship has developed between the two which makes it impossible to separate one from the other. The artists that we encourage or discourage provide the atmosphere in which we see ourselves, raise our children and speak to the world.

I realized that the status of the artist in Canada was a crucial issue when I was Minister of National Revenue. In fact, I had occasion to work with the leaders of Canada's art community while preparing the government's response to the report of the Sub-Committee on the Taxation of Visual and Performing Artists and Writers.
Today, more than ever before, I am convinced that the contribution of artists to our society goes to the very heart of our identity as individuals and as a country.
Their creations express our deepest convictions and give them a human dimension. They amplify our voices and make them more expressive. They breath life into our culture.

When artists speak, whether on paper, on canvass or in clay, through the movement of their bodies or the flickering light on the cinema screen, they express our deepest thoughts. They see into the hearts of Canadians and they focus bright light on what is real and what is true. They help us to speak to the rest of the world in a voice which is distinctly our own.
While many people would acknowledge the debt that we owe to our artists for contributing to our culture, I am not sure how many people realize how much artists also contribute to our economy.
How many people realize that half a million Canadians earn their livelihood from this sector of the economy? How many Canadians understand that our cultural activities generate a larger percentage of our Gross Domestic Product than the wood and textile industries
combined? How many people are aware that for every $1 of non-profit arts revenue we have the result of a spin-off of another $3 in spending.
It is a vital and thriving contributor to our identity and to our economy and yet artists are among the most poorly rewarded and the least recognized members of our community, a fact made evident in Revenue Canada's recently released income statistics for 1989.
In 1989 the highest paid group in Canada was doctors earning an average of $120,000 per year; dentists came in second with $98,000, lawyers came close behind them in third place. At the very bottom of the heap came pensioners with annual incomes of $15,000. Although this fact is disturbing it is not altogether surprising. What is surprising, however, is that second last came entertainers and artists with an average of $15,877, just $900 away from the lowest income group in Canada.

As a result, our artists have trouble supporting themselves and their families and cannot afford to invest in the future. As educated professionals they deserve to have an income that will enable their children to aspire to excellence. Under the present circumstances that is impossible.
Many artists must look for alternative employment which restricts the amount of time they can spend on perfecting their art. Their lives are a succession of periods of feast or famine.
Because the artist does not fit the norm, qualifying neither as an employer nor as an employee in the course of his career, does not enjoy professional status in Canadian society and has limited access to the social security programs available to the rest of the population.
It is neither desirable nor necessary to tolerate this kind of situation any longer.

Our artists need a framework in law which acknowledges their special and distinctive contributions to our country and which allows them improved access to certain rights and benefits which other Canadians are routinely privileged to enjoy.

This is not a revolutionary idea. We have been discussing it for as long as I have been in politics. The principles that lie behind it were established more than 40 years ago. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has examined it thoroughly, devoting more than 50 hours of committee time to this bill. Close to 15 key artists' organizations have appeared before them and many more have made their wishes known to me and to my department.
The time has come for us to take action. Bill C-7 underscores the important contribution made by artists in Canada to the cultural, social, economic and political enrichment of our country. It recognizes the central role played by artists in celebrating the human spirit and in giving expression to the Canadian experience. It acknowledges that artistic creativity is a vital force behind the growth and prosperity of our cultural industries.
Bill C-7 will at last articulate the policy of the Government of Canada on the status of the artist. It will establish the principles which we believe to be essential, including the recognition of the importance to artists that they be compensated for the use of their works. It will create an advisory council whose purpose will be to inform and advise me on all matters of concern to artists in Canada.
By legally acknowledging the specific working conditions of artists and recognizing their right to form associations and negotiate minimum conditions of work, this bill will finally establish a place for artists in our labour relations legislation. It will create a new agency, the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, which will determine sectors within the artistic universe, certify an artists association for each of these sectors, and force any scale agreements into which certified associations and producers enter.
A principal advantage will be that certified artists' and producers' associations will no longer be subject to prosecution under the Competition Act simply for indulging in labour practices commonly accepted as a basic right by the rest of the labour force.
The tribunal will be granted the power to settle cases of unfair practices, ensure duty of fair representation by associations, and remedy infractions. It will allow producers and artists organizations to freely negotiate satisfactory agreements in accordance with existing practices.
Government Orders
Last November when we sent Bill C-7 to the standing committee, I indicated that I would be open to suggestions to improve this bill. A key issue expressed by a number of witnesses concerned the matter of closed shop practices. My officials and I carefully reviewed these concerns and with the full support of the committee we have amended the legislation to allow for a continuation of current artistic professional relations practices where preference for association members are often negotiated as part of collective agreements.
The amendments will also provide important protection through the tribunal to important artists, to individual artists, who might lose the opportunity to work because of unfair treatment by associations. I believe that our amendment strikes the fair balance between the rights of individual artists and associations that a bill always strove to achieve.
Bill C-7 will not solve all of the problems facing Canadian artists today. However, it will be an important step in a complex process designed to improve the environment for artists and the arts in Canada today. It will provide the context, the framework and the impetus for further improvements.
I have heard the criticism that the bill does not answer all of the concerns of all of the interested parties. Indeed, no bill could fully satisfy all of the divergent needs and points of view.
Let me try to put the issue into perspective by using an example from the arts world itself. A work of art is created in stages. The artist must do the planning, preparation, rough draft and revisions before the final work becomes reality. Sometimes in the artist's view, the work is never really finished. By its very nature, the creative process is never finite.
Similarly, this proposed legislation has undergone repeated and careful revisions and reworking in order to reach the final stage. However this process, by nature critical, comprehensive and creative, must be finite or there would be no point to it.

After years of discussion and months of debate, I believe that we have managed to draft a bill that strikes judicious balance between what is desirable and what is possible. I think that this bill will do much for Canadian artists; it assures them that the Parliament of Canada

Government Orders
recognizes their worth and wishes to improve their status.
Along with Quebec's legislation on the status of artists, it will encourage the other provinces to adopt similar legislation at the provincial level. But we do not want to stop there. Bill C-7 must be seen as a part of all the measures intended to improve the lives of artists in Canada. One might even say that it is a most important part, since our strategy must be based on the principle of fairness.
History shows that the value of artists must be recognized in law if they are to be treated fairly. We must make this bill on the status of artists a proper piece of legislation.
Another important part of our strategy is artists' remuneration. We must protect the Canadians who work in the fields of intellectual and artistic creation. Our cultural products are profitable and will continue to be so; we must ensure that their creators benefit from them. That is only fair and economically sensible.
We must revise the Copyright Act, updating it and making it fair by setting clear and effective rules that apply to both the creators and the consumers of cultural products. That will not be easy. There are many interests and many markets. We want a law that benefits everyone, a law that strengthens the rights of some without infringing on those of others. That will take time, but it is worth the effort.

A third element of our strategy will deal with training. Professional development is as important in the arts as in any sector and we must do what we can to improve accessibility and availability.
A fourth element will focus on marketing, giving artists the information which they need to identify those Canadians who wish to purchase cultural products.
The Department of Communications, together with all 10 provinces and with the municipalities of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, has just released the first panCanadian survey of current and potential customers of the performing and visual arts in Canada.
I am confident that this 600-page report will provide an extremely useful marketing tool, one which is sorely needed by the cultural community in these tough times.
A final focus of our strategy must be to critically examine the structure of our cultural industries, ensuring that they are forward looking and flexible, capable of competing with the best that the world has to offer.
This means continuing to move ahead with the next phase of the broadcasting summit, consolidating what we have accomplished to date. This means encouraging our radio action plan consultative committee to look for creative solutions to ensure the future of Canadian radio. This means consolidating the progress that we have made in the field of publishing by getting changes to the Copyright Act and the Investment Canada Act passed by the House.
It does not mean selling off Canadian culture to the highest bidder. Canadians have much more to offer the world when they speak with a voice which is truly their own. The Prime Minister believes it. The Minister for International Trade believes it and so does everyone else who understands that Canadian culture is something which is both valuable and unique. It is the reason why we did not include culture in the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement and it is the reason why we will not include culture in any North American free trade agreement.
When you view the components of our strategy to improve the lives of Canadian artists, equal treatment, economic reward, training, marketing and structural change, you will see how a wide variety of initiatives are meant to complement each other.
The result must be an environment which encourages the arts and does not discourage them. It must be an environment which values diversity, honours creativity and fosters growth. It must be an environment which stimulates a strong Canadian voice, different from that of our neighbours to the south and secure in its own identity. Bill C-7 can only help to foster that environment.
When Bill C-7 was proposed last spring, the headline in The Globe and Mail read: "Proposed bill on artists' status called a cause to celebrate". And so it is, Madam Speaker.
June 11, 1992

This bill is so elementary, so straightforward, so absolutely necessary that we should not hesitate to enact it. It will, after 40 years of discussion and debate, give us the foundation from which we can move forward on a whole range of policies.
The standing committee did an outstanding job of considering this bill, Madam Speaker. All of your colleagues in the House of Commons who were on the committee from all three parties deserve credit for their thoughtful consideration of the bill and for the amendments which they made to it. They demonstrated that it is possible for people of different political parties to work well together in the public interest.
Let me simply elaborate on that by saying that for me it was a tremendous pleasure to be able to work with my colleagues, to see the commitment which they demonstrated on a day-to-day basis to the status of the arts in Canada, to see the flexibility and the genuine generosity of spirit which was exhibited on both sides of the committee and to be able to report, as I have done, to members of the artistic and cultural community across Canada that there is a commitment that transcends partisanship in this House of Commons to do what any of us can do to strengthen the arts in Canada and to give long overdue recognition to Canadian artists for what they have contributed to our society. That bipartisan support, coming from all sides of the House, is something that speaks loudly and clearly as Canadians celebrate their 125th anniversary.
As we look to our future, we will need our artists to help us to continue to define who we are as a people. But our artists also need us. They need our support here in Parliament and they need the support of Canadians from one coast to another. This bill is in one small way an attempt by members of Parliament on all sides of the House to lend them that support.
All parties represented on the standing committee have urged the government to act on the status of the artists. The arts constituency is urging the government to act on this bill and the public at large is supportive. Our homework has been done. Thoughtful discussion and consideration have been given. The time for action has come. Bill C-7 is our opportunity to paint a new and a brighter picture for Canadian artists. Let us seize that opportunity.
Government Orders


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I wish to express to the minister our appreciation for his having brought this bill to light finally and to suggest to him that although the cup is only half full, I sincerely hope he is going to put every effort into completing the picture so that truly we can celebrate with full glasses of champagne, which I am sure the minister might want to indulge in tonight if he sees this bill finally going through.

It is with pleasure and some emotion that I participate today in this debate on Bill C-7 concerning the status of the artist and governing the professional relations between artists and producers in Canada.
I say with emotion because our creative artists who inspire us and reflect our collective soul are also, we must admit, the most poorly paid and often among the least fortunate in our society.

