1992-06-02

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 29 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at the 87th Interparliamentary Conference in Yaounde, Cameroon, April 6 to 11, 1992.
There were four main issues debated at that conference: first, environment and development with special reference to the UNCED meeting forthcoming this week; second, the functioning of democracy with emphasis on economic development and the use of the peace dividend; third, the issue of AIDS; and, fourth and finally, a general debate on the political, economic and social situation in the world today.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
14TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-74, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Thriff, and the Excise Tax Act.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
42ND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on House Management pursuant to Standing Order 114.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.



BILL C-59 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act, with amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


John Cole: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have leave to introduce the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Leave is not granted.


PETITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Canadians from Churchill, Colonsay, Meacham, Viscount, Saskatoon, Ridgedale, Tisdale, Central Butte, Riverhurst, Lake Lenore, Tisdale and Richmond, B.C.
The petitioners support the use of the port of Churchill and basically urge the federal government to maximize the uses of the port with at least 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments being shipped through the port of Churchill and to act immediately to maintain further development and promote the port to handle export in addition to grain.
While I have the floor, I should point out there is no grain committed to the port of Churchill at this time. It is time the federal government acted on this very important issue.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 228 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 228 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent is withheld.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Venne:: Madam Speaker, we have just refused to give our consent to what you asked. I would like to know now what the decision of the parliamentary secretary will be. Perhaps he will have to withdraw his motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As far as question No. 228 is concerned, consent having been withheld, it will not be made an order for return. All other questions will remain unanswered for today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that it is my duty to report with respect to certain amendments that have been introduced relating to Bill C-81.
I also want to point out that a great number of these amendments came in yesterday. The table officers worked till early this morning. There has not been sufficient time for consultation which I regret but which I know hon. members will understand. I understand that there may be some comments after my ruling from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and I will hear those.
While that breaks from the usual practice, I think under the circumstances it is appropriate.
June 2, 1992

I am going to read the entire ruling. Then I will hear the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
There are 64 notices of motions standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage on Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 2, 7, 35, 50, 51, 54, 55 and 59 standing in the name of the hon. member for Jonquiere will be grouped for debate, with the vote on Motion No. 2 applied to Motions Nos. 7, 35, 50, 51, 54, 55 and 59.

Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 4, 5, 11 and 12 standing in the names of the hon. members for Annapolis Valley-Hants, Churchill and Papineau-Saint-Michel will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows: (a) An affirmative vote on Motion 12 obviates the need for a vote on Motions 4 and 11 but requires a vote on Motion 5; (b) A negative vote on Motion 12 requires a vote on Motion 11; (c) The vote on Motion 11 will apply to Motion 4; (d) An affirmative vote on Motion 11 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion 5; (e) A negative vote on Motion 11 will necessitate a vote on Motion 5.

Motions Nos. 6, 30, 37, 38, 46 and 49 standing in the names of the hon. members for Yorkton-Melville and Churchill will be grouped for debate but voted upon as follows:
(a)	Motions Nos. 6 and 37 will be voted upon separately-
(b)	The vote on Motion No. 30 will apply to Motion No. 49.
(c)	The vote on Motion No. 38 will apply to Motion No. 46.
Government Orders

Motions Nos. 8, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 47 standing in the names of the hon. members for Churchill and Yorkton- Melville will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 9, 19, 36, 41, 48 and 57 standing in the names of the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands, Yorkton-Melville and Churchill will not be selected as they were moved, debated and negatived in the legislative committee which studied the bill.

Motion No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for Jonquiere will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 standing in the names of the hon. member for Churchill, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville will be grouped for debate, but voted upon as follows:
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 will obviate the need to vote on Motion No. 14.
(b)	A negative vote on Motion No. 13 requires a vote on Motion No. 14.
(c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 16 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motions Nos. 15 and 17.
(d)	A negative vote on Motion No. 16 requires a vote on Motion No. 15.
(e)	The vote on Motion No. 15 will apply to Motion No. 17.
(f)	Motion No. 18 will be voted upon separately.
Motion No. 20 standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 standing in the names of the hon. members for Yorkton-Melville, Kingston and the Islands and Churchill and of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will be grouped for debate and voted as follows:

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 22 and 23.
(b)	A negative vote on Motion No. 21 requires a vote on Motion No. 23.
(c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motion No. 22.
(d)	A negative vote on Motion No. 23 requires a vote on Motion No. 22.
(e)	Motion No. 24 will be voted upon separately.
Motion No. 25 standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 26 standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader does not appear to affect any changes to the bill. As a consequence, it will not be selected.
Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34, standing in the names of the hon. members for Annapolis Valley- Hants, Yorkton-Melville, Churchill, Jonquiere and Pa-pineau-Saint-Michel, cause the Chair some procedural difficulty. These motions appear to be going beyond the scope of the bill in dealing with the effect rather than the process of referendums. In my view these proposals exceed the principle established when the House gave second, reading to the bill. In addition, Motions Nos. 32 and 34 were ruled out of order in the legislative committee which studied the bill. Regrettably, I must rule these motions out of order in accordance with Beauchesne's citation 698(1).

Motion No. 39 standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 40 standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill appears to infringe the royal recommendation in that it calls upon the government to expend public funds in order to assist the various committees. In this regard, I must rule the motion inadmissible, as it contravenes Beauchesne's citation 698(7).
Motion No. 52 standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 53 and 56 standing in the name of the hon. members for Papineau-Saint-Michel and Churchill will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately-

Motion No. 58 standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 60 standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 61, 62 and 63 standing in the names of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the hon. members for Yukon-Melville and Churchill will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows: (a) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 61 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motions Nos. 62 and 63; (b) a negative vote on Motion No. 61 requires a vote on Motion No. 62; (c) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 62 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 63; (d) a negative vote on Motion No. 62 requires a vote on Motion No. 63.

Motion No. 64, standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill will be debated and voted upon separately.
What I would usually do, and I am addressing my remarks to the House and of course the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, is propose Motion No. 1 to the House. I do so subject to hearing the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. If necessary I may reserve after argument and at that stage I would propose again that debate proceed on Motion No. 1 which should give the Chair a fair chance to give consideration to the remarks of the hon. member.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, of course I am interested in Your Honour's ruling. I can see that Your Honour spent some time on
June 2, 1992

this, or at least Your Honour's assistants spent a great deal of time on it.
I noticed the usual summary was not read at the end. I can understand why. I do not think it could have been much shorter than the ruling itself.
Notwithstanding that, I wanted to comment, Sir, on the ruling, and specifically Motion No. 34, standing in the name of the hon. member for Papineau-Sain t-Mi-chel and the other similar motions concerning the effect of the referendum.
I realize that this motion was ruled out of order in committee and that that in itself might constitute grounds for Your Honour to rule it out of order here in the House, but I submit that the question of the effect of the referendum is fundamental to the consideration of this bill and it is one that needs to be addressed by this House and decided in this House.
The principal reason why the government has introduced this bill, and this reason has been the subject of debate both publicly and in this House over the last two or three years, was because of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord to allow for participation by Canadians in the writing of their own Constitution. The government engaged in a very extensive public relations program to involve Canadians in this process, starting with a royal commission, followed by extensive parliamentary hearings across the country on two occasions and has sought to involve Canadians in this process.
The purpose of this bill is to involve Canadians in the reform process and I note that the bill is entitled "an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada". I refer Your Honour to The Concise Oxford English Dictionary and its definition of the word "referendum". It is defined as:
- referring of political question to electorate for direct decision by
general vote; vote thus taken.
In other words the purpose of a referendum, what a referendum is by definition, is a decision by the electorate on a question referred to the electorate. That is what a referendum is. This bill establishes a referendum procedure according to the title of the bill. Yet in substance there is no binding effect to the vote that is taken by a referendum held under this bill.
The amendments seek to give some binding effect, however limited-and I submit it is quite limited, but it is
Government Orders
there-to the vote of the people in the referendum. It is a fundamental principle of a referendum that if you have one you are then bound by the result. It is a decision by the people, not a decision by somebody else. It is not for someone to interpret that decision and then make another decision. The decision is made by the people in the referendum.
What Motion No. 34, standing in the name of the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, says is that during the life of this Parliament, the Senate or the House of Commons shall not adopt any resolution authorizing a change in the Constitution where the amendment would be directly or indirectly contrary to the opinion expressed in this referendum by a majority of voters in Canada and in certain regions too. It deals with the majority vote of all Canadians.
It was suggested by the chairman of the committee, when he made a ruling on this issue in committee, that this imported some new notion on referendums into the bill. The argument was somehow made by the chairman in a way that frankly I could not understand that this made a change in the Canada Elections Act.
The referendum bill itself makes changes in the Canada Elections Act. It overrides it in certain particulars and it incorporates it by reference where it is silent on issues. The referendum is to be conducted in accordance with the practices set out in the Canada Elections Act. Clause 2(2) of the bill is the one that does it. It states:
Unless a contrary intention appears, words and expressions used
in this Act have the same meaning as in the Canada Elections Act.
There are other references in the bill that incorporate provisions of the Canada Elections Act.
With great respect, this amendment does not change in any way the effect of the Canada Elections Act. What will happen in this case is that results will be reported from the referendum vote on a constituency by constituency basis. The only reason that is being done is because the Canada Elections Act calls for reports on that basis and that is fine. In addition, there will be some additions made of those results on a constituency by constituency basis to provide for regional results to be released based on provincial results. I submit that it is done now anyway.

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
We frequently see in the press the tabulated results of the election added up to show the percentage of the vote obtained by each party on a national basis and on a provincial basis. Sometimes we see it even on a regional basis. Certainly we see it frequently on a provincial and national basis.
This is not a case of changing the reporting mechanism. This is a case of changing the application of the results by adding them up and putting them out in a different tabulation. However they will still be reported on a constituency by constituency basis for what that is worth.
The motion is not intended to alter the way in which the referendum will be conducted. It simply means that when a referendum has been held, when the people of Canada have expressed their will and pleasure with respect to the question put to them, the answer to that question will bind this government.
It will prevent it from proceeding with the resolution during this Parliament to change the Constitution in a way that is contrary to the expressed wishes of the people. It does not force the government to do anything, it forces it to refrain from doing certain things. It does not make the referendum totally binding but it does place some stricture on the government's freedom to act, depending on the answer given to the question that is put to the people.
That is the expressed title of the bill. That is what the government says in the title of the bill it has set out to do. It shows the word referendum. It was not the case of the government not using the other word. If it is a consultative process, the word is plebiscite. It could have used that word in the title but it chose to use referendum.
Apparently there is some problem in moving an amendment to this bill which makes this into something close to a referendum. I do not understand the problem. To me it is a fundamental issue. It has been a major public issue in Canada for a long time. It needs to be debated on the floor of this House.
The chairman of the committee in making his decision after some objections from some of the members of the committee said: "Mr. Ouellet, I can appreciate the political importance of this. It is a question that probably should be decided in the House".
I quite agree with the chairman of the committee. I submit that this amendment is very important. It allows for a debate on an issue that needs to be decided here. If it is ruled out of order and cannot be even discussed, then I think we have missed the most important aspect of what this bill was intended to do and that is to provide the people of Canada with a direct voice in the establishment of their new Constitution.
The whole question is optional. The bill only permits a referendum to be held. I submit that the question of the effect of the referendum, once held, is vital to the bill. It is fundamental to the bill. The title brings it in. The first clause brings in that vital importance. If we cannot move amendments that give teeth to that importance, that gives strength to the expressed intention of the government in using the word referendum, then I submit that the debate on the bill lacks substance, lacks importance and fails to deal with the cardinal issue that the people expect to be able to deal with if the question is put to them. That is, their votes will count for something instead of being another public opinion poll.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the comments of my hon. friend. I know it is going to be a very interesting day if this is the beginning of it.
Before responding, I take the liberty, Mr. Speaker, to express my thanks to you and the table officers who laboured through the night to group these amendments and to rule on them. It is one of the more complex chores you have had to face and I appreciate what has been done.
My friend from Kingston and the Islands makes several points, the first of which, of course, relates to the dictionary definition of referendum. I am sure we will hear from others of a more scholarly bent on that subject as the debate progresses.
Very briefly, Sir, the word referendum has become common usage in Canada for a non-binding vote. That may not be precisely correct as to dictionary definition but it has become an acceptable part of our practice.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands referred as well to the regional implications of this particular Motion No. 34 that is before us for discussion. The issue before us is twofold: First, whether or not it is appropriate to bind the interpretation of the results of
June 2, 1992

Government Orders
the referendum; and second, if that is the case, whether it is appropriate to group them according to regions.
With reference to the first point, it is true that conventional election results in this country are first tabulated poll by poll and then constituency by constituency. Thereafter, of course, they are tallied as to numbers over all throughout the country for purposes of determining who would form the government. That is the practice with a conventional election.
When we come to a referendum, there is really quite a variety of interpretations that could be put on the results, but none of them ought to, in my submission, be binding.
First of all, it is moral suasion we are looking for in terms of the result of any referendum. It is to guide those who must amend the Constitution of the country. Under the Constitution, of course, it is up to this House and the other place and the legislatures of the 10 provinces to pronounce themselves on any constitutional amendments. That is the way the Constitution is written and that is the way it will be until it is appropriately amended, if it ever is, in section 41 and the other amending sections.
The basic thrust of this motion would be to have the results interpreted as to the various regions of the country, being the Atlantic region or the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as individual regions and western and northern Canada as a further region. This sort of interpretation, I gather, flows out of the original concept of the make-up of the Senate but bears no relevancy to the interpretation of a referendum result. It is true that it was recommended by the committee which I had the privilege of co-chairing, but within hours that recommendation was tom to shreds by at least two provinces of our country and, therefore, is a non-starter.
In conclusion, I would just simply say that what this bill is designed to do is to provide some guidance to this House, to the government and to the Senate as to what changes are acceptable to the Canadian people. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I submit, Sir, no legislation should hamper the interpretation of the result.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to rise on the interpretation. I recognize the hard work that you, the clerks and others have done on this. I have two concerns.
The first one is with regard to Motion No. 31, standing in my name, which has been ruled out of order in that it goes beyond the scope of the bill. One of the concerns I have with regard to Motion No. 31 is that it does not bind the government. We are not, in this motion, binding the government. What we are giving is a clause explaining how the government would interpret the results of the referendum vote. In interpreting the results, it would have to look at the results nation-wide. It would have to look at them in each of the regions of Canada. It would also have to consider the vote by aboriginal Canadians. There is a reason for that.
Again, I want to stress the fact that we are not, in Motion No. 31, saying that it would be binding upon the government. What we are saying is that this is how it interprets it. What we were told in the press release and in the statements by the government that accompanied the original introduction of this bill was that some time during the process the Prime Minister would tell us how he was going to interpret the results. I do not think that is good enough for Canadians. They have a right to know what the rules of the game are. What better place to set the rules than the House of Commons itself as part of the legislation from day one.
It is very important that no region feel left out. I, along with a number of members of this House, come from western Canada. I think a referendum which passed in other parts of Canada but was defeated in the west would create a very strong regional antagonism within this country. The same thing would be true if Atlantic Canada were the only region of the country that voted against a referendum, or the province of Quebec, or Ontario.
As I mentioned earlier, we have also included aboriginal Canadians because a lot of the clauses will deal with aboriginal Canadians. In fact, because the nature of this bill now is such that it is open-ended, it could be used for any number of referendums in the future. We could have a referendum which was solely on the topic of aboriginal rights, aboriginal self-government and there would be

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
no tally of how the aboriginal Canadians in this country voted.
I would argue that this clause should be allowed to remain in effect. I would also like to remind this House of what the government House leader said and that is that he would allow amendments that went beyond the normal scope of the bill.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: If agreed upon.


Rodney Edward Murphy: If agreed upon, that is true and that is exactly what we need now.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: If Harvie says yes.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Is the government going to honour the word of the government House leader? Is he going to allow us to even present a motion to see if it is agreed upon?
There were members of this House who allowed this bill to go to committee on the basis of what the government House leader said, on the belief that there would be a number of clauses that could be addressed later on.


Mr. Lapierre:: You were naive.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Somebody said they were naive. That is a value judgment. There were members in this House who believed the government House leader when he said that when this bill went to committee and when it was dealt with at other stages that amendments would be allowed that went beyond the scope of the bill. This is one of those amendments that, strictly speaking, goes beyond the scope of the bill, but I think it is integral to the whole purpose of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to still rule that this was beyond the scope, I would then ask unanimous consent to have this motion called.
With regard to Motion No. 40, standing in my name as well, which calls for the government to establish funds to help those groups in Canada that do not have their own funding in order that they can participate in a referendum, I would make very similar arguments.
Unfortunately, one of the things this bill does is it lets money rule. If you have the money, you can spend up to $10 million and if that is not enough, you can form another group and it can spend another $10 million. If that is not enough-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Churchill. I am listening very carefully to what he has to say and I will hear a few more members of course. I also ask the hon. member for Churchill to complete his remarks in an appropriate way.
I do want to caution members about getting beyond the procedural position that I have to determine, getting into substantive debate on the principle of the bill or other principles that may of course be of great importance to members or to the House.
I am bound to make a procedural decision, and I know the hon. member for Churchill would want to assist me in that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I do not challenge your ruling and that is one of the difficulties.
I again refer to the government House leader's remarks. I will ask for unanimous consent later on for Motion No. 40 to be allowed to stand.
What I was trying to point out is that if we are going to set up a referendum system, especially with the very exorbitant limits that exist under this bill, certainly those groups, natives, women and others not having independent sources of funds should be able to receive some government funding. It will not necessarily be a large amount, but there should be some government funding so that they can have their input in a public debate.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because, quite frankly, I want to associate myself almost entirely with the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and in part with the initial remarks of the hon. member for Churchill. Therefore, I do not have to repeat everything.
I appreciate the Speaker's problem. I certainly also want to add my thanks to that of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and to compliment the staff in the Speaker's office and yourself, Your Honour, in getting these 64 amendments before us in some sort of order, along with all the problems presented in trying to rationalize some of these difficult points.
I am not going to get into the merits of the issue involved but rather look right at your ruling, Mr. Speaker. In mentioning the difficulty you had with Motions Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34, quoting from your ruling, you felt that it was dealing with the effect rather than the process. As the member for Kingston and the Islands
June 2, 1992

mentioned, there is absolutely nothing in those amendments that affect the process of taking the referendum.
I go back to the bill and clause 3 which sets out very clearly that "where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum". I am not going to get into the semantics of referendum or plebiscite, but the bill is a referendum. Other people will be speaking about it and there is an amendment on the floor by the hon. member for Etobicoke about changing the whole name of the bill from referendum to plebiscite which will be debated.
That is fine, but just clause 3 itself. As a parliamentarian with years of experience, some of us who have seen the fundamental clauses-clause 3 is the fundamental clause-what does that say? That says that "where there is a matter of public interest, the referendum is going to obtain the opinion of electors". It goes on: "and direct that the opinion of electors be obtained by putting the question to the electors of Canada or one or more provinces".
All the amendments questioned in that paragraph of your ruling do is in effect the reflection of the opinion of electors. In effect, clause 3 does not restrict how that opinion is to be tallied; it is open-ended. I submit, as others have submitted, the fact that the amendments we are discussing here on this point segregate the tally. It has not affected a thing with taking the vote, but it segregates the result. It is not of such injury to the fundamental principle of the bill that it should be a rule.
In the straight parliamentary sense, as the member for Kingston and the Islands says, this is a fundamental question of the whole process. Surely if the government does not like the segregation of the votes on clause 3, the opinion of the electors, if it does not like to segregate them by province or in the nature of the aboriginal Canadians, then the government very well will turn the amendment down and vote for the bill as is presently tabled in the House. That is the whole nature of the debate.
Government Orders
To preclude that fundamental issue for debate by a procedural ruling, which your Honour has the grace and humility to admit causes you some procedural difficulty, flies in the face of the whole reason why we are here, with respect, Mr. Speaker.
Let us have the debate on all the issues here. Certainly one of the fundamental issues, whether you call it a plebiscite or referendum or opinion poll, is you have a bill trying to get the opinion of the electors of Canada. Certainly if you get the opinion of the electors of Canada, it is a very legitimate question for this Parliament to decide should it be an opinion that binds or restricts some action of the government, or should it just be like a polling result. That is legitimate. Obviously members of Parliament should be entitled to decide.
I must say, since my amendment also shares the same extension as some others that you have called into question, of including the aboriginal Canadians as an aggregate, you could have-and there is nothing in this bill to prevent it, as the hon. member for Churchill pointed out-a specific and, quite frankly, I think a very legitimate question. Not getting into the other questions that are going to be decided here tonight, I think a very legitimate question is whether we should even have a Senate. Let us leave that for the moment. Let us talk about the aboriginal Canadians. There is a very legitimate question that Canadians have not decided.
Perhaps some of the political leaders in the closed isolation of conference halls from coast to coast have recommended in principle, with no legal language, in effect what the inherent right of self-government means. That is a very legitimate question by itself. How would we dare have that if, in effect, the tally of the aboriginal Canadians who were so directly involved were not tallied?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you giving me the time for this. I would submit in conclusion and summary that using, as I tried to do when I used to practise law, the very words of your opponent, and you are not the opponent, Mr. Speaker, but it is your judgment that we are having the opportunity and discretion through your

Government Orders
courtesy to comment on today because of the complexity of the issue, in effect using your own words, you say that it is dealing with the effect rather than the process.
I submit to you in the strongest terms that there is not one item of process affected in the amendments that you have challenged. Certainly if there was ever a reason to have the question before the House, this is a very proper question. Otherwise, there is an awful lot of wasted air that is going to be expressed on this whole issue.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, you mentioned this morning in your ruling that the amendments to the referendum bill relating to the double majority had caused you some procedural difficulty. You also said that, in fact, our motions were dealing with the effect rather than the process of referendums. You pointed out that they had been ruled out of order in the legislative committee.
If I remember correctly the operating rules for legislative committees, only members of the committee can table such amendments. I for one had drafted a number of amendments to the referendum bill and advised the legislative committee that I would be tabling the said amendments. I wanted the committee to be able to review them during its proceedings. However, because I was not a member of the committee, I was denied the right to formally table these amendments. That is when a member, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, suggested tabling them on my behalf, which was ruled out of order.
That being said, why have a referendum act? The answer is because a constitutional impasse is likely. Why did the government go to the trouble of setting up the Beaudoin-Edwards committee on the constitutional amendment formula and the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee on the constitutional process as a whole? We are in an impasse and Quebec has not yet signed the constitutional changes brought forward by Mr. Trudeau and his government in 1982. The truth of the matter is we have been in an impasse ever since and the failure of Meech just made matters worse.
Today, our government realizes that, should we fail to agree in the next few weeks, a referendum will be held in
Quebec. There is a law in Quebec which says that a referendum could be held to ask people whether or not they want to pull out of Canada.
What are our responsibilities as parliamentarians and representatives of the Government of Canada? We must make some provisions to allow us, should the first ministers fail to agree, to ask the people of Canada to decide on the future of their country. It seems to me that Canadians should have their say before some premiers, because of their attitude, let the country split apart.
It is in this context that we are debating today a referendum bill which would, ultimately, give the Prime Minister the authority to go to the people if the provincial premiers fail to agree and refuse to present a resolution to their respective legislatures. All members in this House know it is only a consultation and cannot be binding on any government. The Canadian Constitution, since 1982, is very clear on the ways to change it, and referendums are not one of them.
If we have a Referendum Act with some rules, how is it going to work, to be perfectly fair from one end of the country to the other under our democratic system? It seems to me that it is fair and appropriate to ask the Speaker and this House that we indicate how the results will be interpreted.
In our history we had some instances, like the referendums of 1898 and 1942, where things were decided against the will of a province, Quebec, which voted no in both cases, since Parliament went along with the majority. Is it wise to fail again to provide for the effect of the referendum or how it must be interpreted?
I am going to give you an example. If we do not specify it, how are we going to tabulate the results? By province? Nationally? Who is going to decide? Let us assume a provincial premier had said: "I pledge that I will abide by the democratic decision of the people of my province." What would happen if, for example, the premier of Newfoundland had said that and people in that province would vote no? I will end on that.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the strength of the hon. member's arguments, but again, I think that his intervention, which is very smart and relevant to the issue, probably does not help the Speaker to solve a procedural matter.
June 2, 1992

I certainly appreciate the hon. member's fervour, and sympathize with him to a certain extent, particularly considering the importance of this issue for all Canadians. Again, I would ask each hon. member to be a little careful, particularly during the intervention, because my ruling is about a procedural matter.
Maybe the hon. member could conclude.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, Beauchesne's citation 698(1) reads as follows:
698. An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be put from the chair:
(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.
In your arguments, Mr. Speaker, you mention it is beyond its scope. Indeed, a referendum bill that has only a consultative value has a lot of moral weight. It is exactly in such a context that the referendum per se is significant. It produces an impact because it sends a message from coast to coast on one particular aspect of the Constitution and of the future of our country.
Let me go back to that example; we could face the same impasse as we did with Meech. A national referendum without a regional majority means that, for example, if you take one province only, if a premier says he is bound by the opinion expressed by the people of that one province, Quebec's veto is out. It would be impossible to obtain simply because one province would have voted against it. I think we would be wise to learn from our past experience in order to avoid another Meech.
That was also the opinion of an all-party parliamentary committee, the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, when it said: "In our opinion, the federal authorities would be well advised to table draft referendum legislation before Parliament. Referenda would be optional. Authorities could resort to this mechanism when they deem it necessary. In our opinion, given the heterogeneous nature of the country, the draft legislation should stipulate a double majority: a national majority and a majority in each of the four regions. Referenda would not amend the Constitution of Canada and the results would carry some political but no legal weight. The results would not
Government Orders
be binding on the two levels of government, but would constitute an eloquent message".
It is in such a context, according to me, that we must establish the rules of interpretation of the referendum since they are part of the scope of the action we are about to take, if ever there is a constitutional impasse.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a small contribution to this morning's procedural debate. Like all my colleagues, I heard your ruling. I must say it bothers me when you say: "These motions appear to be going beyond the scope of the bill in dealing with the effect rather than the process of referendums".
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could convince you these amendments go to the very core of the referendum exercise and make it possible to interprete and analyse the results. If the Canada Elections Act were to say: Elections are held but results are not discussed; it does not matter who is elected; and the results are binding on no one, you would have a problem. At this point, I believe what will not be discussed in this House is the very essence of the bill. Instead of getting down to the nitty gritty, we are going to have a debate on externals.
Obviously, talking about how enumerators are appointed has no connection with the actual scope of this bill. If there can be no debate on the significance of the results, I insist this will be a futile exercise, as futile as the attempts of the hon. member for Jonquiere to argue the benefits of a double majority. I have no desire to argue the merits of the amendments. The hon. member for Jonquiere should have made those points in his own caucus or mentioned them to his leader. As far as the substance of the various amendments is concerned, I believe that preventing debate on these issues means preventing the House from doing its job. Whether we are for or against amendments proposed by our colleague, the hon. member for Churchill, or other members, I think by trying to avoid this debate we will get the kind of situation we had during the conscription crisis, and God knows these walls must be haunted by the ghosts of that debate.
If we do not discuss the fundamental issue of what this exercise means or how it could interpreted, the legislation becomes meaningless. Mr. Speaker, without wishing

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
to cast doubts upon your wisdom, which is proverbial, I know that provided there is unanimous consent, you would agree to let us discuss substantive issues.
I will argue not the merits but the general substance of these amendments and I move for unanimous consent to agree to a real debate on these fundamental issues.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other members who have thanked you and the officers of the House for having worked through the night to group these some 64 different amendments, bearing in mind that those are amendments that are in addition to the ones that we made last week in the legislative committee. It shows how much work is having to be done in such a short time as the result of important amendments being made to very important legislation for which we have waited quite a long time to have before the House.
So to you and others who have tried to bring order to this process, it is very helpful.
I would like to particularly direct comments to your interpretation with respect to Motions Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34, all of which have to do with the effect of the referendum.
As you have explained to us, these amendments, all having essentially the same purpose, to make the results of the direct vote by the Canadian people have some consequences, give you procedural difficulty. As you state, these motions appear to be going beyond the scope of the bill in dealing with the effect rather than the process of referendums.
That of course is a problem created as the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, the members for Jonquiere and Churchill, and others have referred to with respect to the title of this bill and the word that appears throughout, mainly referendum.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader in addressing you on this point, Mr. Speaker, did draw attention to the fact as he stated it that the word referendum has come into common parlance or common usage in the country to mean any kind of direct vote.
Certainly at a couple of levels, at least in a couple of provinces, that is the case. The 1948 Referendum Act of Newfoundland contained nothing in its provisions that said what the results had to be, nothing to indicate that they would be binding or they would lead to anything, in fact is a plebiscite.
Indeed the excellent statute in the province of Quebec, la Loi sur les referendums, is a model of contemporary statute on this point but it, as well, uses the word "referendum" for what in the main are non-binding votes.
It is true that term has been used in a couple of provinces, but I submit to you for your consideration on this point the fact that it has never been confused in this place. The Parliament of Canada when passing the Prohibition Plebiscite Act, 1898, clearly envisaged the process and the consequences and used the word plebiscite.
Again, when Parliament passed the Dominion Plebiscite Act, 1942, it was the practice of Parliament to call the plebiscite by its name, plebiscite.
I submit that the procedural difficulties that you find flows from the ambiguity that has resulted with the government using the word referendum in an act which in substance only talks about a plebiscite.
I am not going to anticipate now the debate that will come later on my amendment No. 3, where I propose that we in fact change the title and the terms from referendum to plebiscite throughout which would certainly bring clarity if that is all that the substance of the bill is to be-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I may be able to assist the hon. member and other hon. members.
I am going to hear the remainder of this intervention which is not only very interesting but is of historic significance from a member who, I think it is common knowledge in this House, has spent a great deal of time on it. One of my difficulties here is that an argument as to whether or not this should be called a referendum or a plebiscite does not help me very much. If a statute calls it a referendum, spells out what its effect is, that is the statute and that is the way it is passed that is, of course, what we would have to accept no matter whether the word is referendum or some other word.