I think I can truly say that all members of our committee view this legislation as a first step in responding to the many serious needs of our arts community who are not just nation builders or educators but are custodians of the values other civilizations struggle to preserve.
To paraphrase Maria Tippett in her 1990 University of Toronto book which I have just enunciated, she expressed that very clearly. As Greg Graham said so well, even in a bill on the status of the artists, artists are marginal. This is not a bill for artists. It is a bill for arts' organizations and institutions.
That may well be, but the artist will also benefit in some measure from this bill, not to the extent that we would have appreciated, however. This bill is another step in public policy that attempts to secure the economic and social rights of the artists who are defined as you follow the peregrinations of this bill in a very circuitous route throughout the course of the beginning of the particular bill in question.
It is such a complicated route, I was going to outline it for everybody but I decided it would be far too lengthy and too complex, so I will just let it pass and let members read it for themselves and try to figure out how they are going to define themselves as an artist.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
Culture is the sum of a country's shared perceptions, beliefs, conventions and values. It is what makes a country different from others. It is what indicates their uniqueness on the world stage.
In the 1979 task force on Canadian unity Coming to Terms, it was stated that:
Culture draws individuals together, supports thought, judgment and action, gives a community its character and personality, differentiates it from other communities and encourages its members to seek common objectives.
A year ago, the Belanger-Campeau commission report-I see some of its members in this House-went even further in the definition of an artist and included artists in the following way. They said:
Culture is the sum of the works which the artists of an entire people had gleaned from the collective imagination as well as from the habits, words, songs, and accents that represent the everyday expression of that people. It is its culture, nurtured and supported by creative artists and researchers, nurtured by artists, experienced by every element that breathes life into identity.
Clearly the arts help us to better understand ourselves, who we are, where we come from. Through the personal expression and performance of individual artists, we develop a better sense of our personal and collective identities. Canada's creators express the great diversity of this nation's people, and it is our strength.
A country's artists are key to its identity. They are a country's ID card and our artists are our seers. It is through our creators that society better understands itself.
As we travel the world or the world comes to our shores, it is our cultural identity that distinguishes us from other nations. They say we are a peaceful people. I hope we keep it that way, that we believe in fairness and equity. I hope we keep it that way, but that is what distinguishes us in the world of nations.
It is difficult for a lot of us if you think about it. How do you associate countries? You associate Russia and Tolstoy, n 'est pas"? I wish I could have said that in Russian, but I cannot. How do you dissociate France from Hugo, Ireland from Joyce, England from Dickens or Shakespeare and from a musical perspective we just had the world of Beethoven and his homeland rings clear as a bell in his musical cutouts.
I could go on and name many of the musical artists around the world, and you could almost immediately identify them with the country of origin. It is so easy, Rodgers and Hammerstein and American jazz. You think American jazz, do you not, when you think of the United States?
We have the same kind of ability right here. We are growing very quickly and we have some wonderful artists who are easily now identified as Canadians on the international arena.
Dr. Jean-Pierre Wallot of the National Archives during our committee hearings and in particular on The Ties That Bind, when we were looking at the Canadian Constitution and cultures' place within the Confederation said:
The United States and France have a strong national identity. This national identity is constantly being nurtured. Through the erection of monuments, the collecting of archives, and through teaching in schools et cetera, a highly developed sense of patriotism and attachment to the nation is developed in these countries, even when deep splits exist.
During their lifetimes artists have challenged their countrymen and often were anything but celebrated in their own homelands. They were broke and they were exiled, yet they revolutionized their country's identities. Today it is our singers, performers, film makers, visual artists, broadcasters, writers, and dancers who bring culture to life. We have many successes and many stars in every field.
Unfortunately, far too often they are overlooked until they get an international reputation. They have not been seen very often as central to the formulation of cultural policies here in this country.
Paul Siren, who has been a proponent of the status of artist legislation for 20 years, is a stalwart in the field of the arts and a person upon whom we can count for wise counsel. In appearing before the committee he hit this point so eloquently. He said:
We need to recognize the artist as a human being rather than simply as an appendage to some property rights, whether they're copyrights or the national conventions governing the insurance for the transportation of works of art, or other legislation that deals with a specific property. We want to be able to recognize the human spirit and the human contribution as an artist in the legislative sense.
June 11, 1992

That is what Bill C-7 attempts to do. However, it barely brings artists to the starting line and it only goes a small part of the way.

The former Minister of Communications described to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture the plan of action which we must pursue. He explained that the absolutely unique working conditions of artists remain an obstacle which prevents them from having access to our social benefits. Their income is small and seasonal and often artists are not eligible for unemployment insurance because they are self-employed. The same restrictions apply to the workers' compensation program and the Canada Pension Plan.

It has been said that the greatest subsidizers of the arts are the artists themselves. Unfortunately the numbers prove that. According to Revenue Canada professional artists are the lowest paid group of workers.
In 1988 self-employed artists received an average income of $15,877, barely $1,300 a month. Higher on the list is the $18,298 received by farmers and $22,515 received by fishermen. The only group lower on the list is pensioners.
There is little understanding that artists' careers are not comparable to others.
It is interesting to note the portrait of the artist because it identifies the uniqueness of the skills and talents and the maturity that one very often sees in the artists. They are about 44 years old and self-employed. In most cases they have acquired 17 years of experience in their artistic field. They devote 35 to 45 hours a week to their art, and merely to subsist they spend another 10 to 15 hours a week on a job not directly related to art.
The net annual income derived from their art is $13,000 for dancers, $11,079 for authors, $11,444 for visual artists, $15,210 for actors, and $18,248 for musicians. There is also little understanding that culture is also a business, and it is both information rich and labour intensive. The arts industry employs 400,000 people. It is a big business. It generates about $14 billion in economic activity in culture and broadcasting. I believe the minister gave us a figure on the fall-out, I do not remember it but it was a very significant amount.
Government Orders
These figures demonstrate that cultural investments has direct economic benefits too. We often forget that. It is vital to our society. It makes the wheel roll.
I see another past chairman. This place is filled with past chairmen of the standing committee: the members for Edmonton Southwest and Portage-Interlake. That is very nice. Welcome.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Thank you.


Sheila Finestone: When the chairman of the Canada Council, Mr. Allan Gotlieb, appeared before the standing committee he described how perilous the situation has become for the arts community in this country. I am quite sure he has spoken into the minister's ear in a very diligent manner and tried to convince the minister to go and get some dollars from Treasury Board and that tight-fisted Minister of Finance, but to no avail. If they only realized the economic fallout they can derive from a small investment. I think they could receive about 11 per cent return, if not more, on their investment. What could be better than that?
I would suggest that we go back and speak to the powers that be to see whether we can remedy some of the crisis in the Canada Council.
This bill is about artists, and therefore I think it is important for the government to note that its cutting of the financial support is a serious threat to these very artists that it says it is trying to assist in this bill. There are some contradictory messages being sent. On the one hand we support artists and on the other hand we are sort of starving them a little bit, through a lack of financing that would be very helpful for their promotion and to their welfare.
Mr. Gotlieb said that the Canada Council, whose main client is Canadian artists, is financially going backwards. Its parliamentary appropriation for ongoing grants and services has been virtually frozen since 1986-87. The council appropriation has been declining in real terms since the mid-1980s. I am aware of the fact that our side is also guilty of some cuts that were unnecessary, in my view.
However, I would suggest that we can make it up. That would be very helpful to artists because since 1987 funding has increased by a mere 2.6 per cent while inflation has stood at 21 per cent over the same period.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
We have had death by decrement and that is the result, according to Mr. Gotlieb.
However, the situation is quite different internationally. It is good to put things into perspective. Some of these countries that have a long history and have made their mark in the world over time have seen how important it is to invest in the cultural life of their country from all kinds of points of view.
A study conducted by the international cultural policy group of the Department of Communications pointed out that in the late 1980s levels of art support in Canada are below that of many countries. Canada Council per capita funding in the 1980s was below that of the arts council of Great Britain and about equal to that of the Australian council. However, both of these arts agencies have received substantial increases to their appropriation since then making them better positioned to address the financial difficulties facing the arts community in the 1990s. The Canada Council has not been so favoured.
It would appear that the government had the facts and understood the problems because this bill has had a very long history in the making. There has been an extensive process for which Parliament, all sides of this House, should be quite proud.
Bill C-7 had its genesis in 1980 with Canada's signature of the UNESCO recommendations in which signatory states agreed to consider the implementation of a broad range of policies to recognize and encourage the development of the role of the professional artist within society, including funding, training, professional status for artists and access to social programs such as health care, pensions and unemployment insurance.
In 1986 a task force headed by Gratien Gelinas and Paul Siren, after extensive consultations within the artistic community, presented 41 recommendations to the government on how to implement the spirit of the UNESCO declaration.
After that the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture issued two reports on taxation and the arts. In 1989 the standing committee studied and issued another report calling for the status of the artist legislation. I believe it is as a result of some of these pressures that this bill was finally drafted and introduced.
This is an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada. That title would lead one to believe that this piece of legislation deals with many artists' issues, but beyond the title and the introductory part that deals with a set of principles and policy directions there is very little.
It brings artists to the starting gate. There is much more that needs to be done. Pages 3 to 36 address labour relations, remaining silent on issues concerning social benefits, bankruptcy protection, income averaging, et cetera.
This bill is largely a labour relations bill and as such does not address the concerns of independent writers and visual artists who are not engaged in this field.
It provides self-employed artists the right to collectively bargain through organizations such as ACTRA, Union des Artistes, and the American Federation of Musicians.
In order to receive recognition for the purpose of collective bargaining, organizations will seek certification from an independent commission known as the Canadian artists and producers professional relations tribunal. The efficacy of this independent body for the management of collective bargaining will largely depend on the quality and experience of the appointments made to it by the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the Minister of Communications. We made it quite clear we would have preferred that the Minister of Communications should be charged with making the nominations.
There are serious concerns being expressed about certain aspects of this nomination procedure because the minister involved is very closely related to and involved with decisions of the Canada Labour Relations Tribunal, and that is making widgets.
Madam Speaker, as an artist you know that the manufacturing trade and assembly plants are not exactly the milieu in which you work. Your conditions of work and the product you produce is not a widget. It is not a manufactured good. It comes from the heart, the soul, and the creative energy of people involved in this very particular field. It requires a very particular skill to be

able to determine the right kind of answers in situations in which there are disputes that need to be settled.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts has pointed out that the experience of Quebec artists with the introduction of their tribunal was almost one of chaos because appointees did not have a background in the cultural fields.
During clause-by-clause I moved an amendment that would have had the Canadian advisory council on the status of the artist develop a list of appointees from which the Minister of Labour would be invited to make appointments.
This approach has a precedent in the Public Service Staff Relations Board and this amendment had the support of the artistic community that appeared before the committee. Unfortunately the government refused.
This bill also creates a permanent Canadian council on the status of the artist. This body's predecessor, the Canadian Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist, was responsible for providing the impetus to progress on this issue.
As well, this advisory council created the Canadian artists' code, which has served as a benchmark for the development of policy and legislation.
The details regarding staffing and administration of the council are not part of this bill. There have been calls for the council to be "managed at arm's length" from the Department of Communications and other government departments or agencies for it to be able to reach the highest possible level of effectiveness. Here again we attempted to provide more openness.
This bill requires the council to make a report annually to the Minister of Communications but does not require the report to be made available to the arts community or the public at large. The whole point of making a report is so that the constituents and the constituency should be advised of what is going on.
Once again this amendment was rejected even though it had the support of the artistic community. The answer was that some things might be contained within this report that we do not not want the public to know about. That is a very poor excuse for not having an open process
Government Orders
so that artists and our creators can air their views in the public arena.
Although I support this bill in principle and certainly will pass it with pleasure, as a first step, I have argued and will continue to argue that this bill is only half-full because there is so much left to be done from a socio-economic perspective for our Canadian artists.
Simultaneously the government did do some things that were worth while. With the tabling of this bill in the House the finance minister announced tax measures that will benefit artists. These were passed by the House in December 1991. The first concerned the income tax treatment of donations made by artists of culturally significant works of their creation and of expenses incurred by employed artists in connection with their artistic employment.
The second allowed employed artists to claim a deduction in respect of actual expenses incurred in the exercise of their artistic employment of up to the lesser of $1,000 or 20 per cent of their income from artistic employment. It is not exactly going to allow them much latitude.
However, even with those two measures the artists are still waiting for this government to take action on what is called income averaging provisions. All of us know that artists have rich times and poor times. If you are in any of the creative arts fields you have a period of employment and then all of a sudden there is a period of famine. You make sales of your creative works and all of a sudden sales dry up or you have to stop selling in order to create new product.
The standing committee unanimously recommended that artists be given the right to stabilize their income by setting aside a part of their artistic income in what was called an artist's account on which tax liability would be deferred and that the Income Tkx Act be amended accordingly. The government in its response to that recommendation promised in 1990 only to examine income averaging provisions. It would seem to be the government's point of view that such allowances already exist through the liberalized RRSP rules.
The arts associations' view of the RRSP solution is one that is seriously flawed according to them. They argue that RRSPs were created to provide pension income not to serve as an income averaging device.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
Bill C-7 does not address the government's commitment to protect artists' royalties from the bankruptcy of producers. In its response to the standing committee the government said it was prepared to protect royalties flowing from the copyright of self-employed artists against bankruptcies of cultural industries with which they contract and to propose the best measures to reach this objective.
Since the government's response it has introduced bankruptcy legislation. That was Bill C-22 which has just gone through this House. It does not have one single word or any protection for the artist in this life even though those promises were made.
The bill remains silent on the right of compensation by the government for the public use of works of art. While clause 2(e) was amended in committee to recognize the importance to artists that they be compensated for the use of their works including the public lending of them, it does not provide any formal recognition or mechanism of that right for compensation for public use.
In 1986 a public lending rights program providing compensation to Canadian authors for their works in public libraries was introduced. However, it has no statutory basis, which is what the standing committee has recommended. This position was reiterated to Parliament by the Writers' Union, the Canadian Conference on the Arts, CARFAC, SARDEC, the Public Lending Rights Commission itself and the Minister of Communication's own Advisory Council on the Status of the Artist.
We have argued on this side for the inclusion of statutory recognition, even suggesting that if it is not done in this legislation, hopefully it will be included in the new Canada Council legislation which will soon see the formal merging of the council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Let us hope the minister will hear that plea and include it at that stage when it comes before this House.

As you know, Madam Speaker, the unique working conditions of the artists put a major obstacle in the way of them gaining access to several benefits most Canadians routinely enjoy.
The fact that artists are often self-employed also denies them access to several programs such as wage loss insurance and extended health coverage or unemployment insurance which all employees get through their employers.
That is why the Standing Committee unanimously recommended right off that this bill on the status of the artist allow those who are members of certified associations to become "employees" for the purpose of the regulation on the insurable portion of a wage-earning job and that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended in consequence thereof. That makes a lot of sense, does it not?
Second, the standing committee recommended that the Minister of Communications look into the need to establish private group benefit plans for creative artists as well as the viability of such plans.
In the government's response to this first recommendation a commitment was made only to continue to examine the eligibility criteria of the unemployment insurance program with a view to expanding coverage to artists within the framework of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In response to the second recommendation the government passed off the issue to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of the Artist to propose options to solve this problem.
The former Minister of Communications suggested the following possible solutions to make such benefits more accessible to artists: For example, could not the Canada Pension Plan contributions be determined according to gross revenue rather than taxable income? Could we not recognize for performing artists their status as employees under the Unemployment Insurance Act without impinging on their status as entrepreneurs under the Income Ihx Act?
Has the current Minister of Communications investigated those options of his predecessor? Could he tell us what the conclusions are? What are the results of the government's promise to continue to examine the eligibility criteria of the unemployment insurance program? These matters remain unresolved. They are critical to the financial well-being of this sector of our important cultural enterprises.
Bill C-7 only applies to the National Film Board, the National Arts Centre, the CBC and federally regulated broadcasters. It does not apply to companies that receive
June 11, 1992

money from Telefilm Canada for the making of films. It is really quite a restricted number of clients within the framework of this legislation.
When the minister was asked why he did not at least include Telefilm Canada the reason given was that the operation of companies falls under provincial jurisdiction. That may well be the case. Yet Telefilm requires certain Canadian content criteria when it gives money. Therefore, why could the federal government not provide within the context of this bill that when Telefilm money is involved in a film project, the status of the artist legislation would apply? I do not have the answer to that. It would be interesting to know some day if we could do that.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this has been a very interesting exercise. It has highlighted all the areas that need to receive some attention. I know Rome was not built in a day and so the status and the health of our artists is certainly not one I can anticipate, particularly at this time and unfortunately with this government. I would like to add that working together in the best interests of the arts and the artists in a collegial and non-partisan way and if we could continue in this mode of operation and if it could be extended to other committees, I do believe the well-being of Canada could be assured. We could see through these expressions the sense of hope and the sense of future that we can look forward to in this wonderful land in which we are privileged to live.
I would like to reflect at this point on the words of a cultural nationalist for whom I have a great deal of respect, Mr. Bernard Ostry. In a recent speech at Carleton University he said:
Only developing the mind and imagination of Canadians can we survive with influence over our life and our community. Only by that influence can we come together, even if only in the old way we know so well, the way of agreeing to differ, of live and let live.
He went on to say: "One thing remains. We have to act". I might add it is my hope that the work for the Canadian artists has only just begun and we will work and act so that it may continue and flourish and grow.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, it gives me much pleasure to have the privilege of being able to add a few words on this historic occasion on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.
First of all, I also mention as the member for the Liberal Party and the minister did, how well we worked
Government Orders
on the committee. We worked as a team. We were not in there trying to score political points. We were trying to advance the cause and the interests of the artists and we were doing this together.
Working on the committee shows the best of Parliament, the best of our democratic traditions and of this institution. I join both with the minister and the critic from the Liberal Party in expressing our wish that if more institutions of Parliament could operate the way our committee has operated, certainly this institution would be held in much higher esteem by Canadians. I would suggest as well we would be much more effective. Part of the problem with our committee is that you sort of go bump into the bureaucracy. In some ways it would seem to me that government members, including the minister, are caught in the hands of the bureaucracy.
I suspect, although the minister has never formally indicated this to us in committee or privately, many of the things we were suggesting the minister was in agreement with, but that also his hands are tied as were the hands of the governments members on our committee who very often and very openly expressed agreement with the things we are all proposing, amendments that were being introduced, suggestions that were being made. Their hands were tied. Perhaps some day we will have a committee system in which the politicians are the representatives of the people and will again become masters of this House and its committees.
Having said that, I commend all members on the committee. I commend the minister for the work that has been done that leads to this moment and it is an historic moment. I have heard both the minister and the critic from the Liberal Party mention that it has been some 40 years in discussion and debate. Sometimes progress is slow-40 years. Let us then also celebrate. Let us also celebrate, and I will mention this later in my remarks, some of the things that still need to be done. The fact is the glass is not half empty but half full. Therefore, my anticipation is that the movement is toward filling it and not emptying it.
In Canada, more than in many other countries, we should recognize the importance of culture. Art is like a mirror. It reflects who we are and through seeing who we are we become ourselves. We become more. We begin to gain our sense of identify, a sense of ourselves as people. Nationalism and patriotism could not have existed without the arts, without paintings, without song, without sculpture and without drama. A nation could not exist.

Government Orders
Its identity could not exist without the artistic reflections of that nation. It is essential.
This young country is struggling in an attempt to maintain itself and its identity, culture and the arts are vital to the survival of Canada as a nation. It is not easy. The job has never been easy for Canadians stretched across this huge geographic land mass from ocean to ocean to ocean, a society with many different peoples from many races and different parts of the earth who have come and lived here and with the different geographic districts and regions.
To begin to try and bring this together into a sense of oneness is not an easy job. It is not something that the state or some bureaucratic planners could bring about. It is only through giving its people the ability of expressing themselves and other peoples and other regions and districts being able to view and experience that expression that we can finally begin to bring together this nebulous notion of Canadian identity. I think we have been successful.
You cannot quite define it, you cannot exactly put words to it or measure it or weigh it, but we as Canadians know we are Canadians. We know we are different. We know we share some values that are different from the values of many of our ancestors in Europe or our friends and neighbours to the south or other locations on this globe. We know we are different because we have been able to see the reflections of other Canadians in the mirror through culture and through artistic expression.
Culture and the arts are more than just creating patriotism and nationalism. They help to bring forth our individual self-consciousness. Why do artists participate in this activity? It is certainly not a money-maker in terms of economic activity. Many of them will tell you that it is the challenge and the pleasure of exploring one's own self, one's own consciousness and expanding that and moving on to newer and higher levels.
As individual artists engage in that exercise, we as a collective all benefit from that. Not only do we as Canadians benefit from the artistic productions of Canadian artists, but in this day and age of globalization, through giving artists new tools for expression, new
audiences which are global, a new form of consciousness also begins to arise and is allowed to arise. It is more of the global consciousness. It is a consciousness that begins to recognize the humanity of all. The universality of the human experience is now beginning to be appreciated as it has never been appreciated before in the history of the human race.
When the Beatles, for example, in the early 1960s started to use the sitar and the harpsichord, instruments from different cultures and different time periods, bringing them together into the here and now, we began to recognize that human awareness now spreads not only over all different cultures of this globe but also back in time, in historic time.
Through these artistic expressions a new global consciousness is arising. It is exciting and new. It points to a new human relations between peoples. It destroys the mystique of different cultures in the sense that those different cultures are now understood better and appreciated better through the understanding of the universality of the human spirit.
I appeal to my fellow artists in Quebec who are so concerned, and rightly so, with the national spirit of the collective consciousness of the Quebecois, of the French experience on North America, not to isolate yourselves, caught in 19th century nationalism, and escape the marvellous experience and opportunities of a global consciousness and a global awareness in which the experience, as expressed through its culture and the arts of the francophones, can be presented on the global stage and participate with the global human family.
I make that appeal because while I understand the origin and the importance and the drama and the poetiy of nationalism, we are surely also living in this tremendous opportunity of living in a post-nationalist period. Surely the artists in Quebec would do themselves a disservice and the people and audiences in Quebec a disservice if they cut themselves off from that rich possibility of a more global and a more universal form of art.
While we celebrate the passage of this legislation, and I expect I will be the last speaker and that this House will unanimously give approval to Bill C-7, things must be
June 11, 1992

said to indicate that this cup is only half full. More needs to be added.
The minister strongly indicated, and certainly the official spokesperson for the Liberals has eloquently laid before the House, the economic hardships that many artists face. While they have this important task of giving identity to themselves, they are hardly recognized in an economic sense. Next to the pensioners they are the lowest and the poorest as an occupational group in this country.
There are many things to be added. I was not entirely happy with Bill C-7. There were many shortcomings in the bill. Again, going back to how our committee worked, all members of our committee, whether they were government or opposition, recognized the shortcomings of the bill. Rather than trying to score political points and sitting here moving amendment after amendment, trying to hold up the bill and voting against it and doing all these things that opposition parties are supposed to do, we decided not to do that. We recognized there were more miles to travel.
Let us take what we have now. Let us try to approve as much as we can, given the possibilities and the state of awareness, not by the minister and the government members in this case, but by the bureaucrats. Let us go with that.
There was one very important amendment. I could not have voted for this bill and I could not have advised my colleagues to support this bill had the minister and the department not agreed to change that one section to allow for a closed shop.
The original bill was a step backward. Where a victory had been achieved, especially by the musicians to allow them to negotiate in a united way, the original bill would have forced them backwards. That would not have been acceptable to us in this party.
I am happy that the minister and the committee unanimously supported the minister and the government's amendments to the bill.
There are other problems. The definition of the minister is the Minister of Labour. Here we have the Minister of Communications introducing the bill. The bill came to the communications committee, not to the labour committee. It is the labour minister who in the
Government Orders
end is referred to as the minister who sets up the tribunal and who is, for all intents and purposes, in charge of this legislation. This is obviously something that needs to be corrected.
We are concerned and we have expressed this. We suggested amendments. The tribunal should consist of people who should be nominated by the Minister of Communications or at least who have some input from the cultural organizations.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Communications will advise the Minister of Labour but the Minister of Labour need not heed that advice. We wish the legislation had been different and the Minister of Labour would have had to heed the advice of the Minister of Communications.
We are concerned that the Department of Labour, which is experienced and knowledgeable about industrial disputes, will look at the cultural sector in that same light. Culture does not produce widgets. The human relationship and the human dynamics are different. It is not on the industrial union model side. It is not on the industrial labour relations side. It is different. There are different practices and understandings that have been created in this field. We hope that this tribunal will understand that and will consist of men and women who fully and totally understand that and will be able to deal with potential labour disputes in this sector in a knowledgeable way and in a way that is sympathetic.
We hope that the rules, regulations and practices of the labour department will not be imposed on the cultural sector.
There are certainly indications around that different departments do not share the sensitivity and understanding of the arts and the cultural sector.
The other day I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration about the job training program, professional job training, an essential element for artists and the training of professional artists in this country.
There was an important task force that brought down its report on December 1,1991. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has not even responded to that. His department is the most important department when it comes to professional training. All sorts of important