That takes nothing away from the general debate as to how the word should be used, but the fact is that in the proposed law which we are debating, while the word referendum has been used it also, at least in the form as presented to the House at the moment, does tie that word with certain implications. All I am saying is that a debate on the definition of the two words does not get me very far ahead procedurally.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your point and I understand your dilemma. Perhaps, your attention has been somewhat taken by another member. As I was saying on this very point, in addressing it, I did not look to anticipate now in addressing your ruling, Sir, the debate that will come later when we are dealing with Motion No. 3 standing in my name.
The point I was making and I will continue to conclude with is that the dilemma of a procedural nature that you face flows from where you say: "In my view, these proposals"-I am speaking of these six amendments-"exceed the principle established when the House gave second reading to the bill". It is from that interpretation that you invoke Beauchesne's citation 698(1). I think there is ambiguity as to what principle the House established in giving second reading. The bill that is before you and before this House at the present time uses the word referendum throughout.
On two previous occasions when Parliament enacted similar legislation in this area it chose, as a matter of principle, to call it plebiscite. There is ample Canadian evidence and historic fact in legislative history to show that when Parliament is dealing with a matter like this, words do have meaning and those are the meanings of the words.
Therefore, the interpretation you have given, which effectively rules out the possibility for debate here in the House of Commons as to the consequences of a process to involve the people in constitution making and constitution amending, I would invite you to reconsider, in light of the comments made by a number of members. If we cannot have this issue clearly addressed here on the floor of the House of Commons and resolved here, then where and when will it be resolved?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another amendment you have ruled on and which I did not have a chance to deal with earlier. It is
Government Orders
my Motion No. 19. In your ruling you indicated it had been dealt with by the committee.
I will read my motion and I will also read the issue that was dealt with by the committee that I believe was substantially different and, therefore, my Motion No. 19 should be allowed to stand.
Motion No. 19 says it must be passed by an affirmative vote of 60 per cent of the members of the House, with or without amendments.
The motion that was defeated by the government in committee said: "Sixty per cent of the members of the House present and voting". My motion deliberately setting out a criteria which called for 60 per cent of the total membership of the House to vote for a referendum question, believing as I do that a referendum question should have the support of more than one political party in this House and there should be substantial support for that resolution before it is sent to the people of Canada. Therefore, I made the deliberate decision to make it 60 per cent of the total members of the House, not the motion that was defeated in committee which was 60 per cent of those who happened to be there when the vote takes place.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank all hon. members for their courtesy this morning in the interventions that they have made. Also, I ask the House's co-operation on future matters. Keep in mind that, as much as possible because of our consultative approaches, and trying to avoid having to argue these matters-I use the word argue in the best sense of that word-subsequent to the Speaker, the Chair is having to put the ruling to the House.
However, these matters in this particular case are, as I said at the beginning, brought to bear on us because of a great number of amendments that came in at the last minute. We did the best we could with them. I have indicated to the House that I shall take into account what has been presented to the Chair over the last hour and report back to the House as soon as possible.
I might say to the hon. member for Churchill that I will look particularly at the last point that he raised. I will think with great care on the first point that he raised as well.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I know there has been some extensive

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
debate with regard to the procedural arguments of some of the amendments which did come in late last night and there was not an opportunity for consultations. I do not wish to be long in my intervention, but concerning Motion No. 34 by my colleague, Mr. Ouellet, in terms of the effect of a referendum, I realize there had been some discussion at the committee stage with regard to this kind of amendment. I believe that there has been, and I stand to be corrected, a tradition and an understanding within this House that even if the amendment were defeated in committee or ruled out of order based on procedural grounds, the Chair could allow this amendment to go forward and to be adjudicated by the members after having a reasonable debate within the House if it were found to be of an exceptional significance.
The regional majorities, as contained in that particular motion, are of exceptional significance and ought to have the opportunity to be debated and to be heard by all members from whatever political stripe, regardless of their political allegiance to party or to non-party.
It is my understanding that Motion No. 34 is very germane to this debate on allowing the Government of Canada the power to have a referendum in order to consult with the people of Canada. It would be a grave mistake on the part of the Chair if members of this House were not given a full opportunity in the debate to discuss the contents of that particular motion which we believe, both at this time as well as in subsequent years, could play a major role in constitutional renewal and, more important, in uniting Canadians under a federal system.
I thank the Chair for giving me this opportunity late in the morning to intervene on Motion No. 34. I would hope that the Chair would give this serious consideration in view of the exceptional significance that members in this House would associate with the regional majorities as contained in Motion No. 34.


Mr. Speaker:: We have been at this for a long time and given the circumstances members would probably agree that the Chair has been generous. I am going to reserve on these matters raised and I will try to come back to the House as soon as possible.
In the meantime I will propose Motion No. 1 to the House and I will make every effort to get back to be of assistance to members, taking into account the usual exigencies of debate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on a very short point of order. Several times it has been mentioned that these amendments came in in the last few minutes. All I am going to do is point out, as a point of order for the record, that they came in in the last few minutes and we all had to work overtime because of the invocation of that interesting rule 53(1) which cut off the normal time for preparing it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises an interesting point. However, the rule was applied and the House did decide.
I do ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to retire and reserve and come back to the House as soon as I can.


Mr. Plamondon:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, nothing prevents me from turning to you since you are now replacing the Speaker. In view of the fact that the Speaker is reflecting on the amendments or suggestions made by hon. members about the different amendments that we could consider, could we obtain the consent of the House to await his answer so that we could debate this legislation knowing that we are speaking on the substance of the bill, not just on some procedural items? That is the point my hon. colleague from Shefford was raising a moment ago. That would have a major impact on the arguments we would like to bring forward in this rather important debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Speaker has listened carefully, as you would surely agree, to all the arguments expressed by hon. members concerning certain clauses of the bill. He has decided that nothing prevents the House from debating other clauses at this point and suggested that we propose Motion No. 1 to the House, which I will call immediately.
June 2, 1992


MEASURE TO ENACT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-81 be amended by deleting the title and substituting
the following therefor:
'An act to provide for a referendum on the Constitution of Canada".
He said: Madam Speaker, I raise this motion right off the top because it speaks to the concern many Canadians have with the bill.
Originally the government came up with the idea of having a bill that would allow for referendums over a three-year period. Later on, when this matter went to committee, it was further amended to say that at the end of three years a committee of the House and perhaps of the Senate would look at this matter and decide if we are going to have referendums from then on.
A lot of people have been convinced that we need a referendum on this particular constitutional situation that we find ourselves in at the present time. A lot of people believe that across this country. One of the reasons that we have this legislation going through the House and through committee stage with a fair amount of haste is that people believe this legislation must be in place in case we have a referendum or a plebiscite, whatever we decide to call it at the end of the day, in order to deal with the constitutional situation we face at this time.
I can agree with those sentiments, that we do need legislation in case a referendum is to take place. I do not see why in this legislation, which is being rushed through and pre-empts the work of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, should have a long life. Why should we say this legislation should be in place three years, six years, eight years, nine years ten years down the road?
If we need legislation to enable the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada to authorize the legislation this fall, let us pass legislation that does just that. Do not bind us for the next three, eight, nine ten years. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has a private member's bill calling for enabling legislation for the purposes of referendums and plebiscites.
Government Orders
That is the way we should go. We should have actual legislation establishing referendums and plebiscites if that is what the House decides. To use a piece of legislation which was introduced to deal with one specific situation and make it wide open for the future is unfair.
Spending limits, which are being addressed in this bill, are being done quickly on the assumption that we have to have something that is charter proof in case we have a referendum this fall. Why should we pass legislation now that says these same rules and regulations will be in effect for the next three, four, five or who knows how many years in the future?
That is my concern. If we want legislation authorizing a referendum, that is what this legislation should do. Do not make it wide open. Do not use this as a back-door approach to allow all sorts of other constitutional referendums in the future. I would think that we are going against the whole idea of setting up a special committee to look at electoral reform if we do that.
We are saying that this House has to rush the legislation in because of something that we have to do for this fall, and at the same time we are saying that legislation will stay in place potentially forever and a day.
If the government really wants legislation and really wants rules that are there for this fall's legislation, this fall's potential referendum, that is what the legislation should do. That is not what is happening at the present time.
I fear that what the House passes in haste now will come back to haunt us two or three years down the road. We do not know what type of constitutional issues will be facing us two or three years down the road. We do not know what the government of the day may decide to take to the people in order to have a constitutional amendment.
We do know that the government in its wisdom or lack thereof set up these rules for this referendum. If it wants to set up rules for future referendums, that should be a different piece of legislation and it should act accordingly-


Patrick Boyer: Madam Speaker, I am in sympathy with the gist of what the member for Churchill has said regarding the importance of having on the statute books of the country in general enabling legislation for direct voting, just as seven of the provinces have.
His amendment here is focusing on the fact that he wants to see this simply for a one-time vote and not be kind of an uncertain, open possibility for succession of direct votes on constitutional amendments.

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
With respect to the last part of the member's comments to the House, I would invite his reconsideration of section 40 of the bill as it now reads. Following the amendments we made last week in legislative committee, which say this act comes into force and shall be reviewed and reported on, any recommended changes in the act by a committee of the House are designated for that purpose within three years from the act's coming into force.
It would be helpful for the members considering the remarks he has made to keep in mind that we now have created by the wording of section 40 the distinct reality that there will be, following a national plebiscite on the constitution, a parliamentary committee that will be struck to review the exercise and to make recommendations back here as to how and to what extent and what nature of changes ought to be made in the bill and in the act to make it perhaps the permanent legislation that he and I both have spoken in favour of.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. member for Churchill has moved this amendment.
I am surprised in one sense and, having witnessed the proceedings in the committee, I should not be. I thought the New Democratic Party would support referendums in principle and agree that referendums are very useful as means of consulting the people and giving the people an effective voice.
The public discussion that has taken place in Canada in the last period of time has focused on the need for the public to be directly involved in constitutional decision making.
We have had lots of consultation. Members of the New Democratic Party have served with our members and with members on the other side on parliamentary committees that have consulted extensively with Canadians. My over-all impression of the result of that consultation has been that Canadians say they want more voice in this.
We have announced that a referendum is a way to consult and allow Canadians a direct voice in decision making. We are prepared to push that as a means of ensuring that Canadians have a voice. We feel it is important that this be allowed for.
I do not know why the hon. member for Churchill would seek to restrict this procedure to a one time event. Perhaps the situation is that some members of Parliament are very distrustful of the general public and its ability to make rational decisions. I do not share that view. Members of this party generally do not share that view. We think there are issues the public is fully competent to make decisions on, major constitutional changes being one of them.
This bill does not require a referendum to be held. It is merely a machinery for one to be held if the government decides to proceed with a referendum. That is one of the criticisms we have made of this bill. One of the amendments we sought to introduce in committee was to force a referendum on this issue and that was defeated. That is one of the problems we face. We think it should be addressed in this bill, not something that is set up as a one time thing and then thrown out the window.
I hope the hon. member would reconsider his position. I hope members who are distrustful of the public and its ability to make intelligent and capable decisions would get over this mistrust and allow for this procedure to operate. It could be very effective. It allows for the participation the public is demanding in the Constitution amending process.
With regret I feel that I cannot support this amendment.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I too have concerns with the amendment, although when I first saw the bill I shared some of the views of the hon. member for Churchill.
*
Upon reflection and as the constitutional conferences have moved down to the stalemate they are presently in, I do see merit in the government having the machinery, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has said, to have a referendum process and maybe several referenda and/or single questions.
June 2, 1992

Without repeating everything that has already been said on setting up this whole machine, we know how difficult it is to get any bill through this House, especially a bill that touches so closely the very core of the country as a Constitution and a referendum or a plebiscite that is going to give an expression on the Constitution.
There is wisdom as a potential, as a piece of machinery that the government will have if the present stalemate is not resolved and a consensus comes up in a full-blown package from sea to sea. At the present time the odds on that are quite long. There will have to be decisions made.
I for one, as I have already expressed here yesterday on a procedural point, feel that the Canadian people can accept these questions. They all have been saturated with the issues for months now. The constitutional cavalcade has now come to a grinding halt. We are coming out of the conference rooms. It is time to let the people into the decision making.
I can see this bill giving potential power to the government to clarify some of the stumbling blocks that are perhaps presently preventing a consensus. Certainly a referendum on the very fact if we want a Senate and the very questionable referendum on if we want an undefined inherent right to aboriginal self-government are two things which we could not do with the amendment of my hon. friend for Churchill. It would be too restrictive. It would certainly be a waste of taxpayers' money to go through this procedure to set it up on one occasion and perhaps not have it there for other issues that might have to be resolved.
I too could not support this amendment. [Translation]


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, I understand the purpose of the hon. member who moved this motion when he explains that he would like to restrict the title of the bill to a single application or use. This bill is so unacceptable and the rules for public consultation that go with it are so undemocratic that it should be used at most only once and then erased from the statute books of the Parliament of Canada.
In fact, I do not think that the hon. member's purpose can be achieved through his motion, since in any case, this bill cannot be legitimized just by changing the title.
Government Orders
Changing the name will not change the unfairness and total unacceptabilify of this bill, which is illegitimate both in its principle and in its rules of operation. The principle of it is illegitimate for Quebec, of course. Many people do not know that for the past two years, a very broad movement has swept Quebec so that Quebecers can decide on the real issue which is at the heart of the political situation. The real issue which explains the political crisis that Canada is going through and is at its root is whether Quebec will be sovereign or not. That is the real question. People are trying to avoid it in all sorts of ways. Changing the title of a bill or restricting it to a single exercise will not hide reality.
The reality is that Quebec has determined, socially, politically and even judicially, to make a decision next October on its future sovereignty. The Quebec National Assembly even passed a law to this effect, which obliges the government to hold a referendum. Things are not going in a way that suggests that the Government of Quebec and Quebecers wanted to dodge the issue and avoid the deadline, as if they did not want to face reality and make a decision. On the contrary, everyone in Quebec is preparing for this referendum, which will be held under a Quebec law that has already existed for a dozen years. Bill 150, which the Quebec National Assembly passed in June 1991, requires holding the referendum soon.
It is obvious that this bill is meant to short-circuit the political decision that Quebec wants to make and substitute for the democratic rules of the Quebec Referendum Act totally unacceptable rules which are odious in many respects and which many members here, including government members, have denounced. Of course changing the title does nothing about that, especially since it would be strange to say using it only once is less serious than keeping it in the statutes of the Canadian Parliament, since it is to be used only once. What is it to be used for that one and only time? It is to be used to decide the future of Canada and the future of Quebec, as though that were not important, as though using this iniquitous, unacceptable law were futile and insignificant because it is for something as minor, trifling and unimportant as the future of a western country deciding Quebec's future.

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
I submit this motion has no real significance and does not alter the very basis of the discussion that we are to have today. As far as we are concerned, of course we will vote against it.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I am looking at the title and the motion that has been brought forward, Motion No. 1, to change the title.
As far as I am concerned whether we have one referendum or many referendums it is a question of whether they are binding or not binding in the first place. Bill C-81 does not bind the Government of Canada. Therefore it is a motion that I cannot support.
On the other hand, I have been listening to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and I agree with him that it is a fundamental problem. We have provinces that have referendum legislation. It has to be dealt with in that respect. The provinces have to decide what is good for them. Therefore from my point of view this bill is not good enough for Canada and it is not good enough for the provinces.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, after having listened to the arguments of the member for Churchill, I have strong reservations about his amendment. Essentially, his argument is that this legislation is unfair, sometimes antidemocratic and we should not keep it. Let us do a job once, since we are dealing with the issue of Quebec and the Constitution, but after that, let us make sure that it disappears from the Canadian political scene.
In other words, the House is told to do a dirty job quickly and then forget about it as soon as possible. Consequently, I find the member's argument to be very very dangerous, especially when we are discussing a bill that would have consequences, at least political ones, on the fundamental law of the land, that is the Constitution.
If there is one element with which we have to be very cautious, vigilant and democratic, it is precisely the fundamental law of the land. Just think, any country could make small violations of the democratic principle regarding its Constitution and then claim to act fairly
regarding everything else. In fact, we are fundamentally undermining the credibility of the process.
As regards the other aspect, I believe that the member for Churchill should instead have proposed an amendment to change the name of this act and call it the Prime Minister's lifeline, or something similar. This would have been a much more appropriate title, because his proposal to call this legislation an act to provide for a referendum on the Constitution of Canada could, in my opinion, mislead Canadians. In fact, we all know that this referendum act has nothing to do with the Canadian Constitution.
We are all bound by the Constitution which provides that the only way that the Canadian Constitution can be amended is through resolutions before the legislated bodies. There is no other way. To make Canadians believe they are the ones who will amend the Constitution through a referendum is just a smoke screen.
Therefore, the foundation of this whole process is undermined because we know that it is strictly a futile political exercise from a constitutional point of view. More importantly it is a political rescue attempt for those who will want to use it and wrap themselves in the Canadian flag.
We should call a spade a spade. I sincerely regret we did not have more time to propose amendments, given the offhand manner used by the government to put an end to procedures. It is obvious that we could have proposed an amendment to rename the legislation an act to rescue the Prime Minister I believe this title would have been more appropriate and more eloquent.
Needless to say that when the member for Churchill asks us to support his amendment, he is not the least worried about the fact that this legislation has but one objective, namely to bypass the provincial premiers. It is fundamental in a federation such as ours; it is fundamental when you think about the initial agreement of this federation. This Parliament is the result of an agreement signed by two nations. Now the government wants to replace the agreement reached by those two nations with a kind of tyrannical power of the majority.
I am convinced our fathers never thought that one day this agreement between two nations, which was signed in good faith, would be replaced by a process such as this one. It is obvious the notion of equality for the various groups was very much in the mind of those who shaped our Constitution. It is obviously not acceptable to now try
June 2, 1992

to replace the clauses of this fundamental agreement by a phony referendum act.
I could also have suggested another title, which might be even more appropriate. That is an act on the big opinion poll. If you listen to the government spokespersons, they will tell you that this is only a consultative process. The one thing that those in this House who know something about polls can tell you is the fact that $100 million is a bit expensive for a big opinion poll.
Personally, I think that we could have passed a law providing for the hiring, for example, of Allan Gregg to conduct a national poll and find out what the population wants. This would have been a lot cheaper and I am convinced that the Prime Minister would have obtained all the results that he needs.
In this exercise aimed at trying to give a new definition to the act, the amendment proposed by the member for Churchill has little to do with reality. I would like to quote a colleague of the member for Churchill, who is supposedly a great champion of the principle according to which this legislation is unacceptable. I am talking about the member for Chambly. I will talk on his behalf since he is not taking part in this debate right now. He said that this exercise was an undemocratic fraud. I believe this could have made an interesting title, something like an act on the undemocratic fraud. Indeed, I think this could also have been a very appropriate title.
I think that would accurately describe the content of this bill, because any casual observer would notice something is not quite kosher here. Any democrat looking at this bill would say: "This legislation lets the government do just about anything". Any democrat who remembers what happened during the referendum in Quebec would say: "Good heavens, where is the yes committee and the no committee?" Questions, questions. The Chief Electoral Officer tells us there could be as many as 3,000 or 4,000 committees. There would be the yes, the no, the yes-no, the maybes, the maybe-yes, the maybe-nos. It is mind-boggling.
I am very concerned that no appropriate definition was found for this exercise. I am thinking of another title that
Government Orders
could have been used, like "an act to sabotage the Quebec process". I think that would have accurately described the purpose of this bill. After all, a title is supposed to indicate to the person who reads it what the bill is all about.
In other words, I would have voted for an amendment like "an act to sabotage the Quebec process" or "an act to kneecap Quebec". I think my colleagues and I would have voted for that kind of title.


Lucien Bouchard: We would have supported the title.


Jean-C. Lapierre: We would have voted for the title, obviously. I think the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was right to intervene, because you cannot be too careful around here. With a title like that, it would have been obvious what this legislation is trying to do.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry I will have to vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Churchill. He should have consulted his colleague from Chambly, who is supposed to come back in a few days to take part in this debate. Thank God for the newspapers in this country, because now I know the hon. member for Chambly is against this legislation, and I would not have known if I had not read La Presse this morning. Incidentally, it was reported in La Presse that the hon. member for Chambly was asking all Quebec members to act as one block. My goodness, the hon. member for Chambly is starting to-


Lucien Bouchard: He is starting to get ideas.


Jean-C. Lapierre: -get ideas. I hope this is not an attempt at a merger however, he was asking for a block. I am sure the hon. member for Chambly included the hon. member for Rimouski-Temiscouata, for instance, who I am sure feels a particular concern here. In any case, he was asking for a block against Bill C-81 on Canadian referen-dums because of-this is very important-apprehended antidemocratic jargon, and I am delighted to speak on his behalf.


Lucien Bouchard: Is that parliamentary?

Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Is apprehended jargon parliamentary? I think so. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, a veteran of these precincts-


Lucien Bouchard: He is nodding.


Jean-C. Lapierre: -and our own Jean-Marie Laurence, says it is quite all right.
According to La Presse, at a press conference to be held this morning-so that is why he isn't here, that's where he is.-Quebec's only NDP member will call on his Liberal and Conservative colleagues to put pressure on Prime Minister Mulroney. It does not say so in the article, but I think he had the hon. member for Jonquiere in mind. I think he was counting on the hon. member for Jonquiere to be a major influence on the Prime Minister of Canada.
This morning, the hon. member for Jonquiere made an excellent speech for his caucus, but unfortunately his caucus was not here. It did not want to listen.
Now the hon. member for Chambly is in Montreal for this press conference while all this is going on in Ottawa. I realize he is missing out on something. I must say-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is fascinating to hear this stream of consciousness, but I would ask the Chair's indulgence in applying the rules of relevance.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will be very careful to confine has remarks to the various subjects before the House today. The hon. member has exactly seven seconds left.
3 Mr. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I will use those seven seconds to say that I will vote against this amendment, be it regretfully.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, as much as I believe in Murphy's law, I must oppose his amendment. The effect of this amendment would be to change the word referendums to a referendum in the title. While that may seem minor in its implications, it is major in its effect.
Bill C-81 before us is enabling legislation which would permit one or more federal referendums. I am not sure whether it is what his party has in mind, but what the hon. member has in mind is a one-time bill permitting only one referendum.
The proposed change is not in keeping with the intent of the bill. In practical terms, it is conceivable that a referendum would take place and that the results of that referendum and other consultations might indicate certain changes in the constitutional proposals were called for. Then it would be appropriate, obviously, to hold a further referendum and the effect of my friend's amendment would be to forestall that.
The alternative, of course, would be the necessity of passing another bill to enable another referendum to take place. It would not be appropriate, once having had one referendum not to have another if there were substantial changes to the proposals. For that reason, I recommend voting against the amendment, as I will do.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I just have a short response to the parliamentary secretary.
It seems to me from all the press clippings I have read and all the speeches I have heard from the Prime Minister and others, the intent was to have just one national referendum. All this motion does is make clear what the Prime Minister has been telling the people. There will be a national referendum and not two, three, four, five or six referendums, if a decision is made in this country to have a referendum in the first place.
If there is a positive decision to have a referendum, all the chats we have had and all the comments we have heard from the government across the way is to have that one referendum on the package which would take place right across the country. All this motion does is to make it very clear in the title of the bill that there shall be a referendum, singular, not referendums, plural.
The other point is that in the last 100 years in this country we have only had two national referendums. I would say, God help us if we need two in the next few months. I think the government should just put in the bill what it has always signalled to the country, that it is not planning on two or three referendums, it is planning
June 2, 1992

on one referendum if, indeed, there is even going to be one. That might not even happen.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, we are getting into an endless discussion. The first motion presented by the hon. member for Churchill, which would change the title of the bill and call it "an act to provide for a referendum on the Constitution of Canada" instead of "referendums", suggests the member for Churchill considers this bill to be undemocratic, unacceptable and just a strong-arm job that this government wants to do on Quebec by passing this bill. It is meant to be used only once.
You know, when I was in business, I had a men's clothing store, among other things. We dressed people. It makes me think today that they are trying to dress the referendum bill up to make it look better, but without changing its content or substance.
I find it quite simply odious for this House of Commons to want to disguise a bill with subtle changes in an attempt to convince a majority that all is well here in Canada.
My greatest regret in all this is that except for those who are the true representatives of Quebec and its higher interests, namely the members of the Bloc Que-becois, ably led by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, except for them, this House would be prepared to pass an undemocratic, even outrageous referendum law with a minimum of consideration. Nevertheless, we know that the Government of Quebec used the Belanger-Cam-peau Commission to consult throughout Quebec and find out what Quebecers in all parts of that future country wanted. The Government of Quebec passed Bill 150, setting October 26,1992 as the deadline for Quebecers to be consulted on their political future, namely sovereignty.
Whether we are for renewed federalism or for Quebec sovereignty, I find it unfortunate today. I think the country's leaders should at least have the intellectual honesty to let this consultation proceed without being overshadowed. They should let it be fair and a benefit to all of society. That cannot happen on the basis of the way this discussion on Bill C-81 has begun.
Government Orders
Yesterday, we in the Bloc Quebecois opposed changing the filing deadlines. We knew that a 48-hour period was absolutely necessary for tabling amendments and in fact, the Speaker of the House told us at the beginning of this morning's sitting that 64 amendment motions had just been received. That is not a serious way to proceed, given the time and the context. I have not yet used up my ten minutes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No, no. I was just trying to get the attention of the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer to gently remind him to keep to the amendment now under consideration, instead of digressing on the substance of the bill.
I know that the hon. member likes to stick to the rules of the House. He would therefore like to keep in mind the rule of relevance and confine himself to the amendment now under consideration that was tabled in the House. I think that everyone would be very grateful.
The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer can continue.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I will confine my comments to the motion moved by the hon. member for Churchill. I cannot help but remind you that 64 motions were put before us this morning and that we have not even had time to read all of them. The object of the first motion is to amend the title of the bill, as if we should be ashamed of saying there might be referendum bills or referendums from time to time, on different issues.
By changing the title, we can have it say anything we want, but it would only be a cover-up. Already yesterday, there was an agreement to shorten the delay during which these amendments could be tabled. One of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Chambly, urged all hon. members to vote against this bill, but I would have liked to have seen him here yesterday. If there had been ten of us, we could have blocked this legislation, which is the role of the official opposition. The only official opposition in this House comes from the Bloc Quebecois. Last night we had to sustain the scorn of the majority in this House, but had there been ten of us, we could have asked for the delays to be respected.