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
cultural institutions are dependent upon those training dollars-not a word from the department.
What I am hearing from within the department is that the people in the employment sector of that department who have experience and dealt with the arts community and the cultural community are not having their contracts renewed. The department is losing its ability, its expertise, in the cultural sector.
I am hearing from within the department that this minister is not interested in culture and the arts, that the job of the department is not to open the doors to the cultural community but rather to close them.
The arts community and the leadership in the arts organizations have not been able to meet with the minister. They have not even been able to meet with the deputy minister.
This is outrageous and I am afraid if the Department of Labour deals with the arts community the same way the Department of Employment and Immigration is dealing with the arts community, Bill C-7 might not produce the things we are all hoping it would produce today.
There is a lot more work to do and a lot to add to the glass to enable us to have a full glass of champagne to celebrate. Certainly we need more changes in the Income Tax Act to make it appropriate to the artists.
We are concerned as well, and the committee reported this in its report, about some of the constitutional changes. Are some of the politicians, provincial and federal, willing to shuttle the arts off to the side? I hope not. There is that concern.
We have concerns about the funding of artistic organizations and the artists themselves. There is concern about book publishing and the authors, trying to make certain there remains an industry in this country.
We are concerned about broadcasting and films, that Canadians are able to see their own films, their own cultural products. I go back to what I said before. A nation gets and develops its identity when it is able to see itself in the mirror and the artists create the mirror.
If Canadians cannot see each other through television and film, by reading books and magazines, if these are
not available, if we all get sucked into that mass culture from south of the border and we lose our identity, as a country we have lost our soul and we have lost our reason for being. Then we begin to feel as Canadians that we are no different from other people south of the border. We really begin to lose our will of remaining as a separate nation, a separate people and a separate identity-
That would be so sad.
I believe, and I speak here as an immigrant, that what Canadians have achieved is something unique in the pages of human history. We have developed a society that has values and sensitivities and that is really the most civilized in the world.
The Prime Minister quoted that the United Nations, through some measurement, has considered Canada to be the number one place. I agree in this one instance with our Prime Minister and certainly with the United Nations. In many ways Canada is number one. We have and share values that in the evolution of our humanity are unique. It is at a high pinnacle. It is worth not just preserving but broadcasting to the world. It is a beacon of hope. The arts and the artists are the means of communicating that. These people help create and engender that.
Bill C-7 goes some way in helping them. I am certain all of us in the House will continue in our own way to make certain we begin to fill that cup so that it is not half empty but will become fuller and fuller and fuller.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: With the permission of the House now that third reading of this bill has been concluded, I would like to tell the minister and all members who have been working on Bill C-7 for so many months and have been talking about it for so many years that it is for me-
June 11, 1992

Government Orders

-a very emotional moment as well as one of great satisfaction. I am fully confident that we can go the rest of the way together. I am truly honoured.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CANADA OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are nine amending motions on the Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Motions Nos. 3 and 4 will be grouped for debate and the vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motion No. 4.

Motion No. 5 will be debated and voted on separately.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 8 by striking out line 24 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"environmental programs or studies or studies on evacuation systems; and"
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 8 by striking out line 22 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing procedures, evacuation systems and personnel".
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 58 by striking out line 34 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor
"environmental programs or studies or studies on evacuation systems; and"
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 58 by striking out line 34 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"operating procedures, evacuation systems and personnel". Motion No. 8
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 96 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 51 the following:
"environmental programs or studies or studies on evacuation systems; and"
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 96 by adding immediately after line 22 at page 52 the following:
"operating procedures, evacuation systems and personnel".
He said: Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments to Bill C-58, the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. The purpose of all these amendments is to insert specifically reference to studies and implementation and inspections of evacuation systems.
During both committee hearings and in other discussions outside committee there was a great deal of information relayed to many of us who had become involved in working on this legislation.
One of the areas in which significant progress had not yet really been made was coming up with safe evacuation systems that could be relied on in stormy sea situations such as those which gave rise to the disaster commonly known as the Ocean Ranger that cost some 84 lives just a little over 10 years ago.
For this reason and considering, if we go back to second reading debate, some of the concerns expressed at that time about the importance of effective and efficient evacuation systems for offshore oil rigs in emergency situations, we felt a greater degree of specificity ought to be accorded to the whole matter of evacuation systems in mentioning it concretely within the legislation.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
One example I will quote as far as Motion No. 2 is concerned, for instance, in paragraph 5.02 found on page 5 of the bill under Safety of Works and Activities. The amendment would cause it to read:
The minister shall, before issuing an authorization for a work or activity referred to in paragraph 5(l)(b), consider the safety of the work or activity by reviewing, in consultation with the Chief Safety Officer, the system as a whole and its components, including its installations, equipment, operating procedures, evacuation systems and personnel.
The effect of all the other amendments is simply to bring the other provisions of the bill before us into line with that change. That fairly clearly spells out the intent. It might be argued that evacuation systems are covered by the more general wording. However, concern was expressed by many to me and to a number of my New Democratic colleagues, particularly those who attended the committee from the province of Newfoundland where this tragedy was most closely felt. They believed it was important in order for greater onus to be placed on the need to develop, test and implement safe evacuation procedures that we have specific mention of that particular problem within the legislation itself.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all my colleagues on the work that took place in the legislative committee. There is no doubt that during the hearings we heard representation from many witnesses.
I want to be very brief. Our officials and I have had the opportunity to review the amendments of my colleague. Motions Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are not required on each of the activities. We would certainly be turning down the amendment by my colleague.
On Motions Nos. 3 and 4, this is going to be considered as the drafting of the legislation takes place. There is no commitment today for zeroing in on one special group. There will be opportunity when the bill is being drafted for consideration of the workers and other individuals at that time.
On Motion No. 5, this ties down too strictly into one department. There is a combination of all departments that are involved in this legislation. Rather than zeroing in on one department, we believe that it is better that it is the entire operation of all departments involved in this. Again, we would be rejecting the motion.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have had a very close look at the amendments and discussed them with my colleagues. I think I see the intent of some of the reasoning. I did not sit on the committee, but I reviewed the four committee reports. I have been in contact with three members and I see another one waving across the floor.
Essentially I do not believe that the intent of the bill will be changed significantly by these amendments. Without grouping them separately, I do not believe there is a necessity for the amendments. While I do have some reservations about the bill which I will express in third reading, I am quite happy with it the way it is with respect to these amendments.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I want to intervene on these amendments put forward by my colleague. I sat on the committee for one of the sessions. I have had an ongoing interest in the legislation in the safety of workers at sea, whether they be on stable platforms or on vessels. I am flabbergasted that both the government and the Official Opposition do not want to include in the bill a reference that eventually will lead us to some form of safe egress from the platforms.
All the amendment called for is adding the words "or studies on evacuation systems" which would force the government, would mandate the government, to do some work on that. It has been 10 years. The Government of Canada has done diddly as I understand it to ensure that the research is done to find a way to take the workers off a platform in the event that one of the legs buckles or the seas become so strong that the whole structure is in danger. We know that you cannot get a helicopter over in that kind of weather. We know that you cannot get a ship close enough. There needs to be a way that those workers can get off that platform, which is high above the sea, safely into the water and withstand the kind of swells that will occur. I am flabbergasted that both parties have rejected that particular amendment.
The other one in terms of the comments from the representative of the government talking about the amendments that focus things on the ministry of labour, it is my understanding that the bill gives paramountcy to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the event there is an emergency, it is up to the minister responsible for raising oil and therefore raising revenue
June 11, 1992

who will make the decision on safety of this particular rig or this particular platform.
I argued in committee and I argued in the briefings that the parliamentaiy secretary gave to me that either the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Transport should be the one who is paramount. In consultations with my colleague who moved the motion, we decided that the best approach was for the Minister of Labour who has the ultimate responsibility for the health and safety of the workers. We do not feel the minister who is responsible for revenues, as it relates to energy of the economic development, should be the one who has that power.
Let us put a neutral person from the cabinet, from the government, in that position so that the workers will be the bottom line, not the expendable line.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have had an interest in the particular subject from some long time ago when we dealt in this House with the tragedy of the Ocean Ranger and the difficulties surrounding the safety issues. I would like to support and concur with what my colleague said, that it is an absolute conflict of interest for the minister of energy to be responsible for the safety of the individual on the rig when it comes to pumping oil and raising revenue versus protecting human life.
They dealt with the ocean danger before and after the tragic event and tried to deal with an American company, Odeco, benefits for the families that went through tragedy and suffering. It was just a catastrophe.
I want to add a little bit more. My colleague mentioned the dilemma of extracting people, getting them out of the operation in very dangerous circumstances. I recall the morning after the Ocean Ranger disappeared. The Armed Forces were out in very dangerous seas. Maybe some of my colleagues in the House will recall the event on the front page of The Globe and Mail when there was a Labrador helicopter with rescue specialists hanging into the water searching for survivors after that event.
I can remember at the time the pilot of that particular aircraft, Mike Clark, in the opinion of many people here
Government Orders
deserved a medal for the kind of activity that went on in that very dangerous situation.
The current purchase by the Government of Canada of $5 billion worth of military helicopters impinges on this. If we were taking that kind of money and spending it to ensure that these kinds of recommendations were put in place, we would be far better off protecting the lives and safety of Canadian workers.
We have seen a terrible tragedy in the coal mines in Nova Scotia. We have seen marine problems, but in terms of this helicopter purchase at $5 billion, it is an absolute obscenity. I suspect that right now, today, we could probably buy the Soviet nuclear fleet and turn it into junk for less than $5 billion.
I wonder exactly why we are making this purchase when we could be putting the money to work in terms of safety for workers involved in just the kind of proposals that my colleagues have put forward.
The present Armed Forces equipment with Labradors and Chinook helicopters is absolutely adequate. They need to be refitted with engines and then they can provide the kind of safety in equipment that both the member for Kootenay and the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan have been talking about here today, and the proposers of this amendment.
The Labrador helicopters on the coast of British Columbia with the twin rotors are ideal equipment in mountain valleys where you need stability while you are trying to work in very careful environments. You need decent engines in those aircraft and those twin rotors give far more stability than the Prime Minister was trying to talk us into yesterday with a single rotor piece of equipment. They absolutely lack the stability.
At almost $5 billion, and we have seen over-run after over-run come into this, this is a disgusting proposal. I say we ought to be sending the Prime Minister to what is left of the Soviet Union to attempt to purchase the Soviet fleet. They would give it to us for less than $5 billion. We could scrap it safely. This purchase is absolutely insane.
We should be spending that money making the kind of safety improvements that we are dealing with. We do not need this purchase. I see the Minister of State for Defence here today. I would love to see her stand up in the House and justify this thing.

June 11, 1992
Government Orders


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are speaking to Bill C-58 and the amendments. I wonder if my hon. colleague would get back to the amendments and in other places he can debate other things.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: I think that is probably a reasonable request.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have always respected my hon. colleague's interventions but one of the things I have noticed in his interventions is that he does not know when people are on the topic or off the topic.
I will tiy to provide a little more elaboration in my remarks so that he understands clearly how important this is and how relevant it is to Canadians.
There is one more point, and it is especially important with the Associate Minister of National Defence sitting here. This $5 billion purchase of new military helicopters is absolutely irrelevant. We should be spending the money on the kind of safety improvements that my colleagues from Kootenay and Thunder Bay-Atikokan have been proposing to this House and we should not be involved in this insane squandering of money.
At the same time she might indicate what we are going to use the Aurora aircraft for.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: I beg to interrupt the hon. member. I really do feel I would like him to come back to the topic before us. If he wishes to discuss expenditures as a whole as compared to this particular expenditure for safety reasons I think it is proper to do so.
The hon. member seems to be spending all his time on this particular issue and I do not think it is really in order.


Raymond John Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your guidance on this matter. I would certainly be prepared to yield the floor, under your wise guidance, to the Associate Minister of National Defence who might be able to explain to us why she is prepared to take that perfectly safe helicopter and scrap it and then squander $5 billion.
The remarks of the Prime Minister the other day were absolutely irrational and it is time we had the minister make some sane statements in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: In my opinion the nays have it.
The motion is negatived on division. In consequence Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are negatived.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 12 by striking out line 27 at
page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"isters who is representative of workers, a person designated by
one of the".
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 12 by striking out line 3 at
page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"tions, and at least one of whom is representative of workers."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the major reason for Motions Nos. 3 and 4 is to introduce into this legislation which is essentially, this part at least, health and safety legislation some tripartite representations instead of the bipartite nature of virtually all of the bill.
I must admit that one of the reasons for doing so has to do with perception. In addressing that I would like to read a letter I received in early April from the Seafarers' International Union.
June 11, 1992

It seemed almost beyond belief to me that after 10 years' investigation of this disaster in 1982 that we could have been constructing a bill dealing largely with the safety aspects arising from the Ocean Ranger disaster without close consultation among the government, the ministries involved, and those segments of organized labour most closely associated both with the industry and with the specific disaster which gave rise to this legislation, especially in an area such as safety which in every jurisdiction in Canada is recognized as being an area in which industry, labour and government must be closely involved, particularly in the development of the legislative and regulatory regime.
The letter I want to refer to, and it is in perhaps stronger language than I would normally use, is from the president of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada and is dated April 2.
He says:
Let me firstly thank you for bringing Bill C-58 and its contents to our attention. The scoundrely attempt by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to go through a legislative back door with safety legislation without the input of labour, regardless of its content, shows the blatant disregard this government and the oil industry truly have with respect to fair representation of the industry work force.
This designed attempt by EMR to usurp the mandate of Labour Canada, a federal department which does utilize the consultative process with its clientele and is responsible for occupational safety and health warrants investigation. Why were labour representatives not invited to participate? What are the government and the oil industry hiding? As employee safety is an issue, is EMR the right department to responsibly handle it?
This bill should be referred to a committee consisting of labour, management and government representatives for review.
Thanking you in advance for your assistance in helping to achieve this goal in getting answers to the above questions.
Yours fraternally,
Roman Gralewicz,
President Seafarers International Union of Canada.
As I said earlier in my remarks, I find it unfathomable in this day and age that the government would proceed with safety-related legislation and not have the closest consultation with all of the parties that are involved and all of the parties that are at risk.
Government Orders
More than capital is at risk in the oil and gas industry, as countless families, especially in Newfoundland and other Atlantic provinces have found out to their great sorrow. Surely it is time to learn.
The administration of the Offshore Oil and Gas Training Standards Advisory Board seemed the appropriate agency to myself and my New Democratic colleagues. We also felt, not only on this board but other advisory boards, that representation should be accorded to those employees who work in the industry.
It is not only the lack of consultation in this bill but the attitude of the oil and gas industry regarding organized worker representation across Canada which has not been an enlightened one. They are very resistant to having any employee organization, whether onshore or offshore. They have failed, as in a recent industrial accident, to have the appropriate kind of tripartite consultation taking place.
One of the results of that is that we have these disasters and we do not seem to learn from them. On the day-to-day administration of safety it is vital. In the development of the procedures and the technology and in matters of the appropriate training for the personnel on offshore rigs, there should be representation from those organizations and from those employees who are putting their lives at risk every day.
That is the purpose of these particular amendments and I would hope they would receive some favourable consideration.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in advance of my remarks I would ask for a little time to develop the context into which these remarks fit. I notice the Minister of State for Transport laughing over there, but in this matter I really support what she has done. I know that she supports my colleague here 100 per cent in asking for equity for the workers and people directly affected by the safety of a situation. The workers have the right to be involved in it.
I would like to lay out for her a very serious case about safety in the transportation field. The Ocean Ranger has been quoted here often, but if you go to the coast of British Columbia, extricating an individual from a marine platform is often a very difficult thing.

Government Orders
The development of oil and gas off the coast of British Columbia has, from time to time, been advocated over the years. These are very difficult, dangerous waters. What concerns me more than anything else is the government's proposal to destaff the lighthouses and tear up the other safety infrastructure on the coast of British Columbia while it talks about these kinds of oil and gas developments and other marine structures. We recognize that the government has made the move under tremendous pressure to postpone or to temporarily stand down from withdrawing staff from these important safety features, the lighthouses.
We urge the Minister of State for Transport as an act of good faith to stand up in the House and say that the government is prepared to implement the report done by her department on the future use of lightstations. It advocated upgrading to provide greater safety to the travelling public. It advocated improvements by returning the person years to the department that the government removed from the lightstations along the coast of British Columbia. It talked about returning the person years and the budget dollars. We are looking at $1 million. We are looking at about 10 to 12 staff returned.
Perhaps the minister could stand up and talk to us in this House about the return of lightstations-


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the NDP has been in this House for many years. He understands the legislation and the clauses we are dealing with. I think that he will have the time and many other days to discuss lighthouses and whatever. We are concerned with trying to get the clauses of this bill through tonight.
I know a lot of my colleagues have given up their evenings to make certain to be here. I wonder if he could stick with the clauses of the bill so that we could get on with third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: I would ask the member to try to keep his speech relevant to the point. I think I stood twice the last time he intervened and I have stood now. I would hope he would not try my patience too far by continuing to diverge from the topic. Please relate comments to the topic of the bill.


Raymond John Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again your guidance is appreciated. I take the remarks from my hon. colleague in the vein and value that they were given.
In concluding my remarks, I would point out that there is rarely an opportunity where the Minister of State is in the House and is asked to make a brief comment on implementing the FURL report and restoring the person years and the cash that was removed. If she would do that, it would be a tremendous opportunity.
As the hon. Liberal member is pointing to his watch, wanting to rush to wherever he wants to rush, regardless of the safety of the people who live on the coast of British Columbia, I will try to accommodate him if we could get some small commitment about implementing the FURL report, returning that cash to the lighthouse operations and returning those person years.


Fred J. Mifflin: I want the record to show that the Liberal member who was pointing at his watch was not this hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: It is on the
record. Is the House ready for the question?


Raymond John Skelly: The only thing we do recognize is that that is probably the only member of the Liberal Party who can tell time, so there is no problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: That is not a point of order. Is the House ready for the question?
The question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 4.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: In my opinion the nays have it.
June 11, 1992

Motion No. 3 is negatived on division. Consequently Motion No. 4 is also negatived.
Motion No. 3 negatived.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-58 be amended in Clause 15
(a)	by striking out line 36 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion, where the Minister of Labour is of the opinion";
(b)	by striking out line 45 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"safety of persons or equipment, the Minister of Labour";
(c)	by striking out line 18 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Minister of Labour or the Governor in Council"; and
(d)	by striking out lines 20 to 23 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Before the Minister of Labour makes or revokes a declaration under this section, the minister responsible for the federal law that, in the Minister of Labour's opinion, is in conflict with this Act".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the last motion we are proposing. The effect of the motion is to touch on the ministerial override clause which is at page 12 of the bill where it states:
16.1(1) In a prescribed emergency situation, where the Minister is of the opinion that there is a conflict between the provisions of this Act or the regulations and the provisions of another federal law, other than provisions implementing an international treaty or convention to which Canada is a party, and that compliance with that law and this Act or the regulations is likely to create a situation that would seriously endanger the safety of persons or equipment, the Minister may issue a written declaration to that effect.
The purpose of the amendment in this regard is to substitute the Minister of Labour for the minister, which in the current context is the minister of energy.
The major reason is simply that the purpose of the clause we have before us is strictly to have a ministerial override for co-ordination and direction in the event of serious endangerment for safety reasons.
There is a lack of respect for the consultative process which is recognized by the federal jurisdiction and every provincial jurisdiction in Canada. Those jurisdictions
Government Orders
recognize there has to be tripartite development and tripartite consultation given the total lack of recognition of that by this department and by the minister of energy in the creation of this bill.
My colleagues and I feel it is appropriate in health and safety matters that the ministry of labour, which has both the experience and the expertise and the habits of good consultation because it is required by its legislation, would be the appropriate one to have the ministerial override in the event of serious endangerment of the safety of persons involved in the offshore industry.
I will leave it at that and I think that is a good point to be made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 5 negatived.


Mary Collins: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

June 11, 1992
Government Orders


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my friend opposite.
I am going to be very brief. This is a very important piece of legislation. Tragically, it has been 10 years in the making since the February 1982 disaster which affected so many people in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada.
This piece of legislation has been developed with the input of a tremendous number of people, certainly officials from a number of federal departments who have carried out extensive consultations themselves. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Labour, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology and certainly the Department of Transport consulted client groups and interested parties throughout the discussions.
Discussions have been held with a number of provincial governments that have been directly involved, not only in their ongoing responsibility for resource development, but also their responsibilities particularly in the areas of worker safety and health and safety regulations.
The industry, the workers in the industry and those who over a period of years have developed either in this country or particularly in the North Sea a capacity to understand the real risks that are involved in this business were also consulted.
There have been a number of discussions about amendments. Having participated in all of the hearings in the legislative committee, we had some very interesting testimony and some very good witnesses with whom we had the opportunity to discuss a number of important things.
Two of the important things that have come up in this House and in committee are our ability to to continue to develop the newest systems for evacuation and our ability to know that we have the best equipment and the best technology available to protect the offshore workers in this very dangerous business. That technology continues. That technology is supported by the federal government. It is supported by provincial governments. It is supported by the industry and it is certainly being supported and enhanced by labour groups in an ongoing way.
I recently met with the oilfield workers in Newfoundland. Some of the things they are doing are very much on
the leading edge. This legislation not only allows for that but also encourages it. It makes it absolutely mandatory that everybody understands the regulations and everybody understands the systems that are in place and that they are approved before projects can proceed.
When the bill was first introduced in the House the question of the ultimate responsibility of the minister was debated. I think all members of the House will remember that the Hickman royal commission on the Ocean Ranger disaster recommended that one minister be responsible.
The task force which reported in 1985 or 1986 brought together many people who looked at the expertise here in Canada, looked at comparable regimes, particularly in the United Kingdom and Norway, and recommended that it be the minister of energy who played that role.
It is a role that ensures when this process of regulation, this process of ensuring maximum safety, of ensuring the best and the most advanced systems of evacuation and protection are put in place, ultimately one minister is responsible. I asked a number of people why it would be the minister of energy. The reason is that ultimately, this is an industrial project.
There is a substantial labour component and real responsibility not only for the federal Minister of Labour but also in some situations depending on the jurisdiction, the provincial Minister of Labour.
We are dealing with a ship and all the regulations that exist to govern ships and shipping in this country prevail today in this legislation. The Minister of Transport and his or her officials continue to play a very substantial role not only in the responsibility under all the shipping acts, the Canada Shipping Act and others, but also in the role that the Minister of Transport and the officials must play in the development of regulations that govern the offshore.
Ultimately, a minister has to be responsible. Ultimately, it must be remembered that this is an industrial project.
Ultimately it must be remembered that the first responsibility of these regulations is the health and safety of workers aboard rigs, the protection of those who depend on the seas for their living-such as mariners, people who depend on the fisheiy, those who must know that not only are the seaways safe but the ocean is
June 11, 1992

clean and protected from pollution-from the tragedies that come from accidents.
All the responsibilities of the other departments come into play but when action is needed there must be one minister.
There is one other component that I would briefly like to touch on that is as important as any. All the regulations we have in place, all the systems we may put in place are of no value unless our people are properly trained in the use of those systems and fully understand their responsibilities as individuals, their responsibilities as part of a production or exploration team and their responsibilities to each other, not only for the preservation of the environment and their own lives but for the preservation of the lives of those people around them.
It is that training we must focus on. It is that training that we have done a lot of in the past. However, it is that training that needs to continue to be developed. We need to know that when those people are trained they are fresh, they are trained under the right conditions and they are trained to do the things that matter, not only in a crunch situation, when they are faced with a serious situation because of weather or mechanical problems, but day to day, hour by hour so that the workers know their responsibilities and can protect themselves and avoid the creation of accidents. It is a responsibility, in the situation I am most familiar with in Newfoundland and Labrador, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has undertaken very seriously.
It is a situation that the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil Workers Society has looked at intensively. It has worked very hard to develop not only proper sources of training and proper courses but to ensure that their workers are as trained and as skilled and as capable as possible so they can contribute to the job they are doing that they are very proud of. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been working offshore and around the world for well over 20 years, and some for longer.
We have a capacity in Newfoundland and Labrador today because we have undertaken a number of technological advances and innovations and because we have worked so hard on training. We have the potential to export that skill and export skilled workers and give them
Government Orders
the opportunity to work around the world when the opportunity is not available at home. That is something we do not like. We do not like to have to go overseas but we recognize that it is something that is important.
This legislation will ensure that as we develop the offshore-be it off Newfoundland and Labrador, be it in the Arctic or off the coast of British Columbia-those who are actually doing the work on the site can do their job knowing that they and those around them will be safe. It will ensure that they know that the environment, which is so fragile and with which they have a balanced relationship, will be protected and that if there is an emergency they can respond in a way that is responsible and positive and that contributes to a solution to the problem not to the problem itself.
In February 1982 this tragedy brought a lot of sadness to a lot of individuals, families and communities, and to our whole province and, I would suggest, to our country. In many ways the passing of this legislation signifies the passing of a time. The hurt and the loss will never be erased or eradicated. The hurt and the loss will never be compensated. It never can be. However there should be some satisfaction that we now have in place a mechanism that will ensure the top level of safety.
We can never guarantee there will never be another accident. Anybody who suggests that we can is misleading themselves and anybody else who listens. However, we can guarantee that we have the best tools and the best skills available.
This legislation ensures that, and assures it to the people directly affected and indirectly affected, those who depend on our oceans and our frontiers.
I commend the House for the work that has been done by all parties in first and second reading and particularly commend the work of the legislative committee and the work done this afternoon. I commend this legislation to the House for its consideration.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from St. John's East for his presentation on this bill which is very important to him, to me and I am sure to all Canadians, in particular those of us who live in the