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
Today, the hon. member for Churchill is introducing a motion to change the title. Madam Speaker, I do not think members of the Bloc Quebecois can play these little games. We cannot accept amendments containing such subtleties and requiring explanation. What we are interested in doing in this House is to advise Quebecers they are getting a raw deal here. We want to get to the heart of the debate as soon as possible so that the Bloc Quebecois can shed some light on the situation. This is how we are going to do it. We will follow the principles of democracy, the rules of this House, while trying to advise Quebecers of the injustice being done with regards to a democracy which we, in Quebec, are respecting with our legislation, even with Bill 150. However, we do not want the federal government to interfere with the decision Quebecers will be asked to make.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, I came to the conclusion, while reading this bill before becoming aware of the amendment tabled by the hon. member from Churchill, that it was undemocratic and illegitimate. After taking note of the proposed amendment, this bill still appears undemocratic and illegitimate.
An impression of constant improvisation pervades the government's entire constitutional process. To fully understand both the bill and the amendment thereto, one must stand back and get a comprehensive view of the government's actions since the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. We saw the Spicer commission, or the Spicer circus as some editorial writers called it, seeking guidance, without exaggeration, even in day care centres. The Beaudoin-Edwards committee was followed by the Castonguay-Dobbie committee, and then by the Beau-doin-Dobbie committee, by a multitude of conferences attended by carefully selected participants, and later by special or standing committees, you name it. Finally this bill is illegitimate, because it has no legal basis. As an editorial writer suggested in Le Soleil, the referendum question could be: "do you like soft ice-cream?" This will bring us back, in the end, to the constitutional process which provides for ratification within three years, in each and every legislature; and some provinces-not only Quebec, but British Columbia also-are committed
to hold referendums. This bill is illegitimate because Quebec at least acted with rigour, with the Belanger-Campeau commission and Bill 150. Nobody has questioned the rigour, the seriousness, with which the Belanger-Campeau commission carried out its work. One thing that emerged clearly from the Meech process was that Quebecers alone will decide their future. This will no longer be decided in Newfoundland or in Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker. Would the hon. member be kind enough to talk strictly about the object of the debate right now, namely the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Churchill? There will be other amendments to look at and we will have plenty of time to discuss the bill as a whole. I would appreciate it.


Gilles Duceppe: You were in a position to appreciate it, Madam Speaker, since I-


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we are quite willing to follow the rules, but the House has to do the same. Therefore, I invoke Standing Order 29(3).
And the count having been taken:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I now recognize the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.


Gilles Duceppe: Madam Speaker, if you check the transcripts you will certainly notice that I have been talking about the amendment since the beginning. I look at this amendment and I wonder about a referendum or referendums. Also, this legislation provides no spending limit other than $8.5 million per committee, but there can be an indefinite number of committees. Moreover, there is no framework legislation. Then this amendment goes precisely in that direction. This amendment says no act in practice, but a specific referendum.
In Quebec, there is what we call a framework legislation on referendums and the Bill 150 is based on that legislation. We have found a rigorous way of doing things. I would not support this amendment because the member should precisely require a framework legislation and see what the possibilities are. I imagine this amendment should be made with that objective in mind, but it is far from being the case. We should look at the possibili-

ties of holding referendums afterwards and passing laws that would precisely refer to a framework legislation.
Rather, the member says that there is no framework legislation, there is no need for one, but we can do a little special for Quebec. I believe that this is part of the hypocritical undemocratic tools that are often used in this whole constitutional process, whether it pleases some people or not. This is continually the case here.
I believe not only the amendment but the bill as a whole is unacceptable. It is somewhat futile and naive to act like little birds and at the same time be willing to swallow it all.
I thought that we would be the only ones to vote against this legislation and this amendment, but when I read the comments made by the member for Chambly, I realized that half of the NDP caucus was opposed to that bill. If the member for Chambly happens to vote in this House, he will hold the majority within his party. It will be 50 per cent plus 1.
The member also tells us that he would like a free vote so that members can vote according to their conscience. This implies that if it is not a free vote, it means some members vote unconsciously, unless the member no longer has a conscience, but this is what the member for Chambly said.
I believe this simple amendment changes absolutely nothing; it misses the issue, and it does not follow the democratic traditions regarding referendums. I might add those traditions are not followed in this House, based on the examples of 1898 and 1942. This is a far cry from democracy, as everyone has said, but I imagine that you do what you can when you do not have higher principles than that. However, there are other places in Canada, of which Quebec is still part, hopefully for as short a period as possible, where democratic procedures are followed. Besides, one of the government members used Quebec's referendum legislation to prepare a bill. I think we should take that into consideration. Our colleagues from Quebec, those who do not belong to the Bloc Quebecois but still seem to have roots in Quebec, should turn to the Quebec referendum legislation for inspiration. It is a parent legislation and not an occasional act, as the amendment seems to indicate.
Government Orders
I do not see why they want to change the title. There is more than meets the eye here, since they are really saying we do not need a parent legislation, only a special one, a quickie for Quebec. That is exactly what they are saying and that is precisely what they are suggesting. We will play a dirty trick on them, we will block the whole process in Quebec, and then we will crow, unanimously, over our victory in a huge poll prearranged for a federal election. The object, of course, is not to use one or many referendums to save Canada and to solve the Quebec issue. It is to save the Conservatives' skin, to save the Prime Minister. That is how things stand since Meech.
Ever since Meech, we have been going round in circles, creating commissions like the last one, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. No later than yesterday, Senator Beaudoin was saying that the Senate is unacceptable. He was the one chairing that funny committee, right? But as we often say in Quebec, even though we are laughing, it is not funny.
Unfortunately, this is where things stand right now. They are trying to amend this shameful legislation, to give it a new flavour, by saying there will not be bills on referendums but one bill on a referendum. We do not care a hoot about the rest of the principles. I will be voting against this amendment.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I wish to support my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and some NDP members who are fully opposed to the proposed amendment.
As my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie pointed out, the sole purpose of this amendment is to change the bill's title, but a very meaningful title nevertheless. The debate on Motion No. 1 must address the following question: do we want referendum framework legislation or only a referendum which can be carried out quickly to avoid getting our hands too dirty, while still allowing us, afterwards, to claim that we are great democrats and that we always abide by the great principles of democracy.
This amendment is dangerous, because it will make this is a specific action against a highly democratic and well thought-out process on the part of Quebec. This will, to begin with, hamper that process. Why not proceed as in any other democracy and, more specifically, as in England where a referendum was held to decide whether or not to join the Common Market. How did it

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
proceed? It adopted a referendum framework bill and then adapted it to the referendum on Britain's entry into the Common Market.
The initial preoccupation was to create a democratic process, one which would eliminate any doubt, inspired as it is by the same principles as the Quebec Referendum Act which restricts expenditures, provides for yes and no umbrella groups, and provides both sides with start-up funds. The country gave itself a referendum framework or legislation. Legislation inspires respect; it must be above suspicion and reflect, not the petty intentions of a government which is losing momentum, but principles emerging, in a parliamentary context, from our democratic past. In this sense, the British parliamentary system provided a model for the whole world, and justly so, as to the validity of and the principles which guide each debate and lead to a democratic vote, a vote on principles, often on framework legislation. Based on these principles, a specific action plan will be defined.
This amendment is contrary to time-honoured principles of the British parliamentary system in that its purpose is not to provide parent legislation to give everyone a chance to express views and serve democracy well. Heaven forbid. A little referendum would be much too embarrassing, a little referendum we are ashamed of and do not want to discuss.
As a matter of fact, this referendum has even been announced in the last throne speech. Instead of tabling the relevant piece of legislation within a few months after the throne speech, they concealed it, because some Conservative members from Quebec were ashamed and said: "We will never be able to sell that." The fact is they were ashamed. Today they are no longer ashamed.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Even the minister of state.


Louis Plamondon: There are even ministers from Quebec who do not dare say a word, they put up with it. They too want the debate to come to an end as quickly as possible. They sit in silence and hide. Let me remind them of the fable of La Fontaine in which the ant asks the grasshopper: "What did you do in the spring?" "I was dancing." Come the next election, voters will ask them: "What did you do-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Not only would La Fontaine have a hard time recognizing his own tale, but I think that the hon. member has wandered considerably from the amendment before this House.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, knowing your talent for telling lovely stories, I will refrain from telling all of it and merely use the moral of the story. Let us not forget that, in the end, she who has danced all summer long found herself very needy.
The same thing will happen when election time comes. "What did you do, Conservatives members from Quebec when the debate was held, will we ask?" They will answer: "We were hiding." Then, people will answer back: "You can go and hide forever now." Their voters will hide them forever in a comer of their ridings because they did not stand up for the fundamental principle of democracy that there should be an omnibus bill on referenda instead of this mere scrap of legislation to deal with a temporary situation. In so doing, we feel ashamed because we know that we are interfering with the very principles that have lead to the careful consideration of the question by the Belanger-Campeau commission during a year and a half in Quebec as well as with Bill 150 which will continue to guide our reflection in a very democratic context, under the "yes" or the "no" banner, with a ceiling on expenditures and restrictions on the number of speeches.
Instead of that, with this amendment here, we will put restrictions on this referendum just for the sake of pulling a fast one on Quebec and on democracy at the same time. Then they will go and hide, puffing out their chests and making meaningless speeches on democracy. They will even have commissions go and check if democracy exists in other countries, while it is being trampled on in this country, with time limits and a mock referendum that even banana republics would be ashamed of having. We are spoiling and bringing shame upon this honourable institution and the entire British parliamentary system at the same time.
I will strongly oppose this amendment which shows just how unfair, illegitimate and undemocratic this legislation is and how much of a blemish it will put on the reputation of the members of this House, especially those from Quebec, the Conservatives in particular who
June 2, 1992

did not speak up against such interference, a real hold-up on democracy.
That is how they will be remembered. You can laugh as this amendment goes through, but you will not laugh for long. You will be judged by the people and very severely. You are presently fourth in the polls and should another party be founded, you will then be fifth. That is what will happen to you. Keep on thinking about your pension and hoping for a limousine-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Could the hon. member respect the rules of this House and address the Chair please?


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, if you have a limousine, you certainly deserve it with all the patience we require from you in this House and also because of your good judgment and the excellent advice you constantly give us when we stray from the subject. However, you should not consider the Bloc Quebecois as the wolf among the sheep, quite the contrary. We are here to represent the vital energy of Quebec, to defend the higher interests of the beautiful Quebec nation. It is fortunate we are here because from the amendments proposed today, one can realise there was a collusion among the three parties to abstain from reflecting over Quebec's demands and interests. Nobody would have said a word, except maybe for the NDP member for Chambly, but he made his declarations in Montreal and not in this House. If he talks in Montreal, we have to wait and see him here, see how he will vote. Maybe there will be one more member thinking of the higher interests of Quebec instead of participating in that collusion.
The member for Jonquiere whom I see on the other side is smiling because he brought some amendments; but he saw how his amendments were received. His work and reflection of many years were rejected flat out. Again in committee today, his documents were not even taken into account and he will probably yield like a sheep after having acted like a lion in front of the cameras. He
Government Orders
will probably bow and vote with this government which is about to, Madam Speaker, with this referendum and even more so with this amendment-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will say it very gently to the hon. member; his time is over.


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, today we are discussing a very important amendment to the referendum bill. We have to decide if we are going to call the bill an act to provide for a referendum on the Constitution of Canada or an act to provide for referen-dums on the Constitution of Canada. In any case, we cannot accept a bill which simply tries to ignore the will of Quebecers. We also realize that we are going through the same experience as in 1978, when the Trudeau government tabled Bill C-9 under almost the same circumstances as today. That was when Quebec decided to pass its own referendum bill. At that time, the federal government, which was Liberal, decided to table its bill which, ultimately, did not pass third reading stage, since an election was called before that. We can see full well the context is the same today. People in Ottawa are annoyed because there will be a referendum in Quebec. The pressure is mounting and the federal government finally decides to short-circuit what could happen in Quebec.
The Conservative government, which decided to table this bill, has no longer any legitimacy, as we know. We only have to look at the recent polls to fully realize why we have this bill. Yesterday, a Gallup poll mentioned leaders' popularity, and again, we saw that the Prime Minister's popularity had dropped to 16 per cent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member puts me in an unbearable position. I think she must realize that at this point her remarks have absolutely no relevance to the amendment before the House. I would ask her to please stick to the content of that amendment. I think that throughout this morning, I have shown a lot of patience and clemency. There must be a limit and hon. members should stick to the content of the amendment which is before the House at this point.

Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have been following the debate for some time now. At times it seems that the debate is not taking place between adversaries but rather that the Chair has decided to prevent our members from speaking.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have no doubt that the hon. member for Shefford will be kind enough to withdraw his comments.
The hon. member for Shefford is a veteran of the House of Commons and he is well aware of the rule of relevancy. He knows that I have already received several comments from other members asking me to make sure that it was followed today just as any other day. I have been extremely patient and forgiving and I really do not appreciate been told by the hon. member that I am the one who is preventing people from speaking. I would be grateful if he could withdraw his remarks.
I think the debate will be made easier for everyone if, during this long debate at report stage, one sticks to the particular issue being dealt with in any given amendment on which the House will have to vote.
I would request the hon. member to withdraw the remarks he made on my account.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, you acknowledged that I am a veteran. I thank you for that. However, the fact is-I do not mean this to be personal-since I have been sitting in this Chamber, as you know, when a member has the floor, he does not have to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member be kind enough to immediately withdraw the totally unacceptable remarks he made on my account.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I can withdraw the remarks that you deem offending, but one thing is certain: you said that, at some other hon. members' request, you have decided to apply strictly the rule of relevancy. In fact, I think that the application of rules should not depend on government members or Bloc members. What matters is that your rulings be fair, and I am counting on you.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member I will show, to the best of my knowledge, at all times, the utmost fairness. I think we also have to abide by the rules of this House, and the hon. member will no doubt wish to reread the clauses of our Standing Orders dealing with relevancy. Then he might help his colleagues to target their statements, which will allow us to work together, on all sides of this House, a lot more seriously.


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I feel my remarks are quite in order. They relate directly to this amendment, and when we deal with an amendment, references to the legislation are inevitable.
I am sorry, but if you ask me to speak to an amendment without referring to the legislation, I can do so only with great difficulty. When I speak to an amendment I also speak to the legislation, and I point out what made the Tory government propose this legislation. That, to my mind, is part of the debate.
If we cannot say what motivated the Tory government to table a referendum legislation, I think we are missing the point altogether.


An hon. member:: Absolutely.


Pierrette Venne: For my part, I think I have to deal with the substance of this legislation. The reason we have a referendum bill at this time is that the Tory government is at 16 per cent in the polls, and that is exactly why this legislation is now on the table.
We are now debating an amendment to change the title of the legislation, so that it provides for a referendum instead of referendums, but that is quite inappropriate. Anyway, what difference does it make if the legislation provides for a referendum instead of referendums? On that account, I am entitled to discuss this motion and I am entitled also to discuss the substance of this legislation. I cannot discuss one without the other. I am very sorry, but that is the way I see things. That is what I wished to explain.
I will go on by saying that we are now at a time where, rather than having to discuss a referendum bill, we should have an election. Normally, after four years, a government calls an election instead of proposing referendum legislation.
That is, in my view, the heart of the matter and I cannot ignore it. The government tries to bypass the issue, but it can fool no one, and it is my duty to denounce it.
I also wanted to stress that when those members brought in this referendum legislation, the government was not concerned with the interests of Quebecers, but only concerned with staying in power. It should be understood that those are the motives behind this legislation, and as a member of the Bloc, it is my duty today to condemn those motives.
June 2, 1992

Since we are discussing the title of the bill, I have a suggestion. I hope I will not be told I am off topic, because I would like to suggest the following title: "the cowards at Quebec's expense act". I think it would be an appropriate title. They are cowards because they are afraid to call an election and "at Quebec's expense" means they do not want Quebec to have its own referendum. They want to short circuit the process. I think that would be an appropriate title.
I could suggest another one: "An Act concerning an endangered party and artificial support systems to keep it alive".


An hon. member:: Not bad.


Pierrette Venne: I think that would also be a good title to discuss. Of course, because of pressure to speed up the debate, there was not enough time to submit these amendments to the Chair, but I think they would have been very appropriate. If I had to choose, which would not be easy-I would take the cowards-more appropriate, considering the kind of government we have today.
In concluding, I want to say I will certainly vote against this amendment and against the bill. I say this because I think Tory members from Quebec should do the same. They should rise in the House and tell us what they think about this amendment-


An hon. member:: They are hiding.


An hon. member:: They do not think they are hiding.


Pierrette Venne: -what they think about the title and what they think about the bill. You say they do not think. Well, I certainly would not have dared to go that far. I would like to hear from them and I see the hon. member for Beauhamois-Salaberry. Perhaps he could rise in the House and tell us what he thinks of the referendum bill and this amendment.
To confirm what I have been saying, I would like to quote an article from the Journal de Chicoutimi which says, in referring to the hon. member for Jonquiere: "-
Government Orders
it is clear that when Jean-Pierre Blackburn bravely criticizes his government's policies, speaking up for Quebec's interests, Quebec is really the last of his concerns." Incidentally, we read this in a daily newspaper published in the riding of the hon. member for Jonquiere. I admit I would not have felt very flattered if the same kind of article had appeared in my own riding, but I imagine the hon. member will respond in kind to this journalist who did not seem to appreciate him.
In other words, I expected that. If the hon. member for Jonquiere wishes to speak, I would ask him to rise from his seat, since he seems to want the floor. My comments seem to have inspired him. If he really wants to speak, I suggest that he rise in the House, and we will be delighted to listen.


Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil):: I hope he will speak to the amendment.


Pierrette Venne: Yes, of course. We would like to hear him talk about the amendment, because this is so important. We know he could manage to be more relevant than the Bloc, because he has been a long-time member of various committees. I think he sat on all of them in turn. But finally, it would be-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but her time has now expired.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps you will allow me to tell the people who are making these comments that they had as much time as I did to table amendments to Bill C-81. They had just as much time, and furthermore, some of them were present at the legislative committee.
As far as defending the interests of Quebec is concerned, I think they should have-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is debate. I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I understand why the hon. member for Churchill tabled an amendment to remind the government that the referendum bill should apply only to one referendum. I under-

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
stand because during the past two years, we have seen any number of committees travelling across Canada.
There was the Spicer commission which sort of failed. The member for Jonquiere, who followed the exercise rather closely, mentioned this commission tabled a rather meaningless report. In any case, it would have been very hard for the government to hold a referendum based on such a report. I imagine that it would have been the first of a series of referendums. The government tables a bill on referendums probably because it intends to hold several of those.
I understand the member for Churchill is worried the government will not make a decision based on its past record. We know in the last ten years or so, and especially in the last two years, the government and the three main political parties in Canada cannot agree on how to renew this beautiful country, as they say.
There was the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, the Castonguay-Dobbie committee, which also failed and became the Beaudoin-Dobbie, and then there was the weekend committee. Each of those committees tabled reports that most of the time contradicted each other. Let us now look at what has been taking place in the last two or three months, with those 400 people going from one city to the next all across Canada. This is of course very good business for those hotels and cities, but it seems strange that a government with a $430 billion accumulated debt and a deficit of $32 billion this year can travel across the country and pay for the expenses, hotels and meals of 400 people, in order to discuss things that we already know.
We already know what Quebec wants, because Quebec has performed one of the most rigorous exercises in the history of Canada, namely the Belanger-Campeau commission whose co-chairman, Mr. Campeau, is now going to travel through the province to gather business people and promote the sovereignty of Quebec. There was the Belanger-Campeau commission, which was an unprecedented exercise. Six hundred briefs were received by the commission and at the same time, fifty-five experts did parallel studies. They demonstrated that it was necessary for Quebec to patriate almost every power in order to develop properly. English Canada is aware of this rigorous exercise that took place in Quebec. Why continue to travel across Canada in order to find out the opinion of
Quebecers and of the rest of the country when we already know the answers?
Now we are undertaking yet another exercise called a referendum. Apparently, the Canadian government will spend more than $100 million to hold this non-binding referendum. All they want is to once again ask the Canadian population for its opinion. We have known that opinion for ten years already. Each year, month after month, the government says that it wants to know what Canadians think and what kind of Canada we should have. Once again, this government wants to ask Canadians that same question, this time through a referendum. We know very well this referendum is not legitimate. It will not change the Constitution because it has no legal value. We know that to make constitutional amendments, you need the approval of at least seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population. Such changes must be ratified by the provincial governments.
This referendum is strictly a consultative referendum. The government will bother the Canadian population. It will spend at least another $100 million of taxpayers money while it is already in debt, to ask Canadians what they think of Canada. We need only ask the companies that specialize in polling. It would cost us barely $100,000 and we would have exactly the same results, without disturbing the people.


Gilles Rocheleau: Within 2 per cent.


Nic Leblanc: With proper polling, within 1 per cent.
I very well understand the hon. member for Churchill saying there could be only one referendum, because the government could also start another exercise over again; committee after committee, another Spicer commission, another Beaudoin-Dobbie, Castonguay-Dobbie, Beaudoin-Dobbie again, weekend committees and referendums and spend ten years talking and talking to come up in the end with what we already know now.
Madam Speaker, why would we continue with these exercises-


An hon. member:: Futile exercises.


Nic Leblanc: -that are futile and hurt the economy of Canada and especially Quebec? We are here to defend Quebec's interests. This uncertainty makes
June 2, 1992

our Quebec premier uncertain himself. He goes back and forth because he does not know what the federal government will do. He is acting the same way, in order to have it both ways.
We in the Bloc Quebecois and I especially are against a referendum. The hon. member for Jonquiere just said we too should have proposed amendments. I want to tell him we do not want amendments; we do not want a referendum, because we are fed up with spending Quebecers' money. We give the federal government $24.5 billion a year and it wastes our money. We will not let Canadians waste another $25 million on a referendum, or let Quebecers give the federal government another $25 million to hold a phony referendum, a sort of opinion poll, when we know that we could spend $25,000 in Quebec to do exactly the same thing and come up with the same results.
We are against this referendum. We find it outrageous and we are here to represent Quebec's interests. We say to Quebecers: Participate, but refuse to answers the false questions presented by this irresponsible government that does not want to defend the national interest. It says it is the country's future, but it does not want to defend the national interest. It wants to defend its own partisan interests.
That is what it wants to do. it wants to score points. The federal Liberal Party does the same thing. It is trying to score points, and so is the NDP. We do not want to score points. We want Quebecers to-


Gilles Rocheleau: We want to get out of here.


Nic Leblanc: -get out of all these endless discussions. We absolutely want Quebecers to be able one day to develop as they should and create the richest country in North America. That is what we want for Quebecers. We are tired of all this foolishness and nonsense.
I am against this referendum and I will work day and night if necessary to tell Quebecers not to get involved in it and waste our time and money. All we want is to build a prosperous Quebec to have a better quality of life. That is what we want.


Mr.   Benoit@: Madam Speaker, you will note that the Bloc Quebecois members regularly have the floor this morning. Since it is often difficult to
Government Orders
do so when one wants to speak on bills, one can wonder. This morning, as if by magic, we all get to speak. We can all speak to an amendment because our colleagues across the way are silent. Except for the member for Beauhamois-Salaberry, who regularly attempts to intervene, they do not consider this bill sufficiently important.


Some hon. members:: He only speaks while sitting.


An hon. member:: Ah, he has risen.


Mr. Hudon:: Some say that I never speak, Madam Speaker. I would simply like to state that we are debating clause 1 and that I support the title.


Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont):: Is the hon. member for Beauhamois-Salaberry asking for several referen-dums? Is that why he supports the title?


An hon. member:: He supports the title of parliamentary secretary.


Benoît Tremblay: I think, Madam Speaker, we have reached the bottom, given the situation in Quebec, the context in which we have to make our decision, and the constitutional discussions where, for two years now, we have known that the government had promised to submit acceptable offers to Quebec. Now, they come up with a bill to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, and the hon. member for Beauhamois-Salaberry tells us he supports the title.
Even one referendum in unacceptable, but now our colleague, a former nationalist, decides that, as far as he is concerned, the title should say referendums. Does the government want to hold one referendum after another, like it created one commission and one committee after another? I want to tell my hon. colleague that, unfortunately, many of those commissions and committees had all the time they needed in the last several months. Now time is running out. Soon there will be a deadline: the federal elections.
I do not quite understand the need to hold several referendums, costing $100 million in public money in organization expenses only, after we have had the Spicer commission. I see the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest and I want to mention the Beaudoin-Edwards commission, which all cost millions and millions of dollars. Now, we have the Constitutional caravan made up of 400 people travelling throughout Canada, from city

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
to city. They stop somewhere, go round in circles until they get tired, or one of them looks about ready to explode; that is when they decide it is time to move on. There, everything stopped. The minister in charge announced that great progress had been accomplished. The caravan left for another town, with 400 persons moving again. There it started all over, round and round and round. We were told there was progress. It seems we made progress on the native people issue.
It is really incredible that the federal government would accept to recognize the inherent right of native people and would declare that the courts would define that right in three years if no agreement is reached before that. On the other hand, that same government, that same constitutional committee would refuse, in the case to allow the distinct society clause to be used in the interpretation of the rights and powers which already exist in the Constitution. It is quite extraordinary. Now some members from Quebec want to support a bill on referendums in Canada which aims evidently at delaying the schedule because we know quite well this referendum will be unacceptable for the population of Quebec. The reply to this attempt to bypass the process already going on in Quebec will be a definite no.
The government had all the time it needed and the provinces had all the time required and they spent fortunes. It is easy to understand the cost of federalism. In Quebec, we had the Belanger-Campeau commission which was very interesting, very relevant and entirely televised and the whole process cost approximately $5 million.
The cost of the constitutional commissions, committees and caravan greatly exceeds $100 million already. Of this, 23 per cent comes from our taxes. In reality it comes from borrowed money, of which 23 per cent is borrowed on our behalf because the deficit continues to increase.
That is very frustrating. The Government continues to spend our money, to borrow on our behalf, in order to finance a constitutional caravan which leads nowhere and does not meet its deadlines.
What is still more frustrating is to have to listen, every night on the National, as they repeat that no progress has been accomplished, that they are happy or unhappy, that they have made great progress but not enough.
Worse still is the use of borrowed funds to pay for commercials, even during the hockey play-offs. These broadcast slots, used for subliminal publicity boasting of Canada's greatness, cost a bundle. It is shameful.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: It is beautiful.


Benoît Tremblay: It is shameful. The member for Jonquiere finds it beautiful. That is extraordinary.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Supposedly a great nationalist.


Benoît Tremblay: Yes, a great nationalist, even in his own riding.
I have here an editorial which appeared in his riding, and I quote: "Should one take these negative comments seriously-"


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly restrain himself to the amendment before the House?


An hon. member:: Say something about the editorial's title.