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
areas where offshore oil rigs have been the order of the day in the recent past.
I would perhaps like to take more time than I would normally because this is the first time I have spoken on this bill. It is important to give the perspective under which the the bill developed, how it came about and why it is addressing what it is addressing.
Between 1970 and 1990, I do not have the figures between 1990 and 1992, 123 oil rigs were destroyed and over 1,300 lives were lost. The one that we are all concerned with mostly today is the Ocean Ranger tragedy. I will speak about that later because the Ocean Ranger tragedy is related directly to the recommendations of the report and the bill itself.
Just imagine this. In the North Sea on July 6, 1988 an oil rig called the Piper Alpha had an explosion that ripped through its steel superstructure. After a series of explosions and fires the rig was destroyed. One hundred and sixty-seven lives were lost but 61 people miraculously escaped by jumping 175 feet into the water and by sliding down the hoses, sometimes accidentally and sometimes on purpose, in a raging storm in the North Sea.
With that background we can understand the necessity and the concern of all members who have spoken on this bill at first reading, second reading, report stage and now. It does concern safety. It concerns life. It concerns the very reason we are here, to protect life and to make it better.
I now want to address the Ocean Ranger. I do not want to go into all the details of the tragedy, but on February 15, 1982 during a severe Atlantic storm a semi-submersible drilling unit, the Ocean Ranger which was the largest of its kind in the world at the time, capsized and sank 166 nautical miles east of St. John's, Newfoundland. All 84 men on board perished.
In response to the tragedy the Governments of Canada and of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed the joint Royal commission on the Ocean Ranger marine disaster. It was called the Hickman commission and was chaired by the Hon. T. Alexander Hickman, who is now the Chief Justice of Newfoundland.
In August 1984 the commission submitted its initial report that dealt solely with the facts and events pertaining to the ocean disaster. In 1985 the commission submitted its final report that dealt with the broader issues of petroleum operational safety off the Canadian east coast.
It was a comprehensive report. They were comprehensive hearings. The report contained 136 recommendations. On April 14, 1986 the Government of Canada released a status report of the initiatives it had taken in response to the Hickman commission's recommendations. This report indicated that 85 per cent of the commission's recommendations had been implemented in whole or in part.
The commission recommendations that had not been addressed included those dealing with the consistency of regulations of offshore operations and those recommending maintaining the approach of having a single agency exercise regulatory control over mobile operation drilling units.
At the time of the status report's release it was also announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he had been given a mandate by cabinet to develop legislative and administrative procedures to address the royal commission's remaining recommendations. To assist the minister in this regard, a private sector task force on Ocean Ranger regulatory recommendations was appointed. The minister requested that the task force prepare proposals, not only for mobile drilling units, but for all types of equipment used in frontier land petroleum activities.
This task force to which I am referring was chaired by Mr. Roland J. Harrison and was known as the Harrison task report and was made up of three specialists: Mr. Harrison, with expertise in oil and gas law, Vice-Admiral Dan Minguay, who had recently retired as the vice-chief of the defence staff, an expert in marine operations, and Dr. Pallister, a Calgary oil and gas industry consultant and who had previously been the vice-chairman of the Science Council of Canada-all expert advice.
They consulted extensively with provincial and industry experts and they examined the regulatory regimes for offshore petroleum operations in the United Kingdom, Norway and the United States. The task force submitted its report, The Promotion and Enhancement of Safety in Oil
June 11, 1992

and Gas Operations on Canadian Frontier Lands, on July 31, 1986.
As a result of this report and that of the Hickman commission, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources developed the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, a proposal for amending the legislation governing petroleum operations on frontier lands.
The effort of which I have just spoken culminated in this bill, C-58, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
This bill received first reading in the House of Commons on February 20 of this year second reading on April 9th of this year four committee reports, and now we are here for the third and final reading.
There is a lot in the bill and I do not want to repeat a lot of the excellent material that my hon. colleague from St. John's East presented. I know that he sat on the committee and although I did not sit on the committee I have reviewed the testimony of the committees. Certainly there were a number of things that would impress one, having read these committee reports. I want to bring to the attention of the House the two principles of safety that were brought out by Mr. Harrison in his report.
It is very important when you are looking at this legislation to understand these principles. The first one is regarding safety. It reflects the fact that responsibility for the safety of oil and gas operations must rest squarely on the shoulders of those engaged in the operations and of the suppliers of equipment used in the operations.
I am going to use the words of the task force report: "It is fundamentally the responsibility of industry to undertake its activities in a safe manner".
The second principle is that the proposed regime reflect the fact that safety ultimately results not from mere compliance with regulatory requirements as we have here today, nor necessarily from using the best available equipment, but rather from the proper integration of equipment, procedures and personnel. It is an integrated thing.
Government Orders
Those principles have to be borne in mind when you look at the bill and it was for that reason I had some difficulty with some of the amendments.
The purpose of the bill is very simple. It is designed to deal with the technical aspects of regulation of oil and gas and the safety of the installations involved.
I want to get to the main points of the bill. I want to make a personal comment and then I want to state a reservation I have but it will not prevent me or my party from agreeing with the bill. Nevertheless, it is a reservation that I would like to state.
There are essentially nine issues in my mind that this bill addresses. I will go through them as briefly as I can.
The first and probably the paramount one is related to the fact that over and above marine activity, because it happens on the seas, you have another activity, an industrial activity. Both these activities are very hazardous. Sometimes marine activity is more hazardous than industrial activity and vice versa. It is because of this that we have the difficulty of who is the responsible person. Quite frankly, the bill addressed it veiy nicely.
The bill essentially says that in an emergency situation in which the safety of personnel or operations is in jeopardy, the federal energy minister will override all other federal legislations in accordance and in response to the emergency. This override position will ensure that emergencies are immediately responded to in an efficient, co-ordinated manner.
I would have to add at this juncture that I will be looking forward to the regulations that will follow from the legislation once and if it is passed.
The second point is that on every petroleum facility operating on frontier lands, an installation manager who has to be expert in both marine and industrial petroleum operations will be in charge at all times. The qualifications of this manager will be prescribed in regulations and his responsibility will include the safety of all personnel as well as the safety of the facility itself.
The third point is that operators will have to obtain a certificate of fitness issued by an approved independent body in order to obtain the authorization required to conduct petroleum activities. I am not going to go back to any of the disasters. It is not my job here or that of

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
anybody else to go back and look at the causes of accidents. That is encompassed in the bill.
It is significant that a certificate will be required for any facility, installation or equipment defined in regulations and will verify that it is fit and complies with all appropriate regulations and requirements. The certificate will further verify that the facility, installation or equipment can be operated safely for the intended purpose without threat to the environment.
The fourth point is that operators of equipment or facilities used in petroleum operations will have to issue safety declarations to the regulator in order to obtain authorization. These declarations will verify the appropriateness of the operating procedures as well as demonstrating that personnel are qualified, competent and have received appropriate training.
The next point is that a chief safety officer and safety officers will be appointed as statutory officers responsible for independently monitoring safety standards. In other words, this is not self-monitoring. A safety officer will be appointed. There will be somebody overseeing this. I believe that is very important.
The minister must consult with this chief safety officer before issuing any work authorization through his officials. The officer will be responsible for reviewing the system as a whole as well as its components, including all the installations, individually and collectively, the operating procedures and the personnel.
The next and probably one of the more important aspects of this is that an offshore oil and gas training standards advisory board will be created to encourage the development of new training standards, qualifications, accreditation standards and course assessments for positions on offshore facilities. The appointments to this board will be made by the federal energy minister in consultation with the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia energy ministers.
Training with regard to the things that are hazardous is probably, after the regulations, the legislation and the administration are set up, the most dynamic part of this whole business. You can have it all but without the training it is no good. I have taken a personal interest in these events for reasons that my hon. colleague from St.
John's East has mentioned. We have made it our business, irrespective of our parliamentary responsibilities. I have learned and I am pleased to learn that in terms of training and training standards work has been going on for the last six or seven years in developing qualification requirements for individuals working offshore.
Shortly after the Ocean Ranger disaster anyone working offshore had to have rather extensive survival training. I use that in a qualitative sense. Experts could argue with the degree. The important thing is that the training was intensive. Also it is important for people who work offshore that it is not treated as an onshore facility without proper training in things that are marine.
In addition to the other points I mentioned, an oil and gas administration advisory council will be established as a forum for inter-agency promotion of consistency and improvements in the administration of the regulatory regime across frontier lands. In particular, the council will seek to avoid any inconsistent or duplicative requirements which could jeopardize the safety of frontier petroleum activities.
Of the two final points the penultimate one is that the member of the council will be the chairman of the two petroleum boards. A representative will be designated by the federal minister and a representative will be designated by each of the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia energy ministers.
Finally, when a serious spill, accident or incident occurs as defined in these regulations, the minister must order that an independent inquiry will be held to investigate its cause. I do not think it was really that necessary to have it there, but it is always nice to dot the is and cross the is.
It is important to me that the province of Newfoundland in my case, and the province of Nova Scotia in the case of others here tonight, have signed the frontier development accords with the Government of Canada. The two territorial governments, the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia petroleum boards and the industry itself have indicated their support for the amendments that have culminated in this bill.
June 11, 1992