Benoît Tremblay: Madam Speaker, this article deals precisely with the referendum. It says how seriously we must address the issue. There is nothing unusual about an editorial writer questioning the seriousness of some of the comments members can make, particularly when they show up regularly on the news because they slightly disagree, or so it seems, with their government. For months now, those people have been making promises.
Not so long ago, just a few months ago, the idea of holding a referendum was considered unacceptable by them. Never was the federal government to hold a referendum in Quebec. That is what the Prime Minister himself was telling us not so long ago.


An hon. member:: And the minister of state.


Mrs. Vezina:: It is still unacceptable.


Benoît Tremblay: The Minister of State just said it is still unacceptable. Well, at one point, all those assertions will have to-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not know if this will show up in Hansard, but I did hear the minister say that it is still unacceptable. Did she really say that?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is not a point of order, as the hon. member knows.
The hon. member for Rosemont still has about 40 seconds.


An hon. member:: Forty-two!


Benoît Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I think our House leader asked a pertinent question, and I can confirm that the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration indeed repeated that a referendum would be totally unacceptable, and we fully agree with that.
The government will soon have to take action to match its words. All Quebecers are wondering about it. They are wondering about the hon. member for Jonquiere in his region, as is to be expected. It is right in the heart of the debate.
When we criticize or say that a referendum is unacceptable and we are presented with a referendum bill that refers to referendums-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. His time is up.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to intervene in the debate now to bring up something quite basic.
The bill before us today allows the government to consult the people, if it sees fit to do so, as the title clearly says. It is an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
I am very surprised that our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois did not even take the trouble to read clause 3 of the bill, which says very clearly the government can hold referendums or a referendum throughout the country or in one or more provinces.
Obviously, the proposed amendment that would limit the government's ability to consult all Canadians is certainly not one that we will support. We will not support it because it is obvious that the Government of
Government Orders
Canada has the right to consult Canadians, just as the Government of Quebec has a referendum law and no one objects to the Government of Quebec consulting its people. The same thing happens in British Columbia. The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia passed a bill allowing the government of that province to hold a referendum and consult the people.
I wonder what kind of hypocrisy this is, this show that the Bloc Quebecois members are putting on to have us believe they are defending democracy.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be surprised to learn that we share his position and that we are also against the amendment. I am sure that using a word like hypocrisy is not very appropriate. You know the Speaker already asked other hon. members to withdraw such an unparliamentary word. My ears are shocked to hear words like those. I suppose yours are too.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is really concerned about the hon. member's ears. Maybe the hon. member would want to think about mine, because I have been here since 10 o'clock this morning.
The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel may rise again.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, clearly the Canadian government by providing for a means to consult the people on constitutional amendments, if it is deemed necessary, is doing something most democratic and most legitimate.
The Liberal Party of Canada and its leader have been demanding such a law for months and months. In this way, the government of Canada will be able to consult the people across Canada, or in some provinces only, if they would rather have it done by the federal government instead of the provincial government.
I believe that the principle of a law to permit the people to vote on major constitutional amendments is totally democratic and should be accepted by all members in this House.
If some hon. members have concerns about some aspects of the bill, I agree that we should discuss them, but systematic opposition, of the kind we have seen this morning from members of the Bloc Quebecois, to a Canadian referendum on constitutional proposals is out

June 2, 1992
of place and out of order in the context of the constitutional negotiations presently in progress.
This is a wrong debate to question the advisability of letting the government of Canada consult the people.
Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois is very concerned there might be a referendum on constitutional proposals which might be accepted by the people of Quebec. This would be the end of their role in Parliament. From that point of view I am not surprised they should object so strenuously to this bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will be able to pursue his speech a little later.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to bring to your attention and through you, to all Canadians, a memorable event that took place in Thunder Bay last Sunday.
Approximately two years ago, St. Anthony's Church was completely destroyed by fire. Last Sunday, the new St. Anthony's Church was dedicated by Bishop John O'Mara.
For over 75 years, St. Anthony's served as a centre of religious and cultural heritage for Italians who chose Canada and made it their home. More recently, it has embraced the Portuguese community who have also chosen Canada as their new home.
The community of St. Anthony's is an example that should guide us all in the faith for the future of Canadians, the hope for a united Canada and a love that we all share for Canada.
I would like to thank Father Ermete Nazzani, who gave us his leadership, Father Umberto Rizzi, who continues to give us his guidance, and Father Riccardo Bezzegato, who is now the pastor. They all deserve our gratitude for continuing to provide for the cultural and spiritual needs of our community.


CHALLENGE 92
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, 188 summer jobs for students will be created in my riding as part of Challenge 92. One hundred twenty-four companies or organizations of Quebec-Est have been chosen as promoters for the project, in exchange for a federal government contribution of approximately $238,187.
I would like to stress that since this program was introduced, more than 790 businesses of my riding have helped 1,290 students benefit from a unique and quality work experience, as well as allowing them to make some money, thanks to a federal investment of close to $2 millions.
We really want to help our young people and that is why our government never hesitates to invest its time, efforts and money.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec City yesterday the Secretary-General of GATT, Arthur Dunkel, left the clear impression that there is hope for the supply management system in Canada. His words gave Canada's supply management agencies cause for believing there is a window of opportunity to continue seeking a clarification and strengthening of article XI so as to maintain our marketing system.
While Mr. Dunkel gave no firm commitment, he did
suggest there was hope when he said that marketing
June 2, 1992

boards were still a question mark and that those involved must carefully examine how supply management functions and how this system can co-exist within a new GATT agreement.
The federal government must stay the course to ensure that the greatest possible pressure is applied to world leaders and key players in these negotiations. Canada cannot afford to lose its supply management system. Thousands of farm families, rural communities and agrifood industry workers depend on the system which provides the steady supply of good, wholesome dairy and poultry products for Canadian consumers.
I call on the Prime Minister and his government to see these negotiations through to the end so as to preserve this most stable part of our Canadian agricultural system.


THE SALMON
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the official opening of yet another Atlantic salmon season in many Canadian rivers.
The salmon has become a challenging symbol for our society in two important ways.
First, its very survival is a reflection of our commitment to conservation. Once a resource that was available in abundance, the salmon is now a fragile species that tests our environmental will and discipline to the extreme.
Second, the salmon is a dynamic issue in developing new relations which aboriginal self-government will bring among Canadians. It is one resource where native rights have been established as a priority but where sharing with all citizens remains an essential goal.
In both respects, let us resolve to meet the challenge which the salmon symbolizes with care, with sensitivity and with effective management.


Mr. Dan Heap (TYinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada ought to condemn publicly the barbarous action of the United States in returning to its 1981 practice of forcing Haitian boat people refugees to
return to persecution in Haiti. After all, we condemned nations of southeast Asia for the same violations of United Nations law a dozen years ago.
Canada did well to halt deportation to Haiti at the time of the coup last fall, but now we must do more.
There are Haitians in danger of persecution who now have no way to flee persecution in their country, but are not eligible to apply at our Port-au-Prince visa office as refugees because they are in their own country. Therefore, I call on the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the cabinet to use section 62 of the Immigration Act to designate classes of Haitians as being in need of our protection and, therefore, eligible to apply at our visa office for entry to Canada as refugees.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, here is some news about the Canadian economy that should be mentioned.
Exports in March reached a record level of $12.8 billion, with $9.8 billion in sales to the United States alone. This is the third month in a row in which we have had an encouraging increase in the gross domestic product.
In fact, exports to the U.S. rose 12 per cent between December and March. During this same period, labour productivity has soared at an annualized rate of 5.7 per cent, surpassing the historic trend in the 1 to 2 per cent range.
Canada is regaining its competitive position. Could it be that our economic policies are beginning to pay dividends?


DRUNK DRIVING
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, despite massive public awareness campaigns, drunk driving continues to be a serious problem in Canada.
Recent statistics indicate that the number of impaired driving charges has fallen. Conservative estimates state that the ratio of impaired drivers to the number of those who get caught is 200 to 1.

June 2, 1992
Education has lead to a slight decrease in the problem by reducing alcohol abuse among young people and by diminishing the number of casual drinkers who drive after a few drinks.
We need tougher sentences in court, but the real responsibility lies with each of us. As members of Parliament, we have a special responsibility to lead by example.
During Nepean Days in my riding, a group will be donating proceeds from the sale of Canada Day memorabilia to a local chapter of Students Against Drunk Driving. I applaud their efforts in support of public awareness and encourage other communities to do the same.


YOUTH VIOLENCE
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, following hard on the looting and violence of May 4, yesterday's teenage brawl on Toronto Island is extremely disturbing. This is by no means the first time that incidents of this kind have occurred in Toronto.
At the conclusion of the 1991 Canadian Music Awards, large groups of youths rampaged through the Eaton Centre. Following the 1988 New Year's celebrations in Nathan Phillips Square, gangs of youths smashed windows and looted. In 1987 and again in 1991, youths went on a rampage at the CNE and after the 1981 Grey Cup, football fans celebrated by overturning cars and looting stores.
In fact, there have been riots in Toronto as far back as July 12, 1858 when Orangemen and Catholics fought each other and two men were shot.
That it has happened before, however, is no excuse. This kind of lawless behaviour just cannot be tolerated.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare
had responded to constitutional agreements on aboriginal issues by saying, and I quote: "I don't understand that we needed 125 years in Quebec and in two months they, the natives, could get all that they get."
The minister should know the aboriginal peoples have not arrived at this point over a period of two months. It has taken hundreds of years of looking in from the outside. It has taken many years of demanding a place at the table.
What is more, Canadians in every region of this country know this fact and have said they want the constitutional reform package to address these issues.
Stop back-tracking. If Quebec were to separate, it would still have to deal with the same aboriginal issues. Premier Bourassa should come to the negotiating table, because in the long run aboriginal peoples and Quebecers have some common causes. Native self-government will only be a tough sell if you make it so.


ALLERGY AWARE PROGRAM
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament, federal departments and the private sector have worked together to make information on potential food allergens available to consumers who are sensitive to certain food substances.
After several private members' initiatives, consumer and corporate affairs developed a requirement for the mandatory listing of ingredients on food labels, an important step in ensuring that consumers are aware of the ingredients in a food product.
I commend the Canadian Food and Food Services Association, the Allergy-Asthma Information Association and the Department of National Health and Welfare for implementing the Allergy Aware Program.
Thanks to this program, quick service restaurants are publishing charts listing the foods served in their establishments and identifying the ten most prevalent allergens consumers may wish to avoid. Such initiatives and partnerships benefit all consumers and must be commended.
June 2, 1992


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, 60 per cent of the 969 women murdered between 1974 and 1990 in Ontario were killed by male partners, according to the recently released study, "Women Killing: Intimate Femicide in Ontario".
The report shows ironically that shelters created to protect and save the lives of women are also saving the lives of men. The growth in shelters since 1981 correlates to the decrease in the number of men dying at the hands of their female partners. Because women now have somewhere to turn in an abusive situation, they are not resorting to violent means.
Women are still being killed by their male partners in as large numbers as ever. Native women in Ontario are six times as likely as non-native women to be killed by a spouse.
The report notes that the justice system still neglects to protect women. Peace bonds, restraining orders, and other measures have failed and will continue to fail without proper police protocols and appropriate judicial response.
We must continue to support shelters, but the issue of abuse and murder must be brought to light. We must educate all Canadians, particularly the professionals.


BILLY BISHOP
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago today, Billy Bishop took off for further glory. He made a one-man raid on a German aerodrome 12 miles behind enemy lines in France. It was a famous raid that was to earn him the Victoria Cross.
Our greatest First World War ace was challenged by four enemy aircraft during the raid. He downed three of them and emptied his gun into the fourth before making his escape.
Billy Bishop was only 24 when he received the Victoria Cross, the Commonwealth's highest award for gallantry, from George V at Buckingham Palace. On the same
occasion, he received the Military Cross and the Distinguished Service Order.
This man from Owen Sound was only one of the many Canadians who brought credit to the Royal Flying Corps and proved to hidebound generals that the new-fangled flying machine had a role in warfare.
Indeed, at the end of the war, over half of the top 20 aces of the Royal Flying Corps were from Canada.
Canadians like Billy Bishop were bom to high skies and open spaces and were ideally suited to the challenges of aerial combat. Let us never forget the skill and the bravery of young men who conquered new frontiers.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, an appalling study was released by the Women We Honour Action Committee yesterday. It shows that between 1974 and 1990 at least 61 per cent, and perhaps as many as 78 per cent of the women murdered in Ontario were murdered by the men they had lived with.
It is horrifyingly macabre that in Ontario, and presumably in the rest of Canada, the statistically surest way for a woman to secure her own violent murder is to enter into a spousal relationship.
It says something deeply alarming about the culture of maleness and male violence in our society. It raises frightening questions, the proper answers to which are fundamental to the continued living of up to 100 or more women in Canada this year, next year, the year after that, ad infinitum.
Whatever it takes, and increased funding for women's shelters and post-shelter aid, education of police and the judiciary, and anti-violence education in the schools are utterly essential starting points, this undeclared war against the women Canadian men allegedly love must be ended.


HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, you are well aware of the acute concern that the people of Canada have for their environment. One of the main concerns of Canadians relating to the

June 2, 1992
Oral Questions
environment is their own health and the health of their families.
It was fitting that the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced on March 20 of this year the action plan on health and the environment.
As a further measure to ensure that the public is informed about the important link between their environment and health, I welcome the news that the Department of National Health and Welfare is about to launch a new report during this Environment Week on the topic entitled, "A Vital Link, Health and the Environment in Canada".


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Yesterday, I received a letter from a young Canadian in my constituency who is looking for a job after graduation.
At the beginning of the year, he wrote to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister referred his letter to the minister of employment. The minister of employment has not yet answered.
However, he went to an employment centre to register for a program but was told that this program took place only once a year and it was too late for this year. The only chance he has is to wait for next year.
We have been asking for several weeks why this government cut the funding of training programs and why it does not put more funds into them.
When the member for Hamilton East said there was no more money for training programs yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said that was false. Why can my constituent not get into a program? It is important for him to find a very good job after having worked so hard to graduate from university.


TELEVISION PROGRAMMING
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all ages watch television more than many of my generation would wish. While the use of one's leisure time is a matter of personal choice, the nature of those programs can have a substantial influence on viewers, particularly on the young, and that is of consequence to all of society.
If television portrays life as one in which violence including rape and murder are day-to-day occurrences, young people may learn to accept such violence as being a natural part of their own lives. As an example, 13-year old Virginie Lariviere of St. Polycarpe, Quebec is convinced that her 11-year old sister was brutally and tragically murdered as a direct result of the portrayal of such violence on television.
In a different but equally important vein, Canadians look for television and particularly to the CBC to be an accurate portrayal of the role of our country in world history, but veterans have been outraged and insulted by revisionist portrayals of that history as in the recent series The Valour and the Horror.
Those who produce and those who select television programs have an immense and even frightening influence on their viewing audience, an influence to which they have not given adequate attention.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. We all hope that the earth summit in Rio will be a success. Already the international community is seriously concerned about the United States' refusal to sign several international agreements which are critical to the success of this summit.
Will the Prime Minister give us the assurance that he is going to pick up the phone and call the President of the United States to urge him to sign these treaties of paramount importance at this time? Otherwise the community of nations will be very disappointed.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend would take offense if the President of the United States phoned me to tell me to sign a treaty after the Canadian government had decided otherwise. This is something for each nation, for each country to decide for itself.
Of course, on an issue as important as this one, I have already conveyed to the President of the United States our views regarding not only the importance of this summit, but also that of the treaties that flow from it. I
June 2, 1992

stated in a speech yesterday the Canadian position and our objectives for this summit as well as what the Canadian government will do immediately afterwards to contribute to its success, because we believe that this summit is a most important event as regards all issues relating to the development of the environment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
There were supposed to be three conventions at Rio. One was climate change, another was endangered species and the third one was forest management. The convention on forest management has been completely dropped and now the Americans have convinced other industrial nations not to have specific targets or deadlines for the one on climate change.
President Bush's advisers are bragging that when they are back from Rio they will have very little to do to meet any new commitments.
I want to ask the Prime Minister what I asked him in French. Will he use his good office and call the President to tell him that according to what we know, of the three conventions that were proposed, two will not be signed by the United States-one has been in fact dropped- and the third one, the President does not want any deadlines or targets.
Will he tell the President of United States that if that is the case, Rio will be a complete failure?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is always imprudent to try to judge the results of an important international event before it takes place.
It is always very, very imprudent to suggest that if a given country does not propose or agree to do a certain act, the entire thing will collapse. There are 178 countries in the world. There will be members of the United Nations, there will be more than 110 heads of government at Rio, and while the United States plays an important role in this, as it does in all other international affairs, it is not the only player there.
We do not propose to subcontract our rights or obligations in the environment to the United States or anybody else. We will be there to fulfil our obligations on
Oral Questions
behalf of Parliament and the people of Canada and we expect other nations to do the same thing in their national interest.


FISHERIES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question concerning the fisheries.
This morning we read in the press that the Europeans have decided to stop fishing off the coast of Newfoundland. Of course they stopped fishing for a very good reason, there are no fish any more.
We would like to know from the Prime Minister if he can guarantee to this House that the Europeans will not come back next fall and that if they decide to come back it will only be when we have enough stock on the banks. Can he assure that Canadian fishermen have a livelihood for themselves and not for others?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentlemen has noticed we are having some success with respect to the campaign we have been waging with respect to foreigners.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There's no fish, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: You cannot have it both ways. Yesterday you were going berserk, we had to stop foreign overfishing. Today it looks like we are on the way to stopping foreign overfishing and you are complaining there are no fish. Now which is it? What do you want? Do you want to stop overfishing or not?


THE ENVIRONMENT
M. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, while preparing his visit to Rio, the Prime Minister said the environment should be the focus of the next round of the GATT negotiations. If he is really convinced of that, why does he continue to consider the environment as a secondary issue in the negotiations for

Oral Questions
the proposed free trade deal with Mexico? Why does he not insist on the enforcement of common standards for the three countries? Why does he not insist on an accession clause which would protect the environment and on a dispute settlement mechanism which would take the environment into account?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My
friend should be careful when talking about the accession clause because that opens very interesting doors into other areas.
As for the environment, I can assure you that it is part of the Canadian government's negotiating position in all our global initiatives. As I said yesterday in a speech about what would happen after Rio, we intend to make the environment a priority in all our commercial negotiations and particularly in the case of the GATT. Evidently all countries will have to co-operate and participate, but I think Canada is taking leadership action in this area and we will invite others to follow.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
The Rio conference is about the environment, trade, and the relationships between the rich and the poor. The North American free trade agreement is about exactly the same thing. The Prime Minister cannot say one thing in Brazil, another in Mexico, and hope to maintain any degree of credibility.
Will the Prime Minister integrate the enforcement of common environmental standards directly into the Mexican agreement and into its dispute settlement mechanism?
The Prime Minister has said that the environment should be the focal point of the next round of GATT negotiations. Will he demonstrate his sincerity now in the current round of Mexican negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with some of the observations made by my hon. friend. The conference in Rio is going to deal not just with the environment but with the problems of foreign debt, aid and trade in respect of developing nations, how their own economic situations can be accommodated to the horrendous economic costs of preserving their own environment.
There is not a bifurcation but there is an equally important degree of responsibility to be accorded in Rio to the problems of Third World development. I think my hon. friend quite properly points that out.
Canada's policy of eliminating debt in sub-Saharan Africa, our problems of write-offs of debt in the Caribbean countries, the developing countries, are all part and parcel of that general approach.
With regard to trade, we are surprised by some of the opposition we see in this House, because precisely one of the ways that you are going to increase the well-being of people in developing countries, a developing economy such as Mexico, is to enter into a free trade agreement with developing countries, so as to give them access to developed markets. In this way they can enrich their own citizens, thereby raising the well-being of all of their people.
Because of that fundamental principle, and because it has just been articulated so well, I would then conclude that my hon. friend is also speaking, because he is environment and I think associate finance critic, that he is speaking for the Liberal Party and committing them to full support for a North American free trade agreement with Mexico.


WESTRAY MINE
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns the tragic accident at Westray mine.
On May 20, the minister responsible for small businesses assured this House that the government would bring forward and I quote: "all the appropriate information as soon as possible". Two weeks later we still have not received any of that information.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will assure this House that he will bring forward this week all of the documents pertaining to the Westray mine and how those decisions were taken.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my hon. friend that the documents are being assembled and they will be tabled in the House this week.
June 2, 1992


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that they are tabled this week and I thank the minister for his response to that question.
I also would like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. As we know, there were many concerns prior to the approval of the loan guarantee for the Westray mine by independent consultants, as well as, we understand, by federal departments, about not only the financial viability of the mine, but more importantly, about the safety of the mine.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, given that he did intervene, as he is asked to do on many projects of regional economic development, could he share with this House the reports on which he based his decision and felt that indeed this was a safe project for the federal government to proceed with.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House yesterday that my involvement in the decision-making process on behalf of projects of regional economic expansion is by and large the same. There is an intervention sometimes by a provincial premier about a given project. It is examined carefully and it follows the cabinet committee route and a decision is made.
We made that decision in Central Nova pursuant to a set of objective criteria and we made a similar decision involving exactly the same company in the constituency of my hon. friend, in the Yukon. That company has provided good employment opportunities there and I think it has been actively supported, quite properly so, by my hon. friend who has made representations on its behalf and to which we responded.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, of course, is quite right. As I said in my second supplementary, it is to be expected that the Prime Minister of Canada would take an interest in regional economic development opportunities.
Given the very tragic results, however, at the Westray mine it is equally important that the Canadian people are aware that these decisions were taken with full information and knowledge of any risks. There was an environmental assessment done of this project, as we know, from the 1991 Curragh Resources prospectus. It said, and I quote: "The Westray Mine has been reviewed under the environmental assessment and review process".
Oral Questions
I would ask the Prime Minister if he was privy to this environmental assessment and if so, what was his opinion of that particular environmental assessment and will he table that with this House?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the leader of the NDP that the environmental assessment will be tabled along with the documents to be tabled this week.
There were a number of other reports upon which the federal government relied. The federal government in fact relied on all the technical reports that existed in making this decision. The decision was clear, based on all of these reports, that it was technically feasible to have the mine and that the economic factors and the safety factors were certainly manageable. It was technically possible to go ahead with the mine.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the minister let it be known that his department was about to run out of money for training UI recipients.
In the case of Winnipeg his department is currently paying between $6,000 and $7,000 a year in tuition fees alone for people taking secretarial and business administration courses.
How can the minister, at a time when he says his department is running out of money, defend such patently high fees for training people?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to get into a discussion of the criteria that provincial institutions established to fix the tuition fees of training Canadians in their institutions.
It is important to recognize that this government has acknowledged the need to train Canadians. We have increased the resources so that we can train unemployed Canadians. Throughout Canada this year it is $3.4 billion, which, I might add, under the Unemployment Insurance Act is three times the amount we were

June 2, 1992
Oral Questions
spending to train Canadians in 1990. This is a fact from which the hon. member cannot derogate.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Although the minister may claim the amount is higher, the fact is that the department is totally wasting the money in its allocation. People who need training simply do not have the opportunity because of the outrageous fees being paid to these firms. The minister refuses to deal with this issue.
Among those who are trained in Manitoba this department and other departments have refused to announce one program for economic expansion, one program for economic development in that province.
Could the minister please tell me and the House what he expects these graduates to be doing once they have finished their courses?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, these graduates will benefit from the economic policies of this government. That is what they will do.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: All unemployed Canadians out there are listening to the Liberals laughing. I hope they are listening to them.
Back in 1978 the leader of that party, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, talked about unemployment and said: "But I don't believe I can be"-


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Bernard Valcourt: They are not interested in the good words of their leader.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Today the minister boasts about the amounts he is spending to train unemployed Canadians. Perhaps he will admit today that this training was funded by raising taxes on wage earners through higher UI premiums while other employment programs were in fact cut back.
Why is his government disguising the size of its deficit by shifting the cost of employment programs to the UI account? Why is it tarnishing the future of Canadian workers to polish its own record of failure?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, what we hear in this place. It is as if Canadians were not always the same taxpayer.
I have news for the Liberals. Whether you are in northern New Brunswick or in Saskatchewan, when you pay your premium rate you pay it as one Canadian taxpayer.
The member is asking me today to tell Canadians that we will follow the NDP policy, that we will print money to buy the illusion of prosperity.
We have targeted training as a priority area of activity for this government for the benefit of Canadians.
Right now the demand for training is very high. We have to acknowledge that we cannot put every UI claimant on a training course. What we are doing is targeting these funds at those most in need.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know and understand that he is frying Canadians to cook his books.
The minister keeps apologizing for the rejection of training applicants by saying that it is impossible for his government to accommodate every UI recipient.
That is no surprise to unemployed workers whose training was denied for lack of funds but who see endless tax dollars being spent on government ads telling them how competitive they are.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member to put her question.


Albina Guarnieri: Why has the minister's government chosen to spend taxpayers' dollars to train public opinion before an election rather than to train workers for skilled jobs?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know Liberal doom and gloom is hard to overcome, especially when you sit there and you do not like it.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: I know you don't like it.


Bernard Valcourt: The fact of the matter is that earlier I referred to the economic policies of this government and they all laughed.
The chairman of Canadian steelworkers is quoted in an article. We know the importance of steelworkers in Ontario. He said: "During the first quarter of this year
June 2, 1992

steel shipments were up 3 per cent, making a 5 per cent year over year increase quite feasible".
Mr. Telmer said: "Canadian steelworkers and their customers are also benefiting from interest rates that are at their lowest level in 19 years".


ROYAL OAK RESOURCES
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
For the past 10 days we have witnessed a labour relations fiasco in Yellowknife. Workers at the giant mine are on strike against their employer Royal Oak Resources. The issues in dispute are the very real health and safety concerns of the workers.
Rather than bargain in good faith and address the concerns of the workers, the company's response to these legitimate concerns for a safe working environment was to hire security guards in riot gear complete with attack dogs.
Will the minister now intervene over and above appointing a mediator to ensure that the company returns to the bargaining table, bargains in good faith and settles not only the strike but also the legitimate health and safety concerns?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. friend that matters of occupational health and safety are under the jurisdiction of the territorial government and not of the federal government. Having said that, the industrial relations part is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Last week I was in contact with the owners of the mine and with the union. Having received a request from one of the parties, I appointed a mediator yesterday. The mediator is having the parties meet as we speak this afternoon.
The president of the national union, I understand, has flown to Yellowknife and is meeting with the president of the mine. I deplore the violence that has taken place on the picket lines. I would urge both sides to put their efforts toward settling the disputes.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we are back to the same old thing of pawning off from
Oral Questions
one jurisdiction to another the life and safety of workers in these working conditions. That is not acceptable.
Given the violence we have witnessed at the mine, including three workers requiring hospitalization and the constant threat of violence that is ever present due to these wonderful Pinkerton agents-is it not amazing that they keep coming up through history all the time-will the minister now take the next necessary action, amend the Canada Labour Code and introduce anti-scab legislation?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the government has no plans to amend part I of the labour code on industrial relations.
Let me remind my hon. friend that at the federal level in Canada we do settle over 97 per cent of the negotiations of collective agreements without work stoppages. The system works well.
Occasionally we do have cases and that is why we are putting all our efforts into those cases to make sure there is no violence. We want the parties themselves to agree on a settlement.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister presided over a cabinet meeting where the $85 million loan guarantee for Westray was discussed and finalized. Certainly in questions such as that there are discussions about the conditions that must go along with such a loan guarantee and there must be some conditions imposed.
Could the Prime Minister tell us today how many of these conditions related to safety and what were these conditions?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is patently obvious. The province puts conditions in place for health and safety, for occupational safety for nine different departments that regulate mines. The conditions of the loan guarantee we worked out with the bank were that all of those conditions must be complied with.

June 2, 1992
Oral Questions
Not only that, the contract that was entered into made it clear that there would be compliance and there had to be compliance or the guarantee would not be there. We informed ourselves on a regular basis month by month that this was the case.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister of state for small businesses still has not said what conditions there were or if there were in fact any conditions attached to the loan regarding safety.
The government's own department of energy through CANMET stated that there were methane problems in the mine, and the minister of energy is quoted as having said: "We were all aware of the mine having high methane deposits". Then the minister for small businesses sloughs off the question and does not tell us what conditions there were.
Will the Prime Minister include among those documents to be released the CANMET study on the Westray mine and the subsidiary agreement on the financing of Westray?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question is absolutely clear. Every single provincial regulation as it deals with mines-and there are nine different departments that affect a mine that is to be put into production and its daily monitoring-must be complied with. That was secured in the contractual arrangement for the loan guarantee and, as I have said, on a monthly basis we assured ourselves that the mine was in compliance.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is less than clear.
The question was whether or not the CANMET study would be made available. Perhaps, in attempting the second time to answer a very specific question, the minister would also tell the House whether or not a summary of the direct communications between the Prime Minister and the premier of Nova Scotia will also be included in the documents to be released, we understand, as early as tomorrow.
In addition, will there be a summary of whatever directives were issued by the Prime Minister following those personal conversations with the premier of Nova Scotia? Yes or no.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have a very long list of all the municipal and regional political leaders who have supported this regional economic development project.
The Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday that he supported it. We certainly support regional economic development, especially when it is a provincial priority. So did the warden of the municipality of Pictou county, Hank Dunnewold, so did the mayor of the town of Trenton, Barry Trenholm, so did the mayor of the town of Stellarton, Ronald Marks and so did the chairman of PICORD, which is the Pictou County Research-


Mr. Speaker:: There has to be another way to give this information to the House. The hon. member, supplemental.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister can hide behind all the lists he wants and all the local officials he would want to name. What members of this House are asking for, quite properly, is whether or not key documents will be made available. The minister for the second time has refused to answer.
I ask him again, will the CANMET study be available? Will a summary of communication between the Prime Minister and the premier be made available? While he is at it, will he tell us whether the reservations expressed by senior federal officials, such strong reservations that the premier felt compelled to call the Prime Minister, reservations primarily out of the department of energy, will be made available as well?
We don't want a shopping list, we don't want a propaganda poll-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question.


Thomas Hockin: I would tell my hon. friend that all appropriate information will be released. He will be very pleased when he sees how extensive it is. It deals with all of the questions he has raised in the House.
June 2, 1992	COMMONS DEBATES	11243


NATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
For many years provisions have existed for development of native self-government agreements on a band-by-band basis in Canada. For example, I understand that the Kingsclear Band, which is one of three in my riding, has achieved considerable progress in many aspects of such a concept, and that the Kingsclear Band is an excellent candidate to become one of the first in Atlantic Canada to sign a self-government agreement.
My question is this: what would such an immediate self-government agreement entail and how would it be implemented?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The community self-government policy of the Department of Indian Affairs has been in place, I think at least since 1985. It envisages the negotiation between a particular Indian band or First Nation and the federal government, a set of optional means to be given parliamentary protection by way of legislation, to administer their own communities in the areas of, for example, education and health and lands management and membership, presently covered under the Indian Act.
It is our intention to continue to negotiate such agreements pending an adoption of the inherent right to self-government, should that be constitutionalized in the near future.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Reports from Quebec City show that Arthur Dunkel, the GATT Director General, is stating that our marketing boards must abandon supply management and adopt tariffication. This indicates that the government's message to our associate governments around the world has failed to convince them of the value of supply management.
Will the Prime Minister explain why he thinks his message has not been accepted by presidents Delors and
Oral Questions
Bush, and did he fail because they still remember that Canada's original position was tarification at the GATT until Canada's farmers found out about it?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's last statement is incorrect. What he has failed to recognize is that the position Canada has presented at GATT has been developed with the provinces and with the producers. We have been continually putting forward that position.
Mr. Dunkel, who is a hired gun, a bureaucrat, has put forward a text. But individual nations, sovereign nations, will make their decisions in the best interests of their own country and their own economies, how they enter GATT.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think the hon. minister should remember that for the first two years our position was tariffication. It was changed then.
This past February this House reiterated Canada's support for a strengthened and clarified article XI, 2(c)(1), and urged the Prime Minister to use his influence to build international support beyond that being received from Japan and North Korea. What new support has his activities brought to the supply management cause, and how many countries are now on side with Canada as a result of these activities?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend obviously missed the attendance of President Jacques Delors of the European Commission here in Ottawa.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, I didn't. I was wondering what the results are.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, you were wondering what the results were.
Here are the results he announced about a month ago in Ottawa. He said that he quite understood and was sympathetically disposed toward the position the Canadian government had put forward to the point where he was advocating the proposal that a 90 per cent deal that allowed for this kind of exemption was better than no deal at all.
We all know that each country is seeking exemptions for various matters. The marine industry in the United States, the import of bananas to the European Commu-

Oral Questions
nity from former colonies, and so on, represent important exemptions they are all seeking.
There is nothing wrong with Canada pointing out the important dimension that marketing boards constitute for our agricultural industry.
This we have done with some considerable degree of success, witness the statement made in this building a month ago by President Jacques Delors of Europe.


SMALL BUSINESS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of small business.
The minister is well aware that most jobs in this country are created by small business and that most small businesses just cannot get a bank loan. Three months ago the budget promised some help but nothing has been done to implement that and the time is fast approaching for the summer recess.
Will the minister immediately take steps to help small business get financing, even through the Federal Business Development Bank or through putting in place legislation to allow small business to survive and create jobs, or does the minister subscribe to the sign on the wall of the finance department which reads "the light at the end of the tunnel will remain off until further notice"?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend that there has been a constriction of credit in the banking system for small business and because of that the last budget did some very important things which are in fact being put into place.
With the Small Businesses Loans Act, the ceiling will be lifted to $200,000 from $100,000. It will be done as soon as possible while making the Small Businesses Loans Act easier to deal with.
The small business financing program is there. We have the lowest interest rates in 22 years. We have the lowest inflation in 22 years. Yesterday new financial institutions were formed by trust companies and insurance companies as well as banks to get into commercial lending.


REFUGEES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
Last week several Canadian organizations working with refugees announced that they had given up on the minister of immigration because he had virtually stopped using his discretionary powers to admit refugees on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and consequently their appeals to him were a waste of time.
The law gives the minister the discretion to admit deserving cases when there are humanitarian and compassionate grounds. My question is this: why is the minister refusing to use these legitimate powers and will he make it clear to the Canadian public the criteria he has for using these powers?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the statement made by certain people at that meeting that I never intervene on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The difference between my department and others is that I do not publish every day the individual actions I take in this department on behalf of refugee claimants.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What others? Name the other ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has been asked a question and is on his feet to answer. I ask hon. members to extend the usual courtesy.


Bernard Valcourt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 1991 alone over 8,000 people were admitted to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds so this charge that we are not exercising these criteria in favour of claimants or immigrants is groundless.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not using these discretionary powers with respect to refugees as they were used in the past and more refugees are now being deported than ever before, often to dangerous situations. For example, last year in Quebec only four cases were accepted on humanitarian grounds out of 884 applications. That is applications to him after they were refused by the board.
June 2, 1992

Will the minister be frank with the Canadian public and say why he has restricted the use of these powers, because he has restricted the use of those powers?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, some people can level the charges they want. I know I am entrusted with administering a refugee determination process which the United Nations Commission on Refugees has labelled the best and the fairest system in the world.
Canada welcomes every year and affords protection to tens of thousands of people in need of protection. No other country in the world beats that record. I am applying the law. Every time I receive an intervention on behalf of someone in need of Canada's protection, he gets it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last week in a speech the Prime Minister said:
The road has been dilatory and dangerously indifferent to the
breakup of Yugoslavia.
Today while we meet, Sarajevo is being shelled, thousands of people are being killed and wounded and are losing their homes.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this: Even with the recent round of sanctions being put in place are we now once again in danger of being too little and too late?
Will the Prime Minister be instructing the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the meeting of foreign ministers this week in Oslo to raise whether or not the mandate of the UN forces in that region should be expanded or whether NATO itself should take a look at whether it can undertake peacemaking initiatives and stop the tragic fighting in Bosnia?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will have to tell me precisely what he means by two things.
He is asking whether the United Nations mandate would be expanded. Expanded to do what? He is asking whether we would instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to ask for NATO intervention. NATO intervention to do what?
Oral Questions
The United Nations peacekeepers, including 1,300 Canadians, are already in the region. They are there prosecuting the instructions of the Security Council of the United Nations. Obviously this has not brought about the results we wanted. We are working very closely with the United Nations to make sure we advance in that.
If my hon. friend has some ideas that might help in that, I would be happy to listen to him and to follow through carefully, provided I understand exactly what information is he seeking or what instructions he would like the Government of Canada to convey.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may begin by paying attention to the words of his own secretary of state who was quoted yesterday as saying: "We may have to consider further actions, including military actions".
Those are the words of the Prime Minister's own secretary of state. Is that going to be the question or the position taken by the government?
I will ask the question specifically. Will the Government of Canada take the lead in asking for a direct airlift of humanitarian assistance to the city of Sarajevo? Will we be asking particularly for the convening of an international conference to deal with the massive problem of over one million refugees who are now existing in that region? Will Canada take the lead in ensuring that these innocent people will not be harmed, injured, or killed any longer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As my
hon. friend knows, we were the first industrialized country to ask the United Nations last September to involve itself in the Yugoslav crisis, long before it deteriorated to the extent it has because we were fearful of precisely that result, I think in fairness, so was my hon. friend at that particular point.
We have been pressing for the opening of the Sarajevo airport precisely to achieve the objective of an airlift for humanitarian purposes. Without the opening of the airport which is now being subjected to gun-fire from the neighbouring hills, we have difficulty in getting humanitarian assistance in there. We are moving on that as well. My hon. friend indicates the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated what her intentions were. I

June 2, 1992
Oral Questions
know what her intentions were. My question to my hon. friend was what he meant by the suggestions that he was making. He made two very important suggestions. I think it is equally important that he specify exactly what he had in mind. If he is saying that we should ask for NATO to involve itself militarily there, if he is saying that we ask the United Nations to direct its peacekeepers to be transformed into people on a more aggressive footing, that is something we can contemplate. We must understand: Is that the position that my hon. friend is advancing? If so, is that the position of the Official Opposition? He seems to be signalling yes. Is that right?
Now my hon. friend says "the answer". I cannot answer. It was your suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take a single question from the hon. member for Longueuil and a single question from the hon. member for Halton-Peel. The hon. member for Longueuil.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In 1989 I had the opportunity to study the sharing of expenditures for research and development. It was found that Quebec received $1.2 billion less than Ontario in research and development contracts from the federal government.
Approximately two weeks ago, I received from the minister a CANMET report in which one can see that the federal government is spending a lot on research and development and that the trend remains the same, that is approximately 11 per cent for Quebec and 55 per cent for Ontario. Could the minister tell us if he intends to continue to treat Quebecers this way for a long period of time?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the member has asked me that question because it gives me the opportunity to indicate to him that some of the leading edge technology on energy efficiency is taking
place in the province of Quebec, in particular, in laboratories in the riding of our colleague, the Minister of Labour.
I think for all of us this is very important. It is important for us as Canadians. It is also important for the province of Quebec. I am pleased that the hon. member gave me the opportunity to make this announcement and further demonstrate how Quebec colleagues are in fact promoting their province on research in that province.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for veterans affairs.
Many Canadian veterans were shocked when they watched the CBC television series The Valour and the Horror earlier this year. They felt that history was being rewritten to denigrate the efforts of heroic Canadian soldiers and airmen during the Second World War.
Is the minister aware of the outrage being expressed by Canada's veterans and is he in agreement with them that this series defames Canada's proud war record?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I can say that we are indebted to CBC and the National Film Board for the fact that they put those three programs on in prime time because I think everybody in this House knows the importance of Canadians understanding the immense contribution and the sacrifice of Canadians in time of war.
Having said that, however, I can say that many veterans were unhappy at how the contribution of Canadians was portrayed in those particular episodes. They wrote me and expressed their feelings very forcefully. I can tell you they wrote to other ministers, the Prime Minister and, of course, the CBC as well as the National Film Board.
The fact of the matter is war is very often violent and destructive and unpredictable. Obviously decisions have to be made at a time of duress. While it is easy for us to criticize, it is much easier to make a comment some 50 years after the fact.
June 2, 1992


REFERENDUM ACT
Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the procedural argument made earlier today in relation to certain amendments being offered at the report stage of Bill C-81,1 indicated this morning that I would return to the House as soon as possible. I am now ready to share with hon. members the consequences of my consideration of their interventions this morning.

This morning's discussion was about whether Motions Nos. 28, 29,31, 32,33 and 34 standing in the names of the hon. members for Annapolis Valley-Hants, Yorkton- Melville, Churchill, Jonquiere and Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel were in order.

These proposed amendments all seek to change the bill by adding to it specific provisions which would relate to the effect a referendum would have.
The bill as it is now before us and as agreed to by the House at second reading makes no mention of the effect of a referendum. It deals only with the process of holding a referendum. The question of effect is a very vital one of fundamental importance to this country.
The problem faced by the Chair, however, is that proposed amendments are examined, not in relation to their significance, but from a strictly procedurally perspective. Do they seek to alter or amend existing provisions of this bill, in which case they are normally in order and allowed? Or do they seek to import new provisions into the bill which exceed the scope of the bill as already agreed to by the House, in which case they are out of order?
I have examined these particular amendments very carefully and listened attentively to arguments made this morning in the House.

The Chair is bound by quotation 698(1) in the 6th edition of Beauchesne, and I quote:
698. An amendment which is out of order on any of the following
grounds cannot be put from the chair:
Speaker's Ruling
(1)	An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill,
beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments
already negatived.

In considering these proposed amendments and the arguments made, the Chair is of the view that proposed amendments Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34, in seeking to add to the bill provisions relating to the effect of a referendum, go beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading.
The bill deals now only with the process of conducting a referendum, and to add provisions relating to the effect of a referendum goes beyond its scope as previously agreed to and is not in order.
The hon. members for Churchill and for Cape Breton-East Richmond both suggested to the House this morning that even if these proposed amendments were to be ruled out of order, the House could decide by consent to consider them anyway and to vote upon them.
That suggestion is absolutely correct. My ruling these amendments out of order does not preclude the House from dealing with them if there is consent. That is a question for the House to decide.
Procedurally, I am bound by the rules and practices of this institution. I must rule proposed amendments Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 out of order.
The hon. member for Churchill drew the Chair's particular attention to Motion No. 19, which he agreed was substantially different from the motion which was moved and negatived in committee. On this point, I am persuaded that the member's argument has merit.
Motion No. 19 will therefore be allowed. It will be grouped with Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 for debate and voted on only if Motion No. 18 is negatived.
I wish to close by thanking all those hon. members who participated in the procedural discussion this morning for their succinctness and their courtesy.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, for clarification and guidance from the Chair, it is my understanding that the Chair has now found that Motion No. 34 from my colleague from Papineau is procedurally out of order. Is that correct?
The only way that the Chair can see that this particular motion could come forward for subsequent debate is there would have to be unanimous consent by all

June 2, 1992
Speaker's Ruling
members of the House to allow that to come forward. Am I correct in the interpretation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, in consideration of the remarks that the Chair has just made, is exactly correct in the interpretation.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate at this time to ask whether there will be unanimous consent within this House to have the provisions of Motion No. 34 as produced by my colleague from Papineau put before this House and be debated upon and thereafter adjudicated?
Would there be unanimous consent from all parties in this House?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand completely the position of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
On a point of order he has suggested to the House that there might be possible consent. If that is the case it should probably follow discussions between members on both sides of the House. Certainly there was some indication that at the moment at least there is not unanimous consent. We have to move on to other matters.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, earlier, my colleague for Cape Breton-East Richmond asked for unanimous consent. We, from the Bloc Quebe-cois, said yes. I did not hear anyone say no. If somebody said no, where did he come from?


Mr. Speaker:: I did not put a motion for unanimous consent. I said that this matter ought to be properly discussed between members and if then the matter is put to the House we would see what the House did. I did say that I clearly heard some members indicating that at least at the moment there was not a mood to have complete consent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling and I appreciate your comments of a moment ago.
The government House leader has asked for the consideration of unanimous consent for Motion No. 34 in the name of the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel. I would like to ask for the same consideration for the other motions that you have ruled on, for the simple reason that the government House leader, a week or two ago, said the government would be willing to entertain the possibility of dealing with amendments that were really out of the scope of the bill. To do that we need the unanimous consent of the House. I would like to ask for the same consideration for the other ones as well.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty I am in is that there is no motion before the House. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has made a suggestion by way of a point of order and unless this is picked up and clear directions given to the House, I cannot proceed with the debate on this point.
As I have said, the appropriate thing to do is if there is to be further discussion between members, it should take place and then perhaps the Chair could have some indication of what is prepared to be put in front of the House by agreement.
[Translation)


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, considering that our colleague is asking for unanimous consent of the House to debate Motion No. 34 and that you, Mr. Speaker, in the ruling you gave this morning, referred to Motions Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34, I would like in that context, that all those motions be debated as a whole to see if their is unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand perfectly well the hon. member's position but, with due respect, it is the same position as was taken this morning and without unanimous consent, the Chair cannot change position. For the time being, it is up to the members of this House to discuss it.

Perhaps I can ask if it is on the same point. [Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, what you are telling us is that we cannot consult our colleagues. I heard with my own ears the Liberal Party House leader say he was in agreement, the NDP spokesperson say he was in agree-
June 2, 1992

ment, a spokesperson for the Conservatives say he was in agreement. Everybody agrees, so why postpone until later something we can do right now?


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard my concern about the Chair's intervening in something which I think should probably be discussed between members, but I will settle this.
Perhaps the House could give some guidance to the Chair. There has been a suggestion made that if by unanimous consent particular amendments which I have felt were not acceptable procedurally be debated, that would take consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the motion of Mr. Murphy (p. 11215).
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.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Orders


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-81 be amended
(a)	by striking out clause 1 line 7 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"chief agent", in respect of a ref-"
(b)	by substituting the words "referendum committee" for the words "registered referendum committee' wherever the latter words occur in the Bill; and (c) by making such modifications as may be required in consequence thereof.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 2
(a) by striking out lines 39 to 41 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
""referendum committee" means, as the case may be, the committee comprised of such persons and groups as support a referendum question or the committee comprised of such persons and groups as oppose a referendum question"; and (b) by striking out lines 14 to 16 at page 4,-
Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-81 be amended by deleting Clause 13 and the heading preceeding Clause 13 and substituting the following therefor:


'REFERENDUM COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
13.	The Governor in Council may make regulations governing referendum committees, including regulations
(а)	providing for such matters as may be necessary for the proper operation of referendum committees, including the name under which they are to be known and the manner in which they are to be established;
(б)	providing for the setting up of local branches of referendum committees in each electoral district;
(c)	providing for the affiliation to the referendum committee supporting the referendum question or to the referendum committee opposing the question, as the case may be, of persons who, or groups that, support or oppose the question, as the case may be, and prescribing norms and terms and conditions with respect to the affiliation and financing of such persons or groups;
(d)	prescribing, for each province, the maximum amount of referendum expenses that may be incurred by either referendum committee;
(e)	prescribing the maximum amount of referendum expenses that may be incurred by either referendum committee throughout Canada or in two or more provinces specified in the proclamation issued under subsection 3(1).
14.	(1) A referendum committee intending to incur referendum expenses throughout Canada or in more than one province shall file with the Chief Electoral Officer a request for approval of the proposed apportionment of such expenses.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
(2)	A request for approval shall be signed by the leader of the referendum committee and shall name the provinces in which the referendum expenses are to be incurred and the amounts which the referendum committee intends to incur for each province.
(3)	Not later than five days after receipt of a request for approval, the Chief Electoral Officer shall notify the leader of the referendum committee of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision to approve or not to approve the proposed referendum expenses apportionment.
(4)	The Chief Electoral Officer shall approve a request for approval if, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, the manner in which the referendum expenses to be incurred by the referendum committee are intended to be apportioned among the provinces specified in the proclamation issued under subsection 3(1) in which such expenses are to be incurred fairly reflects the distribution of the Canadian population between such provinces.
(5)	A referendum committee that incurs referendum expenses throughout Canada or in more than one province without prior approval by the Chief Electoral Officer is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars.
15.	(1) Where the total referendum expenses incurred by a referendum committee throughout Canada or in more than one province are less than stated in the request for approval referred to in section 14, the referendum committee shall ensure that the apportionment of the referendum expenses of the committee among the provinces specified in the proclamation issued under subsection 3(1) in which such expenses are to be incurred fairly reflects the distribution of the Canadian population between such provinces.
(2)	A referendum committee that contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars.
(3)	Where a referendum committee commits an offence under this Act, the leader or chief agent of the referendum committee who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable on summary conviction to the punishment provided for the offence whether or not the referendum committee has been prosecuted or convicted."
Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 10 to 14 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"maintain a registry in which shall be recorded the name, address and telephone number of the chief agent of each referendum committee."
Motion No. 51.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 15 to 46 at page 17 and lines 1 and 2 at page 18, and substituting the following therefor:
"18. (1) Every referendum committee shall appoint a chief agent and an auditor.
(2)	Where the position of chief agent of a referendum committee becomes vacant or the chief agent is unable to perform the duties of chief agent, the committee shall forthwith appoint a new chief agent and file with the Chief Electoral Officer a notice in writing, signed by the leader of the committee, of the name, address and telephone number of the new chief agent and a statement, signed by the new chief agent, that the signer has accepted the appointment as chief agent of the committee.
(3)	Where the position of auditor of a referendum committee becomes vacant or the auditor ceases to be qualified as an auditor or becomes ineligible to act as an auditor before having complied with this Act in respect of any referendum finances return of the committee, the committee shall forthwith appoint a new auditor and file with the Chief Electoral Officer a notice in writing, signed by the leader of the committee, of the name, address and telephone number of the new auditor and a statement, signed by the new auditor that the signer has accepted the appointment as auditor of the committee."
Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-81 be amended by striking out lines 40 to 47 at page 20 and lines 1 to 45 at page 21 and lines 1 to 24 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"polling day, allocate equally between the two referendum committees the broadcasting time to be made availabe under section 21.
(2)	Each referendum committee shall indicate on which networks it wishes broadcasting time to be made available to it.
(3)	In order to allocate broadcasting time, the Broadcasting Arbitrator may request additional information from the referendum committees.
(4)	The Broadcasting Arbitrator shall, as soon as possible after completing the allocation and, in any event, not later than Monday, the twenty-first day before polling day, send a notice in writing of the allocation to the referendum committees, every network affected by the allocation and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
(5)	An allocation of broadcasting time to be made available by a broadcasting network is final and binding on the network and on the referendum committees.
23. The Broadcasting Arbitrator shall, on request, provide the referendum committees with the names and addresses of all network operators."
Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 36 to 38 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
June 2, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
"25. (1) Each referendum committee shall, not later than Tuesday, the".
Motion No. 59.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 34
(a)	by striking out line 6 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"travenes subsection 15(4) or (5) or"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page 28.
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to know whether or not Motion No. 35 was withdrawn.


Pierrette Venne: You stopped reading at paragraph (b).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Because, Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure of hearing you read it.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am somewhat ill at ease to see the members from the Bloc Quebecois-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: -insist that you read the entire motion, especially when they have it before them.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful to the debate. The question from my friend opposite was whether or not you had read Motion No. 35. I believe that I did hear you read Motion No. 35.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully as you read Motion No. 35, and you did stop at paragraph (b).
In view of the fact that these motions were introduced at the last minute, that we did not get to look at them yesterday-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Very well.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Jonquiere-those who witnessed what the members from the Bloc Quebecois just asked you to do will tell you-this is called misuse of power.
So we have-


Jean-C. Lapierre: I rise on a point of order.


Pierrette Venne: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Saint-Hubert on a point of order.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, you asked if we would dispense, but we said no because these motions were introduced in a huriy yesterday, so we have not had the time to read them yet and we are reading them along with you even if you are going quite fast.
That is why I ask you to resume.


Mr. Littlechild:: Mr. Speaker, we have all had an opportunity to read these motions on at least two occasions. First, the hon. member for Jonquiere mailed copies of his motions to all of our offices, second these were handed out yesterday. We have had an opportunity to read them at least twice, and I think we should move on.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the eight amendments that are on the table and that are grouped together all refer to the same objective, namely to put a ceiling on expenses during a referendum, as well as to set up a referendum committee for the yes side and one for the no side, which we call umbrella committees.
In our democracy and in our country we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which contains various provisions. Two of those provisions are invoked depending on the group of people who want to achieve a specific objective. Some people ask us this question: Based on the freedom of expression and the freedom of association, can we force people to be grouped together under a committee for the yes or no side during a referendum? On the other hand, section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of the Constitutional Act of 1982 says: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
In Quebec we have already had a referendum in 1980. At the time, there was a referendum committee for the yes side and a one for the no side, in which the principles of equity regarding expenses related to the referendum were complied with. Today, in 1992, at a time when our country is possibly getting ready for a national referendum, I am motivated by the same kind of spirit, a desire for equity and the need for both sides to have access to the same means. In that context, I feel that it would be appropriate to include in this bill very strict rules to ensure that the yes side and the no side can potentially get the same public funding to promote their respective views. It is in that context that I tabled these amendments to the bill, which my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois as well as all the members of this House were informed of more than 10 days ago. I tabled these amendments in order to ensure fairness. Generally speaking, the moneys available for the yes and the no sides regarding referendum expenses would be the same across the country, as well as in each province and constituency.
I would like to mention a newspaper article dated May 20, in which Minister Marc-Yvan Cote was reported as saying the following: "Under our system, there must be a minimum of fair play between the two opposing camps. Referendum legislation must reflect this attitude, said Minister Cote." The article went on to say: "While recognizing the federal government's right to conduct a referendum, Mr. Cote referred to an unconscionable free-for-all in which anyone could spend $20,000, as a slap in the face of democracy."
Our government does restrict what a registered committee or group of persons may spend to 56.4 cents per voter. However, there are no restrictions on the number of committees that may be set up across the country. There could be 10, 20, 100, 1,000, or tens of thousands. Nobody knows. As a result, we could end up with an entirely inequitable situation in our democratic system. That is why I tabled the amendments that are before the
House today, which our colleagues will be asked to discuss and possibly vote on later.
I have no desire to prolong the debate. I think the gist of what I wanted to say is there. My colleagues will be able to consider the kind of ceiling I wanted to introduce in the bill to achieve a certain degree of fairness.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today is one that is basically acceptable and fair, one that the Bloc Quebecois will support.
The hon. member for Jonquiere found the basis for his arguments in Quebec's referendum legislation. It so happens that this legislation exists and has stood the test of time for a dozen years or so as part of Quebec's statutes.
This is not just a formal reference to existing legislation or past experience, but proof positive that democracy is far better served when both sides in the debate are on equal footing.
Just imagine what will happen if the bill is not amended, considering the kind of rules it contains. We can assume there will be an appeal for corporate funds, which are practically unlimited. There will be an appeal for money from the big corporations, while the government will be able to draw on public funds with practically no restrictions. We can assume that in the sovereigntist camp, there will be a basic imbalance. I think we just have to accept the fact that those who support sovereignty for Quebec will never be able to raise as much money as the federalist across the country, especially if they have access to the financial establishment in this country.


Jean-C. Lapierre: And abroad.


Lucien Bouchard: At this point, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to refer to a tried and true democratic tradition. The Canada Elections Act has from the very beginning of its existence provided that it was imperative in an election for the parties to be subject to the same spending limits. Why? Because choosing those who govern us is so important, the consequences are so far reaching, we must ensure the electorate makes its decision in a context devoid of any brainwashing, where serious debate can take place and where it is possible to make an objective decision.
June 2, 1992

In other words, when important decisions are to be made in a democracy, money should not be the deciding factor. We want the citizens of the country to decide. That is the most elementary and essential principle of how democracy operates, a principle that has been recognized and applied in the Canadian democratic system.
One wonders why, when the stakes are much higher than in the case of electing a government, the House of Commons should decide to depart from a long tradition of democracy in this country and proceed to destroy the equality and balance that exists between the opposing parties?
On what grounds would the Canadian legislator depart from a tradition that has made our democratic system one to be proud of?
The only argument I heard was the existence of the Canadian charter. It is a strange paradox that a charter that was supposedly put in place to protect freedom of expression, maintain civil rights and prevent unfairness is now invoked to prevent legislators from maintaining a democratic tradition that would preserve fairness between the parties in an essential debate on the future of Quebec and Canada.
We must believe that this argument is invalid. We must have at least enough respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to say it does not stand for such unfairness, that it would not force legislators to act unfairly or in a discriminatory fashion. Quite the contrary.
If legislators had to take a risk on the chance that opponents of the bill would challenge it in court, they should err on the side of freedom of expression; they should take a risk for fairness and balance between the sides.
I submit that regardless of antagonisms, because I know there are some, and regardless of bitterness, because of course there is bitterness, but only out of respect for this long unbroken democratic tradition in Canada of which Quebec is a part and which Quebec will want to follow if it becomes sovereign, because we believe in Canadian democracy; we respect it and it is one of the great values that we recognize in our country.
Why, when we want to rebuild the country, when we want to give people a chance to speak out on a basic issue
Government Orders
concerning its existence, its fundamental rights, why would we break with the principle of fairness with respect to spending?
I did not hear a single demonstration or justification from the government that would lead us to believe that this principle should now be set aside. It is true when I say that Quebec has experience with it, because Quebec had a charter of rights too in 1980, when the government held a referendum with spending limits and yes and no committees. Anyone could have used the Quebec charter to prevent the government from holding a referendum which allegedly violated freedom of expression. That did not happen because basically, we well know that the best way to violate freedom of expression is to swing the balance, deprive one of the parties in the debate of financial resources and give them all to the other side.
I believe that we legislators should ensure that the people decide and to the extent that this referendum seeks to let the people speak and not the political establishments, and not get around public opinion in an important debate, to the extent that the people's voice is to be heard, we should ensure that the big corporations, the banks, high finance and fundraisers do not sway the decision on the side of money. Just out of respect for the referendum principle, which would refer the matter to the people, let us trust them and ensure that they can decide freely and fairly.
I cannot understand that in a Parliament where legislation has been debated for 125 years in order to defend democracy and protect democratic rights that are always threatened, we are today pleading against a government that would have us believe that for the sake of freedom of expression, it has to limit that freedom and trample it under foot.
We are not demanding anything subversive. We are asking for rules of fairness that respect democracy, so that people can speak freely. On that, we fully support the efforts made by the hon. member for Jonquiere. We may differ, but we believe that he is right on that and we hope that many voices will be raised on both sides of the House and more and more among the Conservatives to uphold freedom.
Second, regarding these two committes, the bill allows a multiplicity of committees. It seems to limit the number of committees since the expenses are limited for

Government Orders
each committee, but it allows for an infinite number of committees; it does not fool anyone. It is essential however, for the sake of coherence, to have two referendum committees, one for and one against. Otherwise, the whole process will be ruled by the law of the jungle. It will be an incredible mess. It will be a sorry sight to see committees being created by the thousands, sometimes by people who will cut the pie into strategic pieces.
What a pitiful sight these thousands of committees created all over Canada without a clear mission in the absence of two distinct kinds of committee, the yes committees and the no committees. They will lack direction. Confusion and ambiguity will be rampant. No one stands to gain anything whatsoever from such total confusion especially when dealing with such a fundamental decision.
To conclude, I would like to say that we will of course vote in favour of the motion.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I cannot miss this opportunity to look at the motions tabled by the member for Jonquiere and to tell him that I also believe this to be a fundamental aspect of the democratic value of this potential exercise. Obviously, if the government decides not to follow the basic rules of democracy with this bill, the member for Jonquiere, like us, will oppose a piece of legislation that would be undemocratic and illegitimate. The real test for the member for Jonquiere will be the final vote. That is when he will find out if his colleagues support his amendments or not. If he cannot convince his government, I hope that he will not want to be an accomplice of an exercise that he himself calls undemocratic.
Obviously the only way to have a fair referendum is by establishing two sides. Right now, there could be hundreds if not thousands of committees on all sides. One can imagine the free-for-all that this situation could trigger. Just think that any small group in the country could decide to form its own committee. Any businessman could set up his own committee. There could be a Paul Desmarais committee and a Guy Saint-Pierre committee. In the end, every businessman will want to have his own committee.
In reality, this would make no sense. I hope the government realizes that if it does not adopt civilized rules, nobody will take this exercise seriously. There is even one of my colleagues who would recommend a committee for the former colleague of the member for Jonquiere, Mr. Gravel, and a Michel Cogger committee. There could be an unlimited number of committees and all kinds of them. Obviously, nobody would take such an exercise seriously. Therefore, if the government wants to make a fool of itself, it simply has to keep going in that direction.
The beauty of the referendum legislation in Quebec is that all those who participated in this democratic exercise recognized its fairness. The reality is that the sovereignist government lost its referendum but it recognized the democratic value of the result that same day. Everybody accepted the rules of the game. And that is what was extraordinary in the end. I am not commenting on the result but on the democratic process. In fact, at that time, I also thought that the result was extraordinary. But what I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that all the participants in this exercise agreed it was a fair and equitable process.
Here, the government started off on the wrong foot. There is nobody in this Parliament, except the leader of the government and a few other ones who want to use this issue for political expediency rather than for sound motives, and we can see that people do not take this exercise seriously. Even the Liberal Party leader, who had himself suggested the idea of a referendum, was forced to admit that the rules established under this bill are undemocratic. I was surprised to hear, for example, that even if the bill was undemocratic, he was still willing to vote for it. That worried me a little during the press conference. I know that the hon. member for Jonquiere made similar remarks, so I wonder how elastic his conscience is.
When we talk, for example, of the Quebec referendum bill and the principles that guided it: first, the umbrella committees, and second, the spending limits, it is obvious that in a democracy, with Canadian democratic values, we agreed that in order to get elected here in the House of Commons, we could not let people spend millions and millions of dollars. We did not want to accept the American jungle where everybody has to-campaigns are so expensive that we become the victims of various
June 2, 1992

lobbies. We must virtually submit ourselves to the power of money.
This Parliament gave itself some rules and each of us who sits here recognized the value of spending limits. Why is it that, with such a fundamental issue as the Constitution, it would now be the free-for-all? There is something indecent about all this. It is so indecent, so blatant, that it is staring you in the face. That is why the citizens, particularly from Quebec, will never feel bound by the result of a process which is distorted from the beginning. If the government thinks it can solve anything with such a trivial process, it is grossly mistaken.
As soon as there is a free-for-all in the establishment of the committees, as soon as the power of money overrides the content of the debate and the decision of the citizens, it is obvious that there is absolutely no fair play. We are in the heart of the British institution which should be the perfect example of fair play. I know some days you doubt it, Mr. Speaker, but I also know you are trying every day to apply that fair play.
I tell you there is no fair play in this bill. All political parties, except the Conservatives, who have their eyes completely blindfolded, recognize that there are problems with the democratic value of that exercise. Why not solve at least that detail?
The hon. member for Jonquiere has the merit of at least raising the issue. I must also tell you that it is obvious that the financing criteria-I did not have time to thoroughly examine the proposal from the hon. member for Jonquiere-I do not know if he limited the contribution to individual financing or if he allowed large corporations a free hand. I suppose that with its slogan that almost says "Let the people decide", the government would want to make sure that the decision would be taken by the citizens, and not by the multinationals. It is obvious that a decision by the citizens should be financed and managed by the citizens themselves.
I would like to return to the attack in order to emphasize a point. A bill that is flawed from the beginning, such a weird exercise will get no credibility in the eyes of the public, particularly in Quebec considering the precedent and the democratic values that are essential to that exercise.
Government Orders
I cannot imagine the government thinks for a minute that anybody in Quebec could feel bound by such legislation. I cannot understand why English Canada does not object to that. I cannot understand why Conservative ministers and members from English Canada are willing to accept such unworthy legislation. They should oppose it, they who claim to be the great protectors of democracy. The most stupid argument I heard was from the Government House Leader, who used the excuse of the charter of rights to violate those same rights.
You must have quite a bit of imagination to think that Canadians and Quebecers are going to swallow the argument that the Canadian charter of rights prevents us from putting some democratic principles into this referendum bill.
This is insulting for the charter of rights. In 1980, all parties involved accepted the results. The problem in 1980 was not a weakness in the statute, it was a weakness in the Constitution. Her Majesty was not bound by the statute. In other words the spending limits applied only to Quebec citizens. The federal state was not bound by a provincial statute, which means, unfortunately, it was able to abuse the system. Everybody now recognizes this was the only weakness of the process in 1980.
Consequently, I congratulate the hon. member for Jonquiere, I am looking forward to testing the depth of his convictions and I hope he will stand up to the end.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, members of the Bloc Quebecois do not have to decide for me what I will do on third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, these amendments are very important and I want to speak generally in favour of the initiative taken by my colleague and friend, the member for Jonquiere, in bringing this group of amendments, which the Speaker has clustered together. There are eight different motions that we are looking at together.

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
It is important to understand that there are three main elements to this package of amendments. The first element is that it recognizes the importance of having committees, or as some call them, umbrella committees, to organize the activity for the yes side and the no side in a national plebiscite.
The second element is that there would be spending limits that would maintain an over-all balance and fairness in the process so that spending does not become the name of the game, but that the whole effort is proceeded with on a balanced footing.
The third element in this group of amendments by my colleague is to deal with some reasonable exceptions. This is done by accommodating the exception that is already in the bill as drafted by the government, an amount of $5,000. This is to ensure fairness and balance for the rigorously independent of mind.
Briefly, it is important at this juncture of the debate to note the origins of each of these three elements of the package; the umbrella committees, the spending limits and the reasonable exceptions. The first concept of having the umbrella committees is something that interestingly enough was developed in the United Kingdom for its plebiscite in 1975 on whether the U.K. should continue to adhere to the European Community.
I know that a great many Canadians think that holding direct votes, referendums and plebiscites is something that is unparliamentary and not in our best British parliamentary traditions. It is a sobering thing though to actually look and see that it was the British who developed this concept in 1975.
It worked well enough there to attract a positive interest of legislators in our country and in the province of Quebec. The National Assembly embraced this concept in La Loi sur les referendums and has seen it used not only in the direct vote on May 20, 1980 on the question of sovereignty association, but also one time since the charter has been in force. It was used in the October 1989 vote in northern Quebec on the whole question of the forming of a new constitutional system of government for the aboriginal people, the Inuit of northern Quebec.
There has twice been the experience in our country with umbrella committees, both of them in the province of Quebec. Quebec has again given our country leadership, not only on this issue, but on how to have modem structures that permit the necessary balance.
On the second area, the spending limits, the origins are equally important for all of us as we consider these amendments because it was the Barbeau commission that reported in 1966 on spending laws for Canadian federal elections, election expenses and so on. That report, like a great many commission reports in this country, languished for not just months but years until it was picked up by a Liberal member of Parliament who was quite interested in the subject, Mr. Hyliard G. Chappell. He got a committee going and all of that initiative led to the Barbeau commission's report coming forward in 1974 when Parliament passed the Election Finances Reform Act in 1974.
Since then we have had a couple of decades of experience at the national level with rales that govern how money is raised and spent in the conduct of our national elections. The effort here is to see those same principles and the values that underlie them carried into this legislation that will pertain to a national plebiscite on constitutional matters.
Those rules from 1974 had one feature that was very significant and that was where Parliament decided to draw the line between freedom of expression on the one hand and the efficacy of these election finance laws on the other. As long as we are a country there will be debate over where that line should be. There is clearly a trade-off here. The issue of having that line in the right place so that there can still be adequate freedom of expression but also respect for these rules that Parliament wants so that our political processes do not simply become a process dominated by the wealthy is the fundamental issue.
When Parliament passed, very rapidly, amendments in 1983 to shift that line dramatically in favour of the finance laws and against freedom of expression, that put in place a law that was certainly challengeable. It was challenged by the National Citizens Coalition. In Alberta that case came before the Court of Queen's Bench and, interestingly enough, the National Citizens Coalition, an organization that is often denigrated by many in
June 2, 1992

the country, was found to have led an important fight there. Subsequently, many others who often speak up for civil liberties in Canada, freedom of expression and so on, were latecomers to climb on board that bandwagon. It was very important that that issue was before the courts and that was a decision in Alberta that struck down the place that Parliament had put that line because it too greatly infringed on freedom of expression.
Perhaps the government of the day should have challenged that law, should have appealed that decision, but it did not and the fact is that right now we have that same issue here before us in the House of Commons in this bill. It is the content of the amendments by the member for Jonquiere. Regardless of whether the member for Brant thinks that it should have been appealed- I agree, it should have been-the fact is it was not. At least Parliament, better than the Supreme Court of Canada in my view on this matter, is now going to have a chance to consider again where that line should be on freedom of expression.
That is why I think the third point about reasonable exceptions is the point that raises the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to Parliament and what we do here.
I am glad that the approach taken by the member with his amendments dovetails with what is already in the government's bill where there is exception made, as I say up to $5,000, for those who want to operate outside the two umbrella committees.
Let us be careful. I would caution those in government who try to draft legislation before they bring it to us here to be careful, to not be so anxious to have legislation that is charter proof that it becomes plebiscite proof. We will end up with something that could never be challenged in court because it has nothing left in it to be challenged but it does not have either any of the substance, rules, and procedures necessary to see the plebiscite will be fairly carried out in accordance with the values that for 20 years have become deeply enshrined in our Canadian political culture.
Government Orders
In short, it is important in speaking to support these amendments to make these two final points. Talking about umbrella committees is not to talk about strait-jackets. The creation of umbrella organizations, under which the many different groups would maintain their integrity and positions could operate, is quite different than something that would unduly restrict them as a strait-jacket would.
The view that they would have to be the exclusive vehicles for those supporting or opposing has been an unfortunate attitude with which to view the umbrella committees. They can operate to advantage to bring structure, purpose, and channelling the energies of those who want to divide up the broadcasting time, who want to raise and spend the moneys, but they do not have to cut it off entirely. That is the reason these amendments deserve support.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to an allocation of time for report stage and third reading of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words here in support of the motions before us calling upon the government to consider forming umbrella committees in order to conduct the referendum campaign in a more orderly way.
I realize there are certain problems with umbrella committees. There are legal opinions. There may be violations of the charter under section 2(b), which is the freedom of expression section, or section 2(d), the freedom of association section. That is not known for sure and legal opinions on this are divided.
We have had many legal opinions saying that exclusive umbrella committees are probably a violation of the charter. Other people have said if we have certain reasonable limitations in terms of spending they may not be violations of the charter.

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
The suggestion I made before and I want to make again to the government is a quick reference to the Supreme Court so we can clarify this particular issue. This issue will go to court anyway in this country very shortly. There is going to be a court action launched in the province of Quebec to challenge the Quebec referendum law under freedom of association and under freedom of speech in that particular province. There will be a court judgment rendered on whether this is in violation of the charter.
I suggest the government consider at this time referring this issue to the Supreme Court and try to get the Supreme Court to fast-track it so we can get a decision on whether we can establish umbrella committees.
The province of Quebec is recommending the use of the notwithstanding clause to make this charter proof. I certainly would not recommend that action at this time for this House but that is one possibility of what could be done.
If we can set up umbrella committees, that is the way the House should go. In a referendum question, a referendum bill, as seen before the House today, we will have one question, maybe two or maybe three.
I think one option is to set up a yes committee for each question and a no committee for each question. People who are on one side or the other can be part of that committee like they were in the province of Quebec.
It worked very well in the province of Quebec in 1980 in terms of how it was organized. I was part of that in terms of the federal New Democratic Party on the no side. I was the person who was delegated by my party to attend some of the no meetings.

I remember when the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer was also a member of the no committee in 1980 in the province of Quebec. He was mayor of Hull at the time, if I remember correctly. He was there, and I was there as a federal delegate for the New Democratic Party.

We had no problem in terms of the organization of the no committee or the yes committee in terms of allocation of time for advertising, or allocation of time in terms
of money. It was orderly. It was very well done. We did not have any problems in terms of the organization.
If it is the will of Parliament, if it is the will of the people of this country that we set up an umbrella committee again, surely we can argue before the court that would be seen as a reasonable limitation on freedom of association or expression in this country.
After all, in a referendum question there are only two answers. It is either yes or no. It is not maybe or maybe but. It is yes or no. If everybody is on the yes side or the no side, surely to goodness you can get together and organize, as in the province of Quebec, fair treatment of all the organizations in each umbrella group and make the argument before the court that is not unfair limitation under section 2(d) of the charter which is freedom of association.
In terms of freedom of speech, another suggestion I have made in terms of the motion before the House here today is perhaps if people do not want to be part of these umbrella committees, we can take an idea from the Lortie royal commission on electoral expense in which he said that if you do not want to belong to a political party, you will be allowed to spend $1,000 as an individual in terms of third-party advertising.
You, Mr. Speaker, are supposedly not part of the yes side or the no side of this referendum. You could if you were a private individual spend $1,000 in buying ads, printing brochures, renting halls and persuading people to vote either yes or no. Therefore, you do have an outlet in terms of political expression and I wish the government would take a serious look at that as one of the options.
Also in terms of freedom of speech in this country and freedom of expression, all we are talking about here is the freedom of paid expression. No matter how we organize this, people can still write letters to the editor, phone the open-line shows, knock on doors to persuade their neighbours and talk to their neighbours. They can still participate in public meetings.
There is no inhibition in terms of their freedom of speech, and that is a very basic part of this country as well. The freedom of speech is there. All we are talking about here is the freedom of paid speech in this country. We could construct rules and regulations that are charter
June 2, 1992

proof if we had national umbrella committees in this country, one for the yes and one for the no.
If we have more than one question on the referendum, we could have an umbrella committee for the yes and for the no for the first question. We could have an umbrella committee for the yes and for the no for the second question or, if there are three questions, have the same thing for the third question as well.
Again, there is a parallel here with the Elections Act. There is no limitation in this country on the number of political parties. What we have in this country is a limitation of what each political party can spend but there is no limitation on the number of political parties.
If we had two, three, four, five referendum questions, there would be a limitation on the umbrella questions in terms of the number of questions that were asked, but the limitation would be the number of committees in so far as we have the number of questions.
There is a parallel here to the Elections Act. Before I sit down, I ask that the parliamentary secretary across the way take a serious look at this proposal.
I know the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has made many recommendations as a recognized expert in this House on referenda as to how we could have a yes and no committee, how they could be charter-proof, how people can guard and keep their right for freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, freedom of association being given respect in this country and still have an orderly referendum campaign where there are reasonable spending limitations so that people on both sides of the question have the same access to the paid media.
In the final analysis, what we have to make sure we do is that we have a fair piece of referendum legislation, where a referendum cannot be bought or be perceived to be bought by one side or the other.
If there is a perception that somebody is buying the referendum, somebody has access to all kinds of money that the other side does not have, it can create a backlash in this country, a backlash in one of the regions of the country, in the province of Quebec, in western Canada, in Newfoundland, or anywhere else. We can find that
Government Orders
people are voting against the perception that big money is buying the result, rather than voting for or against the question in the referendum itself.
Those are some of the basic arguments as to why, if there is to be a national referendum, we have to have spending limitations. The only way we can have real spending limitations is if we have umbrella committees. It was done in the province of Quebec. It was suggested by the member across the way from Etobicoke-Lake-shore, suggested by the Liberal Party, supported by our party and suggested by our party in terms of the committee. The government itself has said in principle it would like to have limitations on what could be spent.
Let us be a little bit imaginative with all the legal advice we have in this country and draft legislation where we can have yes and no committees for every question. We would still have freedom of speech for third party advertising, if that is what they call it. I would say $1,000 limitation per person and have a referendum campaign in this country that is fair and just.
I want to stop here and just ask the parliamentary secretary to go back to the government to see whether or not there is a possibility of taking another look at it, a different way of organizing this, so we can have meaningful limitations.
In the final analysis, if we have legislation that is perceived not to be fair it could come back to haunt all of us. We do not want that.
What most of us want in this House is a constitutional package in the end that is supported by the three national political parties, all the provincial governments and the aboriginal people. Then if we have a national referendum, a package that the people of this country will feel good about going out and saying yes to, we will all be on the same side in saying yes to Canada and saying yes to this new federation.
Now we have a bill that is drafted in such a way where certain organizations can spend an awful lot of money. If we are not careful, we run the risk of souring the atmosphere and having people vote against a reasonable package when they otherwise would not do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
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 Winnipeg North-Revenue Canada; the hon. member for Edmonton East-The Environment; the hon. member for London East-Housing; the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap-Atmospheric Contaminants; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Immigration and Refugee Board.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Jonquiere. I find it totally acceptable, and all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois agree.
I know very well the 1980 legislation Quebec used to hold its referendum. As my colleague from Yorkton- Melville mentioned earlier, I was mayor of Hull in 1980. The no umbrella committee asked me to chair the western Quebec committee and demand a renewed federalism from the federal government.
At the time, I thought it was still possible for us to get along in this country. I chaired the no committee in the Outaouais region, and in that referendum, the no side won with 59.8 or 59.9 per cent of the votes. The PQ government, which initiated the referendum legislation, bowed to the will of the people and accepted the results of the referendum, and from then on we waited for the renewed federalism we had been promised. I know all about it.
On April 20, 1980, I stood on the same platform with Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien and Claude Ryan, at the Robert-Guertin arena in Hull, in the riding of Hull- Aylmer. At the time, this was 12 years ago, we were fighting for renewed federalism.
Today, 12 years later, we are discussing ways to put Quebec in its place, right here in Ottawa, in the Parliament of Canada.
The Conservative member for Jonquiere tabled a motion that is very similar to Quebec's referendum legislation, which reflects a respect for democracy. It respects both the yes and the no sides. There is a balance between the yes and no umbrella organizations, and there are specific spending limits within those organizations. We call that fair play. We call that democracy. We call that respect for the other side.
Today the government has decided to practically ignore the motions tabled in this House. Only two members of the Conservative Party bothered to speak to the motion tabled by the hon. member for Jonquiere, and the leader of the government has already moved a motion of closure for tomorrow. Yesterday those members said: we will not give the 48 hours provided under the Standing Orders, and we will move closure to end debate after 24 hours. Today, another motion for closure.
I think this kind of interference is unfortunate. I think it is sad to see democracy flouted this way, especially when we are dealing with the Constitution of the country, a Constitution foundering on the distrust of two founding peoples, a Constitution they want to ram down the throats of Quebecers. They want to put Quebec in its place.
Mr. Speaker, I joined the Bloc Quebecois in this House after June 23, 1990, when Meech Lake lost any significance it may have had and was turned down by two Canadian provinces. I did so to defend the greater interests of Quebec within the precincts of the House of Commons and to serve the interests of Quebec, with the respect owed to democracy and the integrity we can expect from our elected representatives.
I think it is a great pity that a Conservative member would put forward today amendments relating to the very substance of democracy and the freedom of expression and that this government refuses to be tolerant, and moreover ignores it.
As for the fact mentioned when Bill C-81 was tabled that a ceiling could not be put on expenditures because this could be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this raises serious doubts about the confidence placed in the charter. If we do not have confidence in it, let us change it or repeal it. Why not have used the notwithstanding clause? If that had been the case, it would have been possible to use the clause to maintain democracy, to maintain expenditures for such a major consultation process, as Quebec will be consulting its people at the same time on its political future, under a

yes umbrella and a no umbrella, in face of the constitutional rejection of English Canada.
Are you suggesting that this House force down the throat of Quebecers a deal bought through a massive publicity drive, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, such as the one this government has already embarked upon? That is absolutely incredible. It is unthinkable.
People in my riding were telling me just the other day that they could not even watch a simple game of hockey on TV without an advertisement on what a beautiful country Canada is being flashed on the screen every five minutes. It is not ads such as those that will bring unity between the two founding nations. That is not the point. It is much more a matter of Quebecers mistrusting English Canadians who cannot even agree among themselves.
Mr. Bourassa cannot be blamed for not attending the federal-provincial conference, when the nine Englishspeaking provinces do not agree among themselves. How do you expect Quebec to reach an agreement on its own?
We will support the motion of the member for Jonquiere. For those who are watching us on TV today, especially in Quebec-I can understand where English Canada is coming from-I think it is a great pity to have such an undemocratic piece of legislation forced on them. Unfortunately, we can find only a few members to stand up for Quebec in this House, including the hon. member for Jonquiere who supported it and proposed amendments. The others caved in, and are grovelling. They will be remembered in history-not that of Canada, but the Quebec history-as members sent to Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebec and caved in on such a fundamental issue. I urge Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec to prevent this from becoming a reality.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to intervene in this debate to support the motions presented by the hon. member for Jonquiere.
I want to congratulate him on presenting Motions Nos. 2, 7, 35, 50, 51, 54, 55 and 59, which in many respects take some provisions of the Quebec Referendum Act that advocate not only the creation of two umbrella commit-
Govemment Orders
tees, one for the yes side and the other for the no, but that set limits on what each of these two committees can spend in a referendum campaign.
Of course, the Liberal Party of Canada hopes a Canadian referendum will not only give Canadians a chance to express their opinion on thorough changes to their Constitution but also give them a chance to say yes to Quebec and give Quebecers a chance to say yes to Canada. We are not afraid of such a public consultation. The Bloc Quebecois representatives seem to fear like the plague a referendum in which Quebecers would be asked their opinion on a series of constitutional amendments in line with the traditional five demands of the Quebec government headed by Robert Bourassa.
We think that the Government of Canada and the provinces are moving towards a compromise on a package of constitutional proposals that could considerably change our Canadian system, but that could also satisfy Quebec's legitimate aspirations. What better way than to ask them directly, in a referendum, whether or not they approve of this constitutional package put forward by the Government of Canada and the provinces. I think that is a completely democratic exercise which is quite legitimate and in no way contravenes the basic rules of democracy.
Certainly it would be better to bring all the yes supporters together on one side and all the no supporters together on the other and to impose strict spending limits on them. That is the purpose of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Jonquiere. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Liberal Party of Canada will support these amendments enthusiastically.
We hope that the government will think it over and see that these amendments are justified. If, unfortunately, the government did not accept these amendments, we would at least hope to see a government representative, either the parliamentary secretary today or even better the Prime Minister himself on third reading, assure us that if the government holds a referendum on specific constitutional offers, it will not abuse its spending power and intervene in a heavy-handed, undemocratic way. Then both the supporters and the opponents of this proposal can fight it out on a level playing field with equal chances for both sides.