I have a reservation and it is one that I think should go on the record, but I add that I do not think it should hold the bill up. The Hickman commission emphasized the need to impose a graduated scheme of penalties for failure to comply with the regulatory requirements and to ensure the severity of penalties reflecting the significance of non-compliance.
That was not really addressed specifically in the bill. I would not say it was totally disregarded, but specifically as a series of graduated penalties it was not there. I am hoping that perhaps this could be picked up in the regulations as we develop further from the backbone of this particular legislation.
By way of conclusion and if I could be permitted a personal note, I do not mind saying that I have been involved with this bill from the night of the Ocean Ranger tragedy. I happened to be in New York at the time. It was a very bad February night in New York, the middle of February. I remember watching the television. When I heard what I heard I could not believe it. I said: "It is a nightmare".
In the aftermath of the disaster Chief Justice Alex Hickman was appointed as the chairman of the investigative committee. He came and sat in my office in another role I had at the time. We discussed at the very beginning of his investigations some of the aspects of the tragedy and where it may end in the sense of regulations and what recommendations would be taken. Little did I know I would be standing here tonight as the spokesman and associate energy critic for the Liberal Party making comment on it.
I then attended many of the hearings of the Ocean Ranger inquiry itself, read the reports, and I supposed followed the progress of this activity as it progressed.
There is criticism that it has taken 10 years. I am not going to engage in that criticism tonight. There is not a lot we can do about it. The fact that the bill is here tonight, I am thankful for and grateful for. I know it does take a lot of work and a lot of time. If it is any solace, if it is any consolation, perhaps the bill is more complete and more thorough because of the thoroughness of the Hickman report and the Harrison report themselves.
I suppose my final comment on this bill would be that on February 15 this year I attended the memorial service for those men who were lost in the Ocean Ranger tragedy. I had an opportunity to speak with a few of their
Government Orders
survivors. It was a very solemn moment, but I got a message from them and from others who knew them.
They do not want to prolong the agony. It is something they want to have over. They have put their lives in order. It has left a scar on their lives forevermore, but there were two things they wanted to know. They wanted to know when something was going to be put in law. The second thing they wanted to know is when it is put in law, when the legislation does come forward, will it prevent another disaster like the Ocean Ranger?
I am pleased to say that the legislation is here. In my opinion, in the opinion of my party and I think in the opinion of the House, it will prevent another tragedy such as the Ocean Ranger.
We are supportive of this bill and I personally am privileged and honoured to have the opportunity to speak on it this evening.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I listened with care to the remarks of my colleague. I understand and appreciate that he, especially as a representative of the province which was most heavily victimized by this particular tragedy, has both personally and in his role as a public representative very strong feelings and concerns about the subject at hand.
I face a problem with this legislation. Generally we are supportive of it. We had some amendments that we utilized as a means of expressing some concerns. We do feel this is a legitimate and longstanding expression of concern by many people in government, both elected and within the bureaucracy and the staffing of the various departments involved. It was a major piece of work to achieve what we all hoped would be the goal of a safe and efficient work place in the offshore.
While my own background is in health and safety and mostly in the lumber industry, I still hold a seaman's card and worked on the ships off the west coast for a number of years. My father was a seaman for some 45 years but involved in a lot of life-boat drills. My dad was almost killed in one when a 500-pound tackle almost crushed his skull at one point.
Even though we go through all those drills in that industry, and especially when there are passengers at stake, we ever have enough familiarity with what is likely to happen in a disaster when it happens, especially a disaster such as the one that happened in the heavy seas

June 11, 1992
Government Orders
off the coast of Newfoundland on that tragic day a little Second, is the committee satisfied that we have all learned from Over 10 years ago.	'he Ocean Ranger incident to prevent such a tragedy from ever
happening again?
We cannot predict the sea. The only thing we can predict is that it will be unpredictable at times. She is a hard master or mistress, I guess as the case is, and can be veiy unforgiving. I would like to read into the record the remarks from one witness before the committee, Miss Cynthia Parsons, the former chair of trustees of the Ocean Ranger Families Foundation. The foundation was funded by government and private donations and was served by a board of directors drawn largely from the community and the families. The government fund ceased in December 1986. The foundation has closed its offices and has not been active since 1986.
Miss Parsons accompanied Mr. Clay Newhook to the committee and gave short testimony. I think it is important to put the whole disastrous matter into perspective. I will read into the record her few words. Miss Parsons said:
In the early morning of February 15, 1982, the drilling rig Ocean Ranger sank in a violent winter storm off the Grand Banks, killing everybody on board. Nobody in the industry, in government, in the community, in the families were prepared in any way for the disaster. My husband Clyde died that morning, leaving me with two small children.
At present, ten and a half years later, most families have put their lives back together. However, all of us carry scars from this tragedy and will never forget the experience.
We found no comfort in the findings of the Hickman commission. When all of the evidence had been sifted, it was clear that with proper training and appropriate safely precautions the rig need not have sunk. Indeed, it was also clear that every corrective action taken after the first major incident only added to the certainty of the disaster.
It further appears that if the rig had been shut down completely after the panel and the ballast control room flooded, the Ocean Ranger and its victims would have survived.
It is not necessary for our purposes today to take you through the history of the Ocean Ranger story. However, two questions need to be asked, which is mainly why I am here this morning.
First, while we are pleased to see that many of the recommendations of the Hickman commission are being reflected in federal and provincial legislation, I have to ask why this has taken so long.
The Ocean Ranger Families Foundation closed its offices in December 1986. There has been no independent agency to watch over this industry and the regulating agencies, nor has there been much offshore activity off the coast of our province. However, we are poised for renewed activity both in drilling and production. We, the public, must now look to our governments and the oil and gas operators to safeguard the public interest in the hostile environment. Failure to do so would mean not only more loss of life but also that my husband would have died in vain.
The major comment I want to make is that when I first came to this place, one of my concerns was that politics was often too full of people who were still idealists and especially idealists about the workplace. While I know that the input of many public servants and politicians to this legislation has the best intent in the world, I also know and many of my colleagues know that as people who have worked in industry we recognize that the best laws and regulations, unless they have ongoing inspection and ongoing enforcement, are not going to accomplish the goals we set out.
That is one of the reasons we have continuously hounded-I think that may be the appropriate word- this government on this bill and on other bills having to do with health and safety.
There is the importance of establishing tripartite representation on a continuing basis at every level through all of the responsible agencies to ensure that the goals and objectives of our laws and regulations are lived up to on the job. For those of us who have worked for years on the job, we know that safety is never in practice the prime consideration.
Anyone who expects safety to be the prime consideration on the job quite frankly is a damn fool. The world does not work that way. It never has, and it never will, even on the part of some employees in industry who get familiar and say: "I have been doing this for years. My family has been doing this for years. We can handle this". It is the risks that go with it that tend to some time, to their own peril, adopt attitudes, and some time ignore and take short cuts that lead to these kinds of tragedies.
Our purpose in law and our purpose in setting up regulatory mechanisms is to minimize the chances of

that pattern of behaviour happening whether in employees, among management, in middle management or in government regulators.
We recently had another industrial disaster at the Westray mine in Nova Scotia. I hope that it will not take 10 years to learn and implement the lessons that we learned from that disaster. I read through the background notes on the legislation now before us, especially when it came to the description of the duties and the responsibilities of the chief safety officer, the chief conservation officer or installation manager.
My colleague from the Official Opposition a few moments ago gave quite good praise I think to the delineation of responsibilities which is fairly clearly set out in the legislation. That is set out. In every act and set of regulations there is a provision for exemptions.
One of those same kinds of exemptions I suspect will be found to have caused the most recent major industrial disaster in this country. While the laws and regulations in the province of Nova Scotia set out that there must be coal mining inspectors, the minister waived that and instead had hard rock mining inspectors investigating in that coal mine.
There is not an insistence on a day-to-day basis by representatives of both management and employees and government that keep a continuing watch on the application of the laws and the regulations that we construct.
With all the best intent in the world, and I am sure all of us here have that, we are living in a dream world to think that management, government inspectors and employees will do what is necessary to create safe work places, especially in these most hazardous potential conditions, unless there is an ongoing process where they keep tabs on each other, on their purposes and on their practices on a day-by-day and sometimes minute-by-minute basis.
We tried through a number of our amendments- again, some of them were simply there in large part to make a point-to attempt to stress the importance of developing evacuation systems. I know a lot of work has been done. We are aware of that, but we still have not developed, according to everything we heard, a system that will work.
Government Orders
If we want to put some priorities on human life and on human life in the work place, especially when there are large numbers of lives at risk, surely we as a society ought to get some of our financial priorities right.
If we can put men and women in the most hostile of environments, in outer space, and have them floating around and bringing vehicles together and pulling them apart surely it is not too much to expect that we could keep people alive in the water, evacuate them with some security and safety and get them into vessels to keep them alive for reasonable periods until we can bring them back to shore. If the will is there and if we are willing to place a high value on human life, as we do on many other objectives in this society and in other developed societies, we can accomplish that.
However, unless we set ourselves some specific targets and say that efficient, effective evacuation systems are a must then that is going to get by-passed, particularly when the overriding responsibility is with the ministry. For all the excellent people involved in it the ministry's prime objective is the production of our energy resources and the maximizing of both private and governmental revenue from those resources rather than the safety and security of people who work in hazardous industries.
In conclusion, if we want a regime that protects people's lives it must be a regime that sets up on an ongoing basis, not just sketched out in regulations or in law but in living, breathing people who we pay to be involved at the bottom level, as well as the medium and upper levels, to insist that all maximum measures are taken to comply with both the letter and the spirit of that law and of those regulations. Otherwise, we are just a bunch of flaming idealists and nothing will happen to make the oceans or the rigs any more secure for the people who work on them or for the communities they come from.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1992
Adjournment Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Could I find unanimous consent of the House to call it ten o'clock p.m. so we could proceed with the Adjournment Debate?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am doing better this week in getting unanimous consent.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to a question that I posed to the Deputy Prime Minister and that was responded to by the Minister of Justice as recorded in the House of Commons Debates of May 4.
My question concerned the rejection, until that point, by the government and the Official Opposition of a proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would have provided for a commitment on the part of governments to preserve and promote racial and ethnic equality.
I take this opportunity to point out that under present circumstances equality and non-discrimination rights are provided for in section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That provision is subject to section 33 of the charter which is the notwithstanding clause. That clause provides of course for legislatures, including the Parliament of Canada, to override the rights which are set out in section 15(1).
The essential effect of those two sections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to provide an explicit declaration of the inequality of the groups listed in section 15(1).
My specific reference in the question was to ethnic and racial minorities because the proposition was advanced that would amend section 27, which presently provides for the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians, such that it would provide
for a commitment by those governments to preserve and promote racial and ethnic equality.
Since that question was posed to the minister, the province of Ontario has advanced propositions for the inclusion of the recognition of racial and ethnic equality in the Canada clause and in fact proposed the amendment to section 27 that I just set out.
I understand as well that the government in the negotiations which took place last week expressed some support for some form of expression of that principle of a non-contingent recognition of racial and ethnic equality in the revised Constitution which we hope will result from the present constitutional negotiations.
In my question, I identified the refusal of the Leader of the Official Opposition to support this proposition, a position that the Leader of the Official Opposition still maintains.
In fact, in recent correspondence the Leader of the Official Opposition launched upon a defence of the notwithstanding clause which did not address the issue yet to this day whether the Liberal Party is able and willing to recognize the principle about which I asked the Minister of Justice.
Therefore my intervention here takes the form of inquiring what is the present status of that proposed amendment? What is the position of the government with respect to it?
I want to make reference as well to the latter part of the minister's answer. She seemed to exhibit some misapprehension of my understanding of the role of the charter and attempted to therefore explain the implications of what I said which I fully understood in the first place and that is what I said required amendment.
The minister had an interesting final or penultimate sentence in her response. She said: "I do think that we have within the hands of responsible authorities at all three levels of government in this country enough legal devices to do the job". Now we must construe that what she was talking about was the enforcement of the principle of equality through actions of government and in legislation.
Madam Speaker, I would only say this in closing since I see that you are demanding I do so. There is much outside of that context that needs to be done but the establishment of a principle in the Constitution that all Canadians are equal is of fundamental importance. It is an issue I hope this government and the Leader of the
June 11, 1992

Official Opposition and the Official Opposition collectively will support.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I have quite detailed information from the Justice Department and I am hoping that if I am not able to read all of it into the record that the balance will be placed on the record.
The multicultural and multiracial character of Canada was officially recognized by the federal government when the federal multiculturalism policy was introduced in 1971.
Since then equality rights and multiculturalism have been entrenched in sections 15 and 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed in 1988. As well federal, provincial, and territorial human rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and colour.
In view of Canada's increasing ethnic diversity the Department of Justice is taking steps to consider the multicultural nature of Canada's society in the development of policy and discharge of responsibilities.
The principles of a fair and equitable justice system are basic to the goals of the Department of Justice and apply no less to our approach to multiculturalism.
All Canadians should enjoy uninhibited access to the system including legal assistance, victim/witness services, recourse to the courts, and other legal mechanisms for redress and resolution of disputes.
The Department of Justice is committed to promoting a harmonious multicultural society.
Madam Speaker, I would like to table the balance of my response.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would there be unanimous consent for the hon. member to give the balance of his answer to Hansard?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[.Editor's note: The portion of the response tabled is as follows:]
Immigrant populations need to learn as quickly as possible about the laws regulating important aspects of
Adjournment Debate
daily life and ways to get information about the legal system.
They also need to use and to feel comfortable using the Canadian justice system. In addition to its cost-shared access to justice programs, such as public legal education and legal aid, the department conducts research and supports pilot projects in order to assist service delivery agencies to improve the delivery of justice services to members of multicultural groups.
Lawyers and judges and, indeed all justice system professionals, must be sensitized to the various ethnocultural clientele they will encounter, and the laws and legal process must be clear to all Canadians, regardless of their first language. The department is supporting the Canadian Judicial Centre and the Western Judicial Education Centre in their efforts to provide judges with training to sensitize them to cultural differences of minority groups.
Further, the department is committed to hiring practices which will increase the representation of visible minority personnel to better reflect their representation in the population. Awareness training concerning multiculturalism is being provided to managers in order to enhance the notion of "inclusive justice" which means making the justice system more accountable, more responsive, and more reflective of the interests and value of all Canadians.
I should add that the compounded inequities encountered by minority women will be considered in all research by the Department of Justice. One of the most powerful messages delivered at the National Symposium on Women, Law and the Administration of Justice hosted by the Minister of Justice in June 1991, was that visible minority women face multiple disadvantages resulting from gender bias and racism.
The Department of Justice is committed to work with the provinces and concerned groups to ensure fair treatment of all people who become involved in the system and to eliminate barriers affecting visible minorities.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I rise on the question that I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration, a question relating to an event in my riding that goes back to February 21 of this year.