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
It seems obvious to me that it is not necessary-as I have already said in this House-to spend excessively to point out the merits of Canadian federalism. I do not think that it is necessary to spend excessively in any province of Canada, including Quebec. I am convinced that it is not necessary to use money to convince Quebecers of the merits of a good constitutional reform that would provide a favourable response to the five traditional requests of the Government of Quebec.
This is why I regret that, so far, the government has not deemed appropriate to impose more rigid limits to electoral and referendum expenses, and more importantly, does not see the opportunity to copy the referendum legislation of Quebec.
Some of our colleagues in this House ask themselves this question: if the amendments tabled by the member for Jonquiere were to be rejected, should the member for Jonquiere or other members in this House who support these amendments vote against the referendum act?
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that at this time we hope these amendments will be agreed to. We also hope the government will recognize that it is essential to have a bill that will not only be fair but will be perceived as being fair and equitable for everybody, including the separatists, the independantistes and the members of the Bloc Quebecois. It seems certain to me that whatever we do, those independantistes, separatists and members of the Bloc Quebecois will always be disappointed and unsatisfied, but I nevertheless think the referendum legislation is essential for the Government of Canada.
We believe that if the Government of Quebec has an act that enables it to hold a referendum, and if the government of British Columbia has an act that enables it to do the same, it goes without saying that the Government of Canada should also have a piece of legislation enabling it to hold a referendum and to consult Canadians across the country or in specific regions of Canada.
I do not know what this government will do following the constitutional negotiations. I do not know if the Government of Canada will invoke section 3 of this bill
to hold a Canadian referendum in some provinces but not in all of them. This means that the Government of Canada could, provided it reaches an agreement with the provinces, allow those interested in doing so, to hold their own referendum according to their provincial legislation. The Government of Canada could therefore hold a referendum in the provinces where there would be no desire to hold such consultation at the provincial level. It is quite possible that all these discussions which seem to scare the members of the Bloc Quebecois are totally useless. Indeed, it may well be that, under this legislation, there will be a referendum in several provinces, but that in the case of Quebec it will be its referendum act that will apply. Should this be the case, all the antics and fears of our friends from the Bloc Quebecois will have been useless and unnecessary.
Whatever the situation may be, I will end by saying that we must have a referendum act that enables the Government of Canada to act if it deems appropriate to do so. Also, this legislation must, as much as possible, ensure a level playing field for the two sides, and be democratic by allowing those who want to belong to either group to be subjected to the same rules and be allowed roughly the same electoral and referendum expenses.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments made by my friend from Jonquiere, a Quebecois patriot, who nevertheless works hard for a renewed Canada.
My friend was a member of the two special joint committees and he was present at the organizational meeting of the legislative committee on that bill.

He is a member of Parliament who has truly made a constructive contribution to this debate and to many preceding debates. He has presented a series of amendments which would have the effect of bringing into Bill C-81 the concept of exclusive umbrella committees as in the Quebec legislation on referendums. Only two umbrella committees would be set up: one in support and one in opposition to the question or questions.
June 2, 1992

The mechanics for the administration of this scheme would be left to the Governor in Council to make by regulation. There are numerous issues raised by this approach, issues which were also canvassed in the legislative committee which completed its work last Tuesday.
The first of these would be the restriction of participation to two exclusive committees and that, as has been touched on in this debate, raises charter concerns with respect to freedom of expression and to freedom of association.
I heard my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean seeking to deprecate the importance of that. I wonder if he was perhaps speaking in the context of the 1980 situation which preceded the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know he referred to the Quebec charter, but I do not think it is exactly four-square with the situation we have here.
My friend from Papineau-Saint-Michel referred to the charter issue only very fleetingly. I was looking forward to his grappling with that issue because I know he had the opportunity to read the opinions which have been submitted to the government on the issue. I wonder, with all due respect to that distinguished gentleman, whether he was so much persuaded by those opinions that he did in fact skate around the issue of charterability.
The Governor in Council, under the amendments proposed by my friend from Jonquiere, would be obligated to control the process in detail. That would include apportionment of funding among affiliates, rules for affiliation, maximum spending limits, the manner in which the committees and affiliates would be established and indeed the names of the committees.
I would ask with great respect whether it is really the intention of my friend that the cabinet would be setting those rules.
It seems to me the exercise we are talking about here is an exercise of maximum involvement of the people of Canada and a democratization of the process. To have cabinet intervening in matters so intimately involved with the exercise of freedom of expression would I think be somewhat abusive to the process.
Government Orders
The Chief Electoral Officer under these amendments would have to approve the apportionment of expenses of a committee which operates nationally or which operates in more than one province. These are important matters which have not been addressed in the amendments as to how they would work. In the Canadian context testimony was given in committee that this scheme would likely be contrary to the charter.
The question of freedom of association is in many ways more profound and more challenging than even the fundamental question of freedom of expression, which is inextricably wrapped up in the question of the spending limits in particular.
It is interesting that the Bloc Quebecois would be in support of these amendments. What would happen if they were to become the law of Canada and if members of the Bloc Quebecois were participating on whatever side? I would guess they would be negative to any propositions that would be put forward to the people of Canada. They might find themselves under the same umbrella as-these are just examples because we cannot be certain of this-Mr. Manning and the Reform Party; Mr. Elmer Knutson, the founder of the CORE group, which is fundamentally opposed to the use of the French language in Canada as is the Association for the Protection of English in Canada, which I think would be under the same umbrella with them and who knows who else. The National Citizens Coalition, the Assembly of First Nations, REAL Women and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women might all be together under the same tent. I wonder if they have really thought this through.
It was an excellent intervention that my friend from Etobicoke-Lakeshore made. He is an authority on these matters and he quite correctly described the three main elements of these amendments: the setting up of the committees, the spending limits, and the issues of balance of fairness that flow from those and the reasonable exceptions.
I listened as well to the intervention from my friend from Yorkton-Melville who has been working with these issues since 1980 and has made a great contribution to the debate in our country. He observed that the challenge is to set up committees and rules that are charter proof. It was the intention of the government to try to find those rules, and those committees that would be charter proof. The truth be told, the government

June 2, 1992
Government Orders
would prefer to have committees if only they would withstand the test of the charter.
At this stage I would venture to say it is certainly imprudent to risk the challenge of the charter in the face of the very overwhelming opinion to the contrary.
With great reluctance I would advocate the defeat of this cluster of amendments.


Mr.   Benoit@: Mr. Speaker, I think we just heard a repetition of the government's arguments justifying the passage of a bill which is a true conscription of democracy. What is really extraordinary is that we refer to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to justify rules which impose no limit on spending.
The federal government will be allowed to spend millions of dollars. Each committee will be allowed to spend up to $8.5 million and the number of committees will be unlimited and all that, in the name of democracy and freedom of speech. It is really unbelievable. I think it would appear utterly ridiculous to the Supreme Court, whose opinion we could have sought, and certainly to any normal democracy that a charter of rights and freedoms would give the richest and most powerful such a disproportionate influence. Allowing everybody to express their opinion on a major issue is the simplest way to improve the democratic process.
Once again, we invoke individual rights to deny this democratic exercise. A group or an individual, let us say a billionaire, could decide to spend freely to express his views.
We are told that the government will reject the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Jonquiere. He already knows about it. The hon. member for Jonquiere is part of this government. He knows where his party stands, and he will have to decide what to do.
This was a nice attempt at showing some national pride. He dared propose amendments to make this bill a little more democratic. He did it knowing full well that they would be defeated. At least he was called a patriot, a great patriot, by our friend from Edmonton Southwest. Then he said he would vote against his amendments, he is a patriot, but a patriot who is going to be hanged. Of
course, he knows the government will use its majority to defeat his amendments.
We also heard from the hon. member for Papineau- Saint-Michel who said he agreed, he was going to vote for the proposed amendments which provide for an umbrella group on the yes side and another umbrella group on the no side, as well as some control on spending. The hon. member was very sanctimonious.
This bill is essentially the same as the one tabled by Marc Lalonde in 1979. As far as the hon. member for Jonquiere is concerned, we can still speculate whether he acted in good faith, whether he will have the guts, one day, to make a decision? There is no doubt the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel was here to vote for the War Measures Act. There is no doubt about his sincerity when it comes to democracy and the future of Quebec.
The jury is still out about the hon. member for Jonquiere, but it will not last much longer. The crucial moment is fast approaching. In his area, editorialists do not trust him too much, but we can still expect a surge of pride, we can still hope he will draw his own conclusions, since the government said it will defeat his motion. It is not enough to look good, you also have to push the conclusions to their logical end. If the hon. member for Jonquiere really believes that to be democratic the referendum process needs spending limits and a grouping of people on each side of the issue, and if he knows that his motion will be defeated, he can draw his own conclusions.
Several other members should also reflect on that and draw their own conclusions, because we are told that we need that bill, but we will not use it. This measure is totally anti-democratic. This is a preparation for a showdown, a conscription of democracy, but it is not going to be used. They are inching their way towards some kind of show of force. History repeats itself. The first time it is tragic, the second, ridiculous. Nobody in Quebec takes seriously people who have been procrastinating for months. That is what they have been trying to do by putting things off for the last two years by spending millions of dollars, by having people changing their mood from good to bad and back again, by riding the roller coaster of hope and despair and by being totally unable to make a decision because they know that at the end of
June 2, 1992

the road, there will not be any proposal worth considering.
The member for Papineau-Saint-Michel was saying earlier that the federal government has the right to hold a referendum on serious proposals that would be favourable to Quebec. Everybody knows that the Quebec premier is hoping for serious proposals, but he is losing hope of ever receiving some serious proposals and is even considering holding a referendum. We know full well that if the government and the Liberal Party had some serious proposals to make, the premier of Quebec would be the first one to want to submit them to the people of Quebec, but Mr. Bourassa will never have any to present.
This is why we are planning to pass a law which is nothing short of a violation of democracy, because nothing in the constitutional package will be acceptable. On top of that they want to gag us. Since the beginning of this debate those members have tried to gag us. We had been told that during the important report stage we could speak our mind on each clause. Now they tell us they are bringing the guillotine in tomorrow. Well, I think there is still some hope before they drop the guillotine tomorrow. We can still pursue the debate on this bill and hope that by arguing with our colleagues from Quebec they, at least, will understand how important it is to oppose this bill.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have the seconder?
Mr. Tremblay, seconded by Mr. Lapierre, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) moves:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of consideration of Bill C-81.
Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: More than 15 members have risen. Pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks all day from members of the Bloc Quebecois and to listen to them you would think that they were the only ones in the House who cared about the people of Quebec.
They seem to come across like they have some special gift for giving counsel to the people of Quebec.
This kind of nonsense that has been going on today is really counter productive for the people of Quebec. I heard the member for Jonquiere speak earlier today. He is an example of someone who is trying very hard to be constructive and creative in a very difficult circumstance.
As someone from downtown Toronto who does not understand all of the complexities that you are facing in your province right now, and I admit that openly, I salute you for your attempt to try to bring some order to this debate because the people who were opposing you today from the Bloc were not being constructive.
This is just small-time tactics. It is not a productive exercise and the more it goes on, my prediction will be the more they will sink themselves into oblivion.
The people of Canada are having a very difficult time understanding what is going on in this House the last two days. First of all, they tried to shut down the South Moresby National Park and now they are trying to infer that we are jamming some kind of exercise down the throats of the people of Quebec.
I believe that Quebecers are much more intelligent than the Bloc Quebecois is giving them credit for. I have many friends in the province of Quebec and they tell me that right now the thing that is uppermost on their mind is the economy. There are many, many people right now, not just in Quebec but in every part of this country, who are in deep economic pain.
There are people who are not working. There are businesses that are having difficulties making ends meet and the quicker we get rid of this divisiveness that is being promoted, the better the chances of this economy coming back together. We have so much in this country to work on, but it is pretty tough when you have this kind of counter productive spirit working, especially in this place.
And the count having been taken:

June 2, 1992
Private Members' Business
I listened to the member for Elull-Aylmer who talked about the fact that in 1980 he was on the same stage as Prime Minister Trudeau. I am sure that many members of the government who are in power today were also on that same stage. He seems to forget it was his participation with that spirit and leadership that was responsible for this man not only being the force that he was as the mayor of Hull, but was also one of the reasons why he was elected to this Parliament of Canada.
The people in his riding did not elect him to work at separating this country. They elected him to come to this Chamber to work at keeping this country together. I have great difficulty in understanding where he is coming from. He talked about the fact that the day after the Meech Lake Accord went down it was the end of his life as someone who believed in Canada.
The fact of the matter is that there were many, many people, even in the province of Quebec, who believed that there were serious flaws in the Meech Lake Accord.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hear the member regretting the failure of Meech Lake.
I accuse him and his colleagues of killing Meech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ban the importation of all hazardous waste.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this timely issue on the eve of a conference which could have overwhelming implications for the future of our planet.
The motion I am introducing is a very simple motion but it flows from the work done by the Brundtland commission dealing with our common future and the work that will be examined in great detail at the conference in Rio de Janeiro. I would like to read the motion into the record:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ban the
importation of all hazardous waste.
It is a simple motion but it speaks to the issue which has gripped our nation and indeed the world for the last number of years and that is the issue of what constitutes sustainable development.
One of the messages from the Brundtland commission was clear: think globally and act locally. This particular motion enshrines the notion of local action into parliamentary law. What it says is in future industrial development and in future residential development in our country we have to be prepared to deal with our own hazardous wastes at home and likewise that other countries must feel compelled to do the same.
It is an important concept because in the world of garbage in which we live, and Canada is one of the greatest garbage-producing nations in the world, it is critical that we not only find ways of disposing of our garbage, but begin to take responsibility for our own waste. This particular motion enshrines that as a principle, specifically in dealing with the issue of hazardous waste.

I first introduced this motion in 1989 when we learned that Canada was importing BPC contaminated gasoline. At that time, customers had no idea that the gasoline and heating oil they were purchasing might be toxic. Farmers did not suspect that the oil used to heat their greenhouses might be toxic. I tabled the motion hurriedly in order to ban the importation of hazardous waste into Canada and to make Canadians understand that we should treat our own BPCs. It is not enough to encourage BPC exports. It is absolutely essential also that we have the means to dispose of our own waste. I had this matter slated for debate in early May last year because I knew that the situation not only had not improved but had worsened.
It is a fact that Canada remains, on the eve of the Rio de Janeiro meeting, the single largest producer of waste material in the world. Canada is the most wasteful country in the world. On the other hand, we have yet to adopt a policy requiring that, as a matter of principle, we
June 2, 1992

Private Members' Business
treat our own waste material and especially our toxic waste.
In fact the situation keeps worsening even now. In its May 27 issue, La Presse reported that Canada is the world's largest importer of toxic waste material.

We are the largest world importer of toxic waste. Canada, a country that wants to be a world leader in Rio, is also the world leader in importing toxic waste.

It reported that 95 per cent of all hazardous waste material imported into Canada comes from the United-States. Canada imports 142,000 tons of dangerous waste, and exports almost as much.
So we have nearly 300,000 tons of hazardous waste crossing the border between Canada and the United States.

Think of it, 300,000 tonnes of toxic waste is passing our border on an annual basis. Small wonder that the fire-fighters of Canada are doing their level best to get legislation which would ensure that transportation of toxic waste be properly computerized. In that amount of tonnage, clearly there is the possibility for some very serious accidents and very serious public ramifications.

Canada is the biggest carrier of toxic waste. As luck would have it, I am raising this issue at the very moment the international community is meeting in Rio to try to find answers to the major ecological problems of this planet.

It is just a coincidence that this motion is coming forward on the week that we are moving into the real conference but it is also critical that as Canadians, before we preach to the world, before the Prime Minister unveils another empty green plan, we should tell the world we are the number one world importer of toxic waste, a fact that most Canadians are not aware of.

I hope conference delegates in Rio are not aware of these statistics because it would be very embarrassing for Canada. It is embarrassing to rank first as a carrier of toxic waste when we want to tell the Third World it should clean up its act.
There is plenty to do here. In fact, there is a whole industry that depends on toxic waste for its very existence. There is a company north of Montreal that advertises in the United States, saying that it assumes full responsibility for waste upon reception.
This goes against the principle that producers should be responsible for their own waste.

That violates a basic principle that those who produce waste should be responsible for its disposition.

There are now more than 1,000 sites where toxic waste can be found in Canada. More than 50 of these sites are orphan sites, which means no one is responsible for them.

Fifty orphan sites, 1,000 toxic sites across this country, and 50 of those that nobody is taking responsibility for. They are simply washing their hands.

In Quebec there are 333 depots for toxic waste. [English]
Three hundred and thirty-three depots for toxic waste, 66 of them are dangerous for health.

It would cost $500 million to clean them up. While we are arguing here in the House about what should be included in the referendum bill, we have a situation where we already have 333 hazardous waste depots in Quebec alone, and we would need $8 billion to clean up the 1,000 contaminated sites we have across Canada.

It would take $8 billion just to clean them up.

June 2, 1992
Private Members' Business

This year, 6.5 million tons of hazardous waste will be produced.

Six and a half million tons of toxic waste will be produced in this country in this year alone.

As long as people think they can get rid of their toxic waste by exporting it abroad, they will continue to produce it.

The point is, as long as we have the option of sending our waste elsewhere and developing an international traffic in toxic waste, it becomes very easy not to deal with the issue of waste. Stick it on a barge, send the PCBs off to a Third World country. As long as we fail to enshrine the notion of looking after our own waste, we will not have any initiative locally to actually deal with our own toxic waste.
The practice of Canada-U.S. trading of toxic waste encourages waste production.
Indeed, an entire industry depends on importing toxic waste to make a profit. Banning the importation and obviously the export of hazardous waste would force us as Canadians to deal with our own waste. The surest way to responsible management is to deal with it ourselves. As long as we can ship it off to another country, the tendency is to look the other way, to take the easy route.
In our own country we have some startlingly positive examples of companies that have done something to reduce their own waste and with stupendous results. At one office, an Etobicoke office, Bell Canada implemented a comprehensive program of waste reduction. Before the program, the building was generating 800 kilograms of waste a day; coffee cups, paper, beverage cans, packaging and organic wastes. Through education and provision of creative alternatives, those 1,000 employees at the Etobicoke office have managed to reduce the waste from 800 kilos to 22 kilos a day. That is hardly enough to fill three green garbage bags.
That is a 97 per cent reduction. They are so excited about this program that Bell intends to extend its program to all 110 buildings in Ontario and 85 buildings in Quebec with positive results.
Another company, Canadian Waste Exchange, specializes as an intermediary between car manufacturers, for example with extra paint, and schools which can use that material. There are other dramatic radical ways of eliminating waste. Quaker Oats Company has introduced an innovative way of looking at packaging. Nonmarketable food because of faulty packaging or expiry dates instead of being thrown out is now recycled and used as chicken feed.
In 1986, the company began the process of recycling food that had not been used. It saved $1 million in the process and it has invested that money in a closed loop water cooling system, totally eliminating all discharge into a nearby river.
Dupont has decided to eliminate the production of virtually all hazardous waste by 1995 by substituting non-toxic products, for example, toxic products like arsenic. It is also changing its production technology.
Dupont is also committed to reducing junk waste by at least 50 per cent before the end of this decade. It is finding that reduction pays great dividends. Reducing waste by 38 per cent in the production of paint at Dupont has meant an increase of one-third in productivity.
This is what sustainable development is all about. Being environmentally responsible also makes economic sense. Instead of being the laughing stock of the world by being the largest trader in toxic waste as we speak, Canada could become a world leader by accepting full responsibility for the waste that we generate. The examples I have just mentioned show that it makes economic sense.
Surely there are some necessary adjustments and some investment costs in the short term but those will pay off in the long term economically and environmentally.

Canadians are concerned about the quality of the environment and about the effect of pollution on their health. We do not want to be the toxic waste dump site of other countries.
June 2, 1992



Mr. Speaker, we do not want to be the world's toxic garbage dump.

They do not want our industries to keep producing waste that is a threat to the health of their children, their parents and their own health. We no longer want to ship our waste to our neighbours. Banning imports and exports of toxic waste would force companies to reuse, recycle, reduce and, in the long run, eliminate the production of toxic products.
If Canada does not act now, other countries will take the lead and Canada will remain behind, its procedures and technologies getting obsolete.
The demand for environmentally friendly technologies and industrial processes will give rise to a great innovative creativity. It will create new markets and jobs and it will allow companies not only to conserve resources but also to reduce costs and increase profits. Japan already has understood the enormous possibilities and so have certain European countries.
In 1990, Japan launched a 100-year plan,

sto lat, as they say in Polish, a 100 year plan has been launched in Japan.

They will convert entirely to sustainable development and invest enormous sums of money in research in order to develop clean technologies.
During the seventies and eighties, Japan seized the opportunity of the oil crisis to change its production methods. Already it uses only 50 per cent of the physical resources and energy required by the United States and by Canada to create one unit of production.

The Japanese understood early that small cars not only make economic sense, they make environmental sense. Right now they have taken the approach to energy use that sees very specifically that for every unit of production created in Japan, they use only 50 per cent of the energy that we use in Canada and the United States. Why? Because they are operating in a much smaller geographic area. They understand that what we do to the land comes back to haunt us in the food chain in the
Private Members' Business
Great Lakes, in the tainting of mother's milk that we see now in the Arctic and in the fact that the food chain in the Great Lakes has already seen evidence of potential brain damage as a result of toxic waste disposal.

Only if we adopt a long-term vision and if we have the courage to act shall we succeed in saving our planet.

In the United States the House of Representatives in Congress is looking at legislation to ban the export of hazardous waste and the import into the United States. The representative who introduced the motion said: "Banning exports supports and goes beyond the international agreements we have signed at Basel in 1989. It also represents good foreign policy".
As we know trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste is controlled by the Basel convention signed in 1989. Yes, Canada is a signatory and the Basel convention was created in response to concerns that hazardous wastes were being dumped on developing countries, particularly the African states, in a non-environmentally responsible manner. In other words developed countries were using the undeveloped countries as their cheap dumping grounds.
The underlying objectives of the Basel convention were to cut down waste, to recycle waste and to make sure that where possible home country responsibility prevailed for waste disposal and treatment.
However, African countries at that convention understood that the only effective solution was to ban outright the importation of waste on their continent.
It is important that we in Canada also take our own world responsibility seriously and we show the nations of the world, as they gather in Rio de Janeiro, that we too care about this issue, understand this issue and have the political will to act on this matter.
This House can, by way of this motion, unequivocally affirm our will to implement a real policy aimed at setting Canada on the path of world leadership and sustainable development. It is not enough to go to Rio and make fancy declarations to the international media. We have got to back it up with actions. This particular motion makes it clear that Canada will follow the objectives of our common future in thinking globally and acting locally. That is the direction in which we have to go-

June 2, 1992
Private Members' Business
I urge the House to support this motion.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this very important issue, although I fear it is sometimes a misunderstood issue. I will come back to that later in my remarks.
First of all, I want to stress the fact that certainly the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the provincial governments, very much agrees with the hon. member in her expressed desire to reduce all waste, including hazardous waste.
That is why the Council of Ministers of the Environment some time ago entered into and began to implement an agreement whereby waste within Canada would be reduced by 50 per cent by the year 2000.
I am pleased to be able to report to the House that good progress is being made at this very moment in that direction.
With respect to the specific motion before us, I must caution Canadians to ensure that they understand the fundamental question before us is how to recycle, if possible and if not, how to dispose of in an environmentally sound manner hazardous waste wherever it may exist.
Since 1986, the Governments of Canada and the United States have co-operated as a result of an agreement entered into in that particular year to ensure that hazardous waste is dealt with as efficiently as possible. We believe, and it has been our practice since 1986, that it is most efficient and most environmentally sound to try to dispose of by way of final disposition or by recycling of hazardous waste in the shortest distance possible between the site of production and the site of final disposition.
The very nature of Canada, Mr. Speaker, of which you are familiar as a result of your residency in Alberta, presents us with a unique problem. The problem within Canada is the fact that the vast bulk of our population lives within 100 miles of the Canadian-American border.
We are a huge nation in terms of the breadth of our country, but we are a nation in which our population is situated in a relatively narrow boundary. We have discovered it is very often to our collective advantage, and I would say as well to our environmental advantage, to take the opportunity to export hazardous waste to a disposal site situated in the United States which is closer to the point of origin wherever that might be, than some other disposal site which may exist within Canada.
In fact, we are a major exporter of such hazardous waste but under very strict and controlled conditions and under those circumstances where the disposal site, whether it be a final disposition site or a recycling site is situated closer to the point of origin than that which may exist within Canada.
In return we do indeed, as the hon. member has said, receive a considerable amount of such hazardous waste from certain parts of the United States. Again it is in those instances where the site of origin in the United States is closer to a point of disposition in Canada than would be the case if it were to be sent solely to other disposition sites within the United States.
Certainly there is a certain emotional appeal, and indeed probably a certain political appeal in the statement that countries, nations, provinces, communities, whatever the case may be, should dispose solely, only they should be held accountable for their disposition of their waste.
The most important consideration facing us in terms of our acceptance of our responsibility to try to manage our waste in as sound an environmental manner as possible is with respect to the need to keep the transportation distance as limited as possible. By doing so, we limit the possibility of any accident. We must also ensure that the depot to which it is sent, whether it be located in Canada or the United States, is operated in an environmentally sound manner and that the recycling process or the disposition process, as the case may be, is done under strict government controlled regulations.
At the moment, we and most Canadians believe the system is working to the advantage of both Canadians and Americans. Certainly, as Canadians we are able to export a significant amount of waste to American dispos-
June 2, 1992

al sites which are closer to the point of origin than those which may exist in Canada.
In fact, the statistics I have available to me indicate that in 1991 Canada exported 223,079 tonnes and imported 135,161 tonnes of hazardous waste. It is important to note that 53 per cent of those exports were destined for recycling operations, in this case in the United States.
It is important that we do all we can to minimize the risk. When we speak of environmental problems it is important to understand that those problems are global in nature. As I have said on other occasions in the House, it is also important to understand that there must be a global response to those problems, in this case, an international response and an agreement entered into between United States and Canada in 1986.
As the hon. member referred to in her remarks, there was another agreement as well, the Basel convention. In 1989, Canada signed the Basel convention. We anticipate that this fall we will be able to ratify that convention. That convention, in essence, has the same kind of objectives as the agreement we entered into with the United States, the safe disposition of hazardous waste.
As a result of the steps we have made in that direction, I would like to take just a moment to inform the House of new import and export regulations which are being put in place with respect to hazardous waste. It is important to understand that, indeed, they are very thorough.
First of all, the existing controls of hazardous waste shipments such as prior notification and manifesting requirements will remain in place. In other words, these shipments must be done in such a manner that the receiving country and the receiving authorities are well aware of their anticipated arrival and the nature of the shipments.
Second, the exports or imports may not proceed until it is confirmed by Environment Canada that all the conditions and regulations are met to ensure that hazardous waste will be managed in an environmentally sound manner.
Third, the requirements for liability coverage will be implemented to ensure that costs for any damages from transportation accidents which could arise are met.
Private Members' Business
Finally, should a problem arise during the export of some Canadian hazardous waste, the Canadian exporter will be obligated to inform Environment Canada and to make alternative arrangements or to return the hazardous waste to Canada.
I agree thoroughly and fully with the hon. member when she says that the bottom line objective is to reduce the amount of waste. The Government of Canada for that reason has entered into a commitment to move in the direction of a 50 per cent reduction by the year 2000 and she is correct. She is correct when she suggests that this will be good economics. She is correct when she says that there is a considerable amount of enthusiasm in the private sector for making that happen.
Where she is not correct, in my opinion, is when she suggests that drawing up boundaries which conform with political boundaries will lead automatically to the safer treatment of such hazardous waste. The present arrangement where Canada exports hazardous waste to the United States when a disposal site there is closer to the point of origin and we receive hazardous waste from the United States when a disposal site here is closer to the point of origin is not only more efficient in terms of cost but it is also actually safer in light of the fact that the transportation routes are being kept as short as possible.
Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of Alberta you are well aware of the fact that your province has put an excellent facility in place. However, you are also aware of the fact that to transport hazardous waste to that facility from all across Canada would incur an immense amount of risk because of the distance, the vastness of Canada.
The present arrangement is one where there is an emphasis on safety and an emphasis on a minimum of risk and is the appropriate policy to follow.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this evening on the private member's motion that the government should ban the importation of all hazardous waste.
I want to indicate that I support the concept of the bill, for a number of reasons. Primarily it is because I believe the onus should be on the jurisdiction that generates such waste to be responsible for its disposal.

Private Members' Business
If a province is allowed to export its waste to the United States there would be less likelihood of two things happening. One is the development of an appropriate disposal or neutralizing facility in that particular region. The other and more important one is that without being forced to deal with the end product within that jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is less likely to force the creator to change the manner in which that particular good is manufactured or created so that it does not have hazardous waste as a by-product. For those two reasons I support this motion.
I also believe even within jurisdictions there should be a restriction that, for example, if an area of a province does not either have within its location the producer of the hazardous waste or benefits from the production that brings about the hazardous waste, it should not have to bear the responsibility for the storage or disposal of such material.
I am speaking specifically about the province of Ontario, and I am thinking specifically about high level nuclear waste. We all know that AECL has had a program for 10 to 12 years now of looking for an underground storage facility for nuclear waste that is created in southern Ontario by Ontario Hydro. It has been looking and drilling in northern Ontario. It has been drilling in the community of Atikokan in order to test the theory that granite is an appropriate medium in which to store for long periods of time, millenniums, high level nuclear waste.
Northern Ontario does not benefit from the nuclear reactor program that Ontario Hydro launched many years ago. In fact, residents of northern Ontario, like the residents of southern Ontario, are now finding there was a high price tag for those nuclear reactors. That price tag forced Ontario Hydro to increase its rates by over 11 per cent this year, 9 per cent next year, and who knows what thereafter, in order to pay for those mega-elephants. We still do not know what it is going to cost to de-commission them. We still do not know if we have the technology to not only handle the high level waste but also to handle the buildings and what have you.
A number of chemicals are created within our borders. There are a number of products which when released into the atmosphere or placed on the ground will destroy vegetation, animal life and human life. Those are the kinds of things we are talking about in terms of the
private member's motion, the banning of importation of all hazardous wastes.
We should accept responsibility for what we produce, but I think it is the responsibility of our neighbours to the south to look after what they produce.
I visited Love Canal a number of years ago, in 1985 in fact, with the Canada-U.S. parliamentary association. We toured what once was a city, a city the size of Atikokan, Ontario in fact, that was closed because of the dumping of toxic wastes. We walked along the Niagara Gorge, along the Niagara River and saw the chemicals seeping out, in fact dripping from the walls as they leached through the ecosystem.
I have seen in other cases where hazardous goods are illegally transported between Canada and the United States. Not only are they illegally transported but they are hidden in trucks with other cargoes. The placarding has been removed from the tankers carrying toxic waste in order that the cargo goes across the border from the United States into Canada undetected. That is happening and is happening today. One of the ways we can deal with that is just by saying no to the importation of hazardous goods.
It works both ways. The province of Ontario should stop the exportation of garbage to the United States for a profit. That is our responsibility. At the same time we should not be exporting garbage from Toronto to Kirkland Lake or any of the other northern communities. He or she who produces the garbage should be responsible for it.
In this brief intervention I just wanted to give a quick outline of why I am supporting the member's motion. I would encourage all members of the House to do so as well.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Hamilton East:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ban the
importation of all hazardous waste.
I whole-heartedly agree with this motion and certainly commend my colleague for bringing it before the House at this time.
We can look at the increased incidence of cancer in the Great Lakes basin, the continuation of industrial spills in the Great Lakes waters and our rivers. We can look at the thinning of the ozone and its impact on animal life in the southern extremities of South America, let alone
June 2, 1992

what it is doing to human life at the present time. We realize that as inhabitants of this earth we must take action.
We can look at the saturation of the soils in some European countries with animal wastes, waste in such concentrations that it has affected the productivity of the soil and has got into the water tables and well water of those countries. Some of this waste is now being barged to other countries, some of which are Third World countries, to be disposed of.
This is simply not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable that just a few years ago cyanide chips were being transported from Chicago to a disposal site in Lambton county. They were being brought in without the knowledge of surrounding inhabitants until they found out accidentally. How much more can we get in terms of toxicity in cyanide chips?
We saw attempts just three years ago to build a low level nuclear waste disposal site in St. Clair county, Michigan, that would serve as a disposal site for several other states. This is a different aspect to importation of toxic wastes. That site was to be built near a stream that drained into Lake Huron. It would endanger the water intake of the city of Sarnia and much of Lambton county, and if a proposed pipeline goes through it will affect a lot of Kent county itself.
How can we allow such things to happen? More recently we had several truck loads of hazardous waste in British Columbia being brought to a site near Sarnia, Ontario. It was a similar site where cyanide chips were disposed of.
The member for Brandon-Souris mentioned that the reason we had an agreement to accept waste from other countries was that it was the lowest distance to travel. Certainly that did not apply to the volume of hazardous waste going from British Columbia to Ontario. Surely there must have been a closer site somewhere in B.C. or the state of Washington or Oregon. Why did it come our way?
More recently we learned of hundreds of truckloads of waste being trucked from Montreal to the same site in Lambton country. Surely there must have been a site somewhere in New York state or in the New England
Private Members' Business
states that would have been closer than the 600 miles they had to travel to bring it to Lambton county.
More important, what was the impact of all this on the health of Canadian people? I am very fearful of the impact. I mentioned earlier the higher incidence of cancer in the Great Lakes basin.
A recent media article stated that no one really knows what is happening to millions of tonnes of toxic waste generated within Canada annually. This was from a federal report on the state of the environment. Even worse, we as Canadians have allowed increasing amounts of hazardous waste into the country. We still do not know if the monitoring system is working as it should because it will only work effectively if those who generate the waste are honest and responsible corporate citizens generally concerned about the future of this planet, of our children and of our grandchildren.
Imports of hazardous waste from the U.S. into Canada increased to 142,000 tonnes in 1990. Lax border inspections were at the heart of the 1989 case of alleged imports of fuel laced with PCBs, a prohibited import under the CEPA.
The Auditor General's 1991 report examined the compliance of customs operations with domestic regulations controlling import and export of hazardous waste. It found that there was no defined program within Customs Canada to deal with the movement of hazardous materials. No training was provided for customs staff on the subject of hazardous materials. Little has been done within Customs Canada to gather information, analyse and assess the risk of illicit transportation or non-compliance with relevant legislation, or to target cargo entries for examination of hazardous materials.
The substances banned from importation under CEPA were not found to be listed in the Customs Canada information base on prohibited imports. There is no evidence of Customs Canada enforcing a Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
The Auditor General's report also notes that in the event of a random examination to find hazardous materials the inspectors may in fact release the shipment out of concern for their own personal safety.
He also noted that a memorandum of understanding has been established between Environment and Customs defining the roles and responsibilities of both depart-

June 2, 1992
Private Members' Business
ments regarding inspections and shipments of hazardous waste.
We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to future generations. I have heard the argument that provinces have the responsibilities to regulate handling and disposable hazardous waste, but it is the federal government's responsibility to regulate international trade of the wastes.
The transboundaiy movement of hazardous wastes across Canada and across the Canadian border is governed by three pieces of federal legislation: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Hazardous Products Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
It is ludicrous to pass the buck to provinces, to pass the buck to individuals or companies or to blame the United States. It is ludicrous to say we would like to act but we do not want to upset our international relationships. Frankly, if we pass this motion today, Canadians who have gone to Rio can hold their heads high and be proud of this decision.
It is clearly our duty to act on this issue. No one else can. We owe it to our children, our grandchildren and generations of children yet unborn to take actions like this. I urge the House to adopt this motion calling for the banning of importation of all hazardous waste into this country.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the remaining time of the member for Lambton-Middlesex to speak on this very important motion, a motion which contains 17 words, probably the most important 17 words that this House and this country have heard in a long time.
Prior to this we were debating the referendum and we saw how wordy it was and how complicated. Here in 17 words we can turn the environment of this planet around. If in Rio all countries adopted this policy, we would have the beginning of a turning point on this planet. If implemented, what would it mean? It would mean that every country would be forced to reduce the production of waste, especially hazardous waste.
I will be very interested in what the government members say on this because I cannot see or understand why they would oppose such an important motion contained in these 17 words. I congratulate the member
for Hamilton East for being so creative, coming out with such a simple motion and yet so important.
I wanted to speak to this motion because of my experience recently, a little over a month ago, on the external affairs visit to Russian and Ukraine. What did Russia do? It exported their nuclear waste to the Arctic. We have been reading about all the nuclear waste that is being stored up in the Arctic. From that spot the entire northern hemisphere can be affected. If the former Soviet Union had a policy that it would have to look after its own waste, that waste would not be in the Arctic today.
I cannot stress the importance of these 17 words. This is the kind of policy that we should not even have to debate over an hour. At the end of a one-hour debate we should all pass it unanimously and get on with building this country, get on with saving the environment on this planet.
I add my congratulations to the member for Hamilton East for bringing in these important 17 words.


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make some comments on the motion before us today. The motion speaks to the issue of banning outright the importation of all hazardous waste into Canada. The main concern of this motion appears to be with the hazardous waste imported into Canada. However, it is not clear whether the proposed importation ban would be imposed on all hazardous waste arriving in Canada from world-wide sources or only those hazardous wastes coming from the United States.
In any event, it is important to point out that the movement of hazardous waste between Canada and the United States has been controlled since 1986 through a bilateral agreement known as the Canada-U.S.A. agreement on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste.
This agreement sets out the conditions for the export and import of hazardous waste between the two countries. The proposed complete ban on imports of all hazardous waste would be contrary to the Canada-U.S.A. agreement and would also remove the only viable waste management option available to many Canadian and U.S. companies.
Internationally, Canada is a signatory to the Basel convention which would limit the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste to only those countries with which Canada has an agreement. This convention was
June 2, 1992

designed to ensure the environmentally sound management of hazardous waste.
Nationally, current federal legislation in the form of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act also contains provisions that allow for the control of trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste. The transportation of dangerous goods regulations are quite specific as to the requirements for notification, manifesting, labelling, placarding and packaging for all classes of hazardous waste to ensure that a certain level of safety in transportation is maintained.
As the previous examples illustrate, there are numerous legislative and regulatory controls in place to ensure safety in transport and that hazardous wastes are dealt with in an environmentally sound manner to protect the Canadian public and the environment.
Hazardous waste only accounts for about 20 per cent of Canada's total waste requiring management. Both Canada and the United States export and import all types of waste, including hazardous waste, to ensure that it is managed at the closest environmentally-sound facility on either side of the border. These options allow both Canadian and American companies to ship hazardous waste across the border where facilities exist for proper disposal when facilities may not be available in the generating country. In other instances these very same hazardous wastes are valuable secondary raw materials for industrial processes or are recoverable to be reused once again. Therefore, it is readily evident that some of these wastes still have a market value.
The movement of hazardous goods is a two-way street. I submit that a total ban on imports of these wastes by Canada would invite a reciprocal action on the part of the United States and our European trading partners, thereby removing an important hazardous waste management option for many Canadian countries. This situation would have a negative impact on the recycling industry, especially at a time when the government is supporting the four Rs, of which recycling is an important element.
Another point to consider is that under the green plan a national goal has been established to reduce the generation of all wastes by 50 per cent by the year 2000.
Private Members' Business
This waste reduction program will also permit the federal government to collect data on the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste and other wastes. This data in turn would be critical to the development of effective policy and laws and to the enforcement of regulations.
Recently green plan funds have been committed to conduct co-operative research with universities, private sector and provincial governments as partners. Through green plan initiatives, the government has shown its commitment and support for new science, especially environmental science, aimed at reducing, recycling and reusing hazardous waste or at their safe destruction.
The green plan-supported research and development will be focused on environmental technology and science needed for the 21st century. This environmental science will also provide industry with additional options to meet regulatory requirements and will assist industry in measuring the programs made in compliance with regulations.
Through government support of the science and technology action plan, the development of environmental technologies to provide solutions to environmental problems would be encouraged and new economic opportunities would be offered to Canadians.
Combined with private sector research and development of these technologies, the net result would be the production of new investment opportunities and the creation of jobs in Canada's environmental industries. This can only happen so long as Canada does not isolate itself by closing the borders to the movement of hazardous waste.
Industry has shown a willingness to participate in the environmental arena with the commercialization of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, and through the establishment of hazardous waste exchanges. These types of initiatives should not be short-circuited by cutting of a source of raw materials.
In 1987 the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment commissioned a review of waste exchange programs. From this study, a number of recommendations were made on how to improve the effectiveness of waste exchanges and to identify opportunities which

Adjournment Debate
would increase the financial self-sufficiency of waste exchanges.
Following this review in 1991, the green plan also identified waste exchange as a key initiative worthy of pursuing. Through the green plan, moneys have been earmarked to expand and to help the waste exchange program achieve a strong economic base in order to sustain itself by the year 2000.
Environment Canada recognizes that the waste exchange program will play a major role in achieving the goal of cutting waste by 50 per cent from 1988 levels by the year 2000.
However, in order for such a program to be successful more support from Canadian industry, which also relies on recyclables imported from the U.S., will be necessary.
Waste exchanges and treatment, proper transportation, storage and disposal facilities are all components of waste management. Unfortunately, these types of activities, although essential, are not attributed an as favourable an image as recycling.
Recycling is only one, albeit very important, of the elements of the four Rs: recycling, reuse, recovery and reduce.
All these measures take time and are not all available at this very moment. It is true that hazardous waste is being generated through industrial processes right now. However, there are structures in place and tighter controls planned to manage these wastes in an environmentally sound manner.
For these reasons and the negative impact they would have on the Canadian economy, the motion before us today is unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a moment or two to intervene in this very important debate.
On examining the motion before us it appears to be the intent of the motion to protect the Canadian environment by reducing the waste coming into the country, but the motion does not include any measures which would help Canadians to manage their own waste at home, nor would such a ban introduce any new measures for the actual reduction in the volume of
hazardous waste being produced in this country. That is a very narrow view of the management of the global environment.
As well, a total ban on importations may cause other countries to forbid imports of hazardous waste generated in Canada. This would immediately be cause for environmental concern since not all areas of the country have facilities necessary to treat all kinds of hazardous waste.
In my own province of Alberta we have the Swan Hills treatment centre, which is one of the finest in the world, but it is situated some distance from the locations of production of hazardous waste. Inability to export waste would mean storing hazardous substances until new treatment plants could be built.
The construction would take several years and could lead to improper storage as storage space fills up or to other more dangerous practices such as dumping.
Even if the required types of treatment facilities already existed in abundance in Canada, those sites would probably be located at a great distance from some waste generators as in the case of Swan Hills.
Waste from Canadian generators would therefore be on the road for longer periods of time, increasing the possibility of transportation accidents. In addition, these facilities may not have the required capacity. Still more facilities would have to be built. Overall, a complete import ban could create severe problems for Canadian industry as well as the environment.
The cost in terms of dollars and of damage to the Canadian environment could be very high indeed.
Consistent with its commitment to global environment protection, Canada signed on March 29, 1989 the Basel convention on the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal. A convention which came into force on May 5 of this year requires all countries to control their shipments of hazardous waste crossing their borders.
Under the provisions of the Basel convention member countries have the duty to ensure that the waste generated in their country is disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. This means that each government must allow only those exports of hazardous waste which cannot be treated in an appropriate and timely manner in their own country.
June 2, 1992

At the same time parties to the convention must allow only those imports for which proper and safe facilities exist. In Canada, regulatory initiatives under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to enhance the already existing tracking system for transfrontier movements of hazardous waste are now nearly completed. New regulations should be in place this fall.
In conclusion, it is a very long border. We have a very big country. A complete ban on the importation of hazardous waste should not be supported. Such a ban would not necessarily help the environment and would be of little benefit to Canadians or to Canadian industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on March 10 I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration to initiate an inquiry into certain unfortunate incidents reported with respect to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Such incidents were cases of members of the board sleeping while the tribunal was in session and refugee claimants were making their case. Other incidents were situations where members of the board were laughing or ridiculing refugees who were making their claim before the board. Then there were examples of racism or sexist remarks made by members of the board to claimants who were appearing before them. We also had a situation where a member of the board tried to exercise undue influence on another member of the board with respect to giving a judgment.
Adjournment Debate
We have examples of inconsistent judgments where for example one member of a family was granted refugee status and another member of the very same family was not granted refugee status because they went before different panels of the board. There were situations where judgments were prepared in advance.
There were these many incidents which led me and many others to request an inquiry into the workings of the board, the Immigration and Refugee Board, to find out exactly what was happening and to take corrective action.
I wish to refer to some of the newspaper headlines with respect to these incidents. I have a clipping from The Toronto Star which states: "Snoozing adjudicator a problem for refugees". Another newspaper clipping states: "Tribunal member sleeps during refugees evidence". Another from The Globe and Mail states: "They're fired: two adjudicators laughed during man's story". This is about two members of Canada's refugee board snickering during an Iranian man's story of torture. Another one states: "Stress on the board drove official close to breakdown". Another from the Canadian Press states: "Rulings confuse refugees; Latin American community fears hard line attitude".
Then we have one from The Ottawa Citizen which states: "Refugee board official removed from the job". In this case the official was removed for trying to influence independent board members to turn down refugee claims.
I asked the minister to initiate an inquiry into all these matters. That was in March. Since that time I have met with the chairman of the board. This morning we had a committee hearing with respect to these matters.
While I still think many changes have to be made, I feel the chairman is taking steps in trying to correct these things. As a matter of fact, several of these people were suspended and now the chairman is trying to initiate further changes. I hope the government will co-operate with the chairman in making the necessary changes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that we are under new Standing Orders here and Adjournment Debate is four minutes for those who are asking the question and two minutes for the reply.

June 2, 1992
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue)):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's refugee determination system is admired around the world as one of the world's fairest and most humane and I think the member knows that.
In the little more than three years since its creation, the new Immigration and Refugee Board has handled
55,000	cases to their conclusion. Most of the 280 immigration and refugee board members have backgrounds in immigration, refugee work or law. Before they hear their first case, all members undergo the most extensive training program given to members of any Canadian tribunal.
The minister is well aware of the allegations raised against certain members. He expressed his concerns about these allegations to Mr. Fairweather, the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board, in the strongest possible terms.
Mr. Fairweather responded: "The complaints were thoroughly investigated. Several members were removed from the hearing schedule and apologies were issued in another case".
In short, where concerns have been raised, appropriate action has been taken promptly by Mr. Fairweather. If the member has concerns about other particular cases he too should bring those concerns, as he did, to the attention of Mr. Fairweather.
As for the guides which assist members in writing their decisions, the Appeal Division of the Federal Court rejected claims that these guides in any way prejudiced Immigration and Refugee Board decisions. It is time for the hon. member to give this board and its many highly dedicated members the credit they very much deserve.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the unique Experimental Lakes area in northwestern Ontario has enabled Canadian scientists to conduct world class research on fresh water ecosystems.
This cluster of wilderness lakes has served as an ecological laboratory and has answered several tough environmental questions.
This is the facility that helped convince the public in Canada and the U.S. that phosphates in laundry detergents caused the explosive growth of algae in lakes. This
research was instrumental in convincing policy makers to control the use of phosphates. It is no exaggeration to say that the research at the Experimental Lakes helped save Lake Erie.
The ELA program established that even moderate amounts of industrially generated acid rain damaged Canadian lakes. This information was crucial in the fight for pollution controls on industrial smokestacks.
The ELA program is continuing to do ground-breaking scientific information on the effects on aquatic life by heavy metals. Using its 22 year string of uninterrupted data allows researchers to describe the horrific effects on northern Canada that are likely if the world fails to limit emissions that cause global wanning.
Most recently an ELA program has been started, before new hydroelectric dams are built, to determine the amount of the greenhouse gas methane that is released when large tracts of boreal forest land are flooded for the creation of reservoirs.
There does not seem to be any question about the quality of research that is conducted at the ELA. It has led to the publication of 500 scientific papers. Last year its first scientific manager received the internationally prestigious Stockholm Water Prize for work that was conducted there.
No one denies either that pioneering research of this calibre cannot be done on a fiscal shoestring forever. The time has come for the federal government to make a long-term commitment to enable the facility to remain independent and its respected work to continue.
Simply put, the ELA needs money quickly. The Auditor General stated in his annual report released last December that: "The program has clearly reached a critical decision point. The secure financial base is eroded and the program currently relies heavily on unpredictable special external funding sources". Unfortunately, when it comes to money, the government's attention seems focused on other matters.
When I raised this subject in the Oral Question Period on March 12, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whose responsibility it is to fund the program, apparently did not even know what I was talking about. He mistakenly called the project, "the Edmonton experimental lakes" and then asked: "Is it in Ontario" before admitting that: "Now you really know I have not looked at it
June 2, 1992

recently". The Minister of Environment seemed to know no more.
When my colleague, the member for Skeena and the NDP environment critic and the member for The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake and our associate environment critic brought this up in the Standing Committee on the Environment, department officials indicated they were working with officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans but that no green plan money was expected to be available for this purpose.
The Prime Minister spends $840,000 each year to compile reports on newscasts and newspaper articles. Is it not high time that the government came up with at least that much so this excellent environmental research can continue?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member opposite from Edmonton East, the Experimental Lakes area, which is run by the DFO Freshwater Institute out of Winnipeg is located 55 miles southeast of Kenora, Ontario.
The Experimental Lakes area, better known as ELA, is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans largest field research station. It is operated by the department's Freshwater Institute located in Winnipeg. The ELA contains approximately 50 small lakes and their watersheds in a remote and uninhabited area set aside for research through an agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
This station has been in place since 1968 and has long-term whole lake experiments that have been directed with application to freshwater fish habitat. Their research has contributed significantly to our understanding of the causes and the mechanisms and effects of the lake enrichment or eutrophication, and latterly the acidification of the Great Lakes as well.
Approximately 400 items of primary literature, reports and other scientific publications have resulted from the work there. There have been a number of Ph.D. dissertations and there has been 40 graduate theses work done there.
Adjournment Debate
The 22-year database on water and climate conditions places ELA in a unique position in being able to detect early warning signals of global warming in fresh water.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is treating the current financial status of ELA very seriously. We contracted with the Rawson Academy in 1990 to develop long-term financial support through the establishment of partnerships with other government departments, universities and businesses. The business plan was received by the department in April of this year and a strategy for its implementation is now being developed.
There has been and will continue to be reductions in spending due to the spending pressures that affect the government as a whole. However, as the minister indicated in this House on December 10 of last year, the work at ELA is going to continue.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, there is more than one Canadian financial institution questioning the wisdom of the federal government's action in raiding the CMHC's mortgage insurance fund for $55 million.
This federal cabinet decision, implemented on March 31 of this year, was simply a last minute attempt by this government to reach its deficit targets. What this government is ostensibly doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
By siphoning the mortgage insurance fund's surplus, this government potentially is jeopardizing the solvency of the fund, which is used to insure home mortgages for Canadians all across the country.
The minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation said in this House on April 30 that the mortgage insurance fund is well able to make this so-called contribution.
However, what the minister failed to inform Canadians about is the fact that the mortgage insurance fund had a pre-tax loss last year of $27 million.
What the minister also failed to inform Canadians about is the analysis in the CMHC's five-year corporate plan which forecasts an increase in the number of mortgage defaults this year.

June 2, 1992
Adjournment Debate
In fact, the corporate plan indicates that defaults are expected to rise from $161 million in 1991 to $614 million in two years.
This CMHC forecast for increased defaults is based partly on the higher risk involved in insuring mortgages with a 5 per cent down payment, but mainly because of the recession and the thousands of lost jobs and plant closures across this country.
Also this documented forecast in the five-year plan proves that statements made publicly by the CMHC's senior vice-president in charge of insurance are wrong. He told a national newspaper that mortgage defaults had already peaked in 1991. We know that to be wrong and the facts in the corporate plan indicate that the peak should come in 1993.
When the government raided the mortgage insurance fund, reducing its surplus to $94 million, it had the direct consequence of jeopardizing CMHC's ability to cover potential mortgage defaults, and potentially could undermine the availability of insurance for the 5 per cent down payment plan, which we as a party proposed and do support.
Let us not forget that the main reason for the escalating defaults are due to this government's economic policies that have created a general economic downturn, which also has put pressure on the mortgage insurance fund by raising the number of potential defaulters.
Another CMHC document indicates that before the 5 per cent down payment plan was implemented by this government, risk analysis was undertaken to ensure that the accelerated defaults would not jeopardize the solvency of the mortgage insurance fund.
Those risk assessments were calculated on the basis of the surplus available in the mortgage insurance fund. When the government siphoned $55 million from this fund, I suggest it put the solvency of the fund at risk. It is startling and irresponsible for the government to reduce the fund by this amount at a time when the fund is experiencing increased claims.
The money is in the fund for the benefit of homeowners and the home industry, nothing else and no one else. Despite the reassurances of this government that careful actuarial studies were completed before the money was taken, the fact remains that there is a risk involved.
This government cannot deny that it has chosen to take that risk, that it is this risk that potentially threatens the solvency of the mortgage insurance fund and, in turn, the availability of insurance to potential homeowners and home builders.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond today.
A portion of the surplus in the mortgage insurance fund was directed to the government's Consolidated Revenue Fund to help produce the federal deficit. It, of course, is one of the top priorities of this government to see that that deficit does get reduced. It was not a rating of the account. It was a planned move based on actuarial information.
I would like to draw the attention of the member to the information that was contained in the 1991 annual report of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It indicates that CMHC has done what it has for many years; it has done an excellent job of managing its mortgage insurance fund.
The balance sheet in fact shows that CMHC has increased its provision for claiming the losses from $282 million in 1990 to $447 million in 1991 in order to meet its mortgage insurance fund obligations in the coming year.
Even with this increase, the surplus is over $149 million. On the advice of its actuary, based on all of the information indicated by the member opposite, CMHC was advised that it could set aside an additional $92 million to further protect the viability of its mortgage insurance fund.
The remaining $57 million existing in the surplus of the fund was not needed for claims, for business on the books of CMHC. The government has taken that-


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


ATMOSPHERIC CONTAMINANTS
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, on March 18 I raised the issue about the possibility of atmospheric radioactive releases from the Hanford nuclear reservation in Richland, Washington, which is about 250 kilometres south of the British Columbia-Washington border and the possibility of contamination by atmospheric radioactive contamination

over many years of both intentional and accidental releases from the reservation.
I might add that the reservation is home to some 63 per cent of all the high level nuclear waste produced in the United States and has, under the sands of Hanford, hundreds of millions of litres of high level waste and radioactive sludge that is stored in underground tanks.
At Hanford at this point, at least the reactors which were used in the weapons production during the cold war are now mothballed. However, during its actual years of operation the Hanford plant emitted into the atmosphere over 500,000 curies of iodine 131, and other radioactive contaminants.
It is the cumulative effect of these atmospheric releases over the many years during the time that Hanford was a weapons production facility that is concerning U.S. scientists that are now undertaking extensive investigations as to the extent of the radioactive contamination and the possibility of long-term health effects to those areas of the population exposed to that contamination.
My question at that time was whether or not the Minister of the Environment or the minister of energy would in fact recognize the need for Canada to send a Canadian delegation of scientists to Hanford to co-ordinate efforts that are now ongoing with U.S. scientists involved in the Hanford dose reconstruction project in order to better determine whether or not there was in fact significant atmospheric contamination of Canadian populations across British Columbia and possibly Alberta borders.
I also asked at the time whether or not the minister was prepared to initiate studies similar to the epidemiological studies now being undertaken throughout the greater Washington area and the Pacific northwest to determine whether or not there are long-term health effects as a result of those radioactive releases going back as far as the late 1940s.
I might add that the children exposed to the Hanford releases years ago would now be in their thirties and forties. Many of those children in the community surrounding Hanford are now in fact demonstrating clinical symptoms of thyroid disease which are consistent with evidence of radiological damage. Health studies have shown an alarmingly high incidence of thyroid cancer
Adjournment Debate
and thyroid disease in those communities surrounding the Hanford reservation.
I think it is a real legitimate concern that we also investigate whether or not there has been any long-term health effect to those population centres in Canada, in British Columbia, that may have received any significant level of that radioactive contamination.
I have made the argument that the federal government should involve itself in these ongoing U.S. studies. We should seek to determine the cumulative level of exposure to B.C. residents from the years of Hanford releases.
I have been pressing for the government to implement a co-ordinated emergency response plan in the event of a more current danger and that is the possibility of explosion of some of the underground storage