June 11, 1992
Adjournment Debate
I think the fish processing plant in Port Union is going to become a very well-known plant because this is about the fifteenth time that I have been up to speak on this subject. I will be up 15 more times, until I get some kind of an answer or some kind of redress to the question that I have been asking.
It is a very simple question. On February 21 this plant, on the tip of the Bonavista peninsula in the town of Port Union, closed. It employs 1,200 people and at the time all those working were laid off. The crux of the question was that are 80 families, less than that at the time because of other events that have occurred, that were not covered by unemployment insurance. Some of them had two weeks, three weeks, or four weeks.
My basic point has been that since the government is responsible for managing the fishery, it has been responsible for eight years, and since the fishery has failed dismally then it is my belief, and it is shared by others, that the government has some responsibility to those people who through no fault of their own are without work, without fish, without income, and now they are almost without food.
I am not known in this House for dramatizing, exaggerating or over-emphasizing. However, I cannot emphasize with more vigour, enthusiasm and feeling the need of those people who have no source of income.
Imagine the frustration. By the time I asked the minister this question it was question number 7 or number 8 in two months, and that is not unreasonable. I asked the minister about the families and wondered when could I expect some form of compensation. In the response this Minister of State for Employment and Immigration said that: "We could look for a way out in conjunction with the private sector".
I had to inform the House and the parliamentary secretary that there are no other jobs, there is no other industry, there is nothing. We can train people for as long as we are alive, but train them for what. They cannot even go to Toronto or Montreal because the unemployment is so bad there that people are leaving there and going somewhere else.
However, the minister did give hope and she went on to say in response to my supplementary: "For the time
being we are trying to do what we can and to focus on the training and adjustment of the workers".
Only yesterday, on the same subject, the minister responded and said with respect to contingency funding that when the need arises the government will come forward with a response.
Today I was very specific. He was talking about hypothetical questions. He asked: "How can I give you an answer to a hypothetical question?"
I was very specific today, which relates to the question that I asked May 8. The specific thing was that 80 families had no work, no compensation and no idea as to what sort of compensation, support or care they are going to get from the government.
It is a very desolate situation when you wake up in the morning and have no job, no money and no place to go except to hope that somebody is going to come to your rescue.
I do not like pleading but I am pleading to the government with all the emotion that I can muster without getting loud and without becoming obstreperous.
Please come to the rescue of these people who badly need it. They are in hardship. They are in dire need and they are crying out to me for the government's help and I am crying out to the government.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I would like to respond to the hon. member's question tonight.
The situation in the Atlantic fishery has been and continues to be of major concern to the government. In this regard, a number of programs and services have been put in place to deal with the problems in the fishing industry.
I would like to mention to the House that since 1984, the federal government has directed almost $1.4 billion in unemployment insurance and training benefits to individuals in the fishing industry.
The five-year, $584 million Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program was announced in May 1990 and includes measures to rebuild fish stocks and to help those who wish to leave the industry adjust.
June 11, 1992

There have also been short-term emergency response programs such as last year's $130 million relief program to help plant workers and fishermen adjust. Another $22 million has been distributed to assist Newfoundland fishermen affected by ice conditions.
As we speak, a task force on incomes and adjustments is advising the government on issues such as the continued supply of the resource, the future stability and profitability of the industry and the achievement of stable and adequate incomes for those who make a living in the fishing industry.
The recent decision by the World Court on St. Pierre and Miquelon, the fishery treaty signed at the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro and the continued pressure on countries that overfish along the Grand Banks, all of these demonstrate that this government is doing its utmost to put the needs of the fishing industry at the forefront of its national and international agenda.


BROADCASTING
Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to pursue a question which I raised in this House concerning the move by cable companies to remove Canadian broadcasting services like MuchMusic or TSN from Canadian consumers television sets unless they decide to take on more American stations or more American services at an additional price.
I find this a rather curious way to promote Canadian programming for all of us here in Canada. To deliver this choice, the procedure is for the cable companies advise their consumers that the onus of responsibility is on them to call the cable company if they do not wish to have and do not wish to pay for the new service. Otherwise it becomes an automatic "I accepted".
In other words if you want the service you do nothing but if you do not want it you must call. It is a very strange way to do business. Ottawa has been the latest area to take this approach and the response has been very interesting.
I would just like to quote from one area resident who wrote: "I find somewhat disconcerting that MacLean Hunter Cable Television can send out under the guise of an exciting new concept a brochure to an unsuspecting subscriber and this in my opinion, amounts to an unsolic-
Adjoumment Debate
ited increase in the monthly cable charges. Particularly disquieting is that MacLean Hunter places the onus on the consumer to reply". He went on to say that he felt that the CRTC should shield consumers from such practices. He felt the CRTC has a responsibility to the Canadian populace to protect it from such practices.
This marketing technique is known as the negative option. I find it very objectionable. In fact, in the province of Quebec, the technique is against the law in the selling of products while its use with services is currently under debate.
Canadian broadcasters are concerned about the potential impact. They see this as a potential loss of income from advertising and decline in audience ratings. That is the last thing we need here in Canada as we are trying to build up our television broadcasting situation.
The president of the CBC, Mr. Veilleux in his speech to The Financial Post conference on April 8, 1992, said the following:
To be blunt, we-none of us-can afford to have our audience bled from above by satellite and bled from below by cable systems who are prepared to create even greater American competition for Canadian program services.
I have in mind, of course, the negative option marketing approach now being used by the cable industry-an approach in which subscribers are given the choice of dropping two or three Canadian services and saving a bit of money-or adding four or five American channels and paying more. Canadian programming-and jobs - become hostage to U.S. broadcasters. What a prospect!
This effectively means "basic" cable for at least 90 per cent of subscribers, will expand by that many new U.S. services, and the further fragmentation will cost Canadian channels both viewers and commercial revenues.
Canadians have access to a broad array of television services. Choice is one of the cornerstones of government's policy on the Canadian broadcasting system. At present some 50 per cent of Canada's cable subscribers have access to what is called an extended basic tier, which is sort of a package of TV services that includes Canadian specialty services and TV services linked with U.S. specialty services.
The negative option marketing practice used by the cable industry to ensure higher penetration of this tier is the mechanism. However, I do believe this is not based on the principle of consumer choice or fairness. Rather I

June 11, 1992
Adjournment Debate
believe it is based on silent acquiescence of the Canadian cable subscriber.
In conclusion, I call upon the Minister of Communications to ask the CRTC to investigate the financial, cultural and consumer impact of the introduction of more American channels on the Canadian broadcasting system through the use of negative option marketing strategies.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be re-engaged in debate on these matters with my hon. friend. We had discussions for over seven years on these matters. I am pleased to deal with this issue which results from the practice of cable operators making available to their subscribers an extended basic tier.
An extended basic tier involves providing a new service or a group of services to all subscribers on a free trial basis for a period of time, then inviting those customers who do not wish to subscribe to the tier to advise their cable company.
I wish to point out this practice is not new and has been used by cable operators, many of them in western Canada but not confined to western Canada, for some time.
The benefit of the approach to subscribers is that they are given more flexibility to choose to receive specialty services of particular interest to them at a very low cost. The Canadian specialty service available on the extended basic tier include Much Music, the Sports Network, and TV5.
Some American specialty or narrow cast services such as the Nashville Network, Cable News Network, and the Arts and Entertainment Network are authorized by the CRTC for this tier as packaging partners with the Canadian services.
The CRTC has permitted the offering of the U.S. specialty services to enhance the attractiveness of the tier in order to maximize the penetration of the Canadian specialty services. TV5 is an example of a Canadian service "that is now much more widely available than previously because of this practice".
Recently the CRTC announced that it will be holding hearings to look into the whole issue of specialty services tiering. As many members may be aware-and I am sure my hon. friend for Mount Royal is aware of it-discussions are now taking place between representatives of the Canadian broadcasting industry and the Department of Communications toward developing a long-term industrial strategy in the context of the second phase of the Canadian television summit.
The impact on the Canadian broadcasting industry of an increased number of American television services being offered in Canada is currently being studied as part of the second phase of that summit. The industry has been asked to submit a report to the Minister of Communications, and that report is expected in the very near future.


CALGARY AIRPORT
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for Transport for her attitude in responding to my question of June 3 regarding the obsolete Soviet flag being displayed at the Calgary airport during the North Atlantic Assembly meeting that was held in Banff from May 14 to May 18.
I found it very strange that months after the Soviet Union had disappeared and months after Canada had recognized the nations of the former Soviet Union participating in the North Atlantic Assembly, for instance Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Baltic states, and months after Canada had established diplomatic relations with those nations, this obsolete symbol would still be displayed at the Calgary International Airport.
It indicates to me a lack of communication between the government and the bureaucrats at the lower level. It is not because we do not have enough bureaucrats or infrastructure that would respond to such an action.
Therefore we can ask ourselves: Was it because there was lack of communication, intelligence or simply negligence? I am sure all three elements played a role. It is not the minister's responsibility if a faux pas has been committed by one of the department's bureaucrats. This incident proves that the minister cannot be responsible for all the actions taken on his or her behalf.
This puts in question the tradition of ministerial responsibility. Those responsible should be taken to task. In this particular instance it is those at the Calgary airport. They should not hide behind the minister of state's skirt. Bureaucrats should be responsible for their actions, but if those higher up want to protect them, they should be taken to task as well. As long as this type of system exists, you will not have efficiency or good government in Canada. We will be unable to address the problems of expensive and inefficient government. This is why we have a problem with debt and debt deduction and the huge deficit of $420 billion.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this
June 11, 1992

opportunity to respond to the question by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast about the flag display at Calgary International Airport. I had the same questions when I saw those flags flying and have discovered, as the minister has reported, that the many international flags that hung until recently in that air terminal building were intended as a visual tribute to the nations which sent teams of athletes or officials to the 1988 Winter Olympics.
Although Calgary International Airport management was fully aware that the geopolitical state of the world could change over time, it was decided to maintain the original flag display to remind the many visitors to that airport of the countries which were represented in the 1988 games. In other words, it is kind of a snapshot display of the international scheme which emphasized the significance of the 15th Winter Olympics and remembered the nations which had participated in those games. It was neither intended to reflect ongoing inter-
Adjoumment Debate
national geopolitical changes nor to symbolize the nations which attended the North Atlantic Assembly Conference recently held in Calgary and Banff.
I understand that the airport has recently substituted the display's Olympic motif with flags from Canada's provinces and territories which is a fitting salute to Canada's 125 anniversary. The flag of the former Soviet Union has been removed and flags from nations that provide the largest number of tourists to Calgary have now been given prominence.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, June 9, 1992, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 12,1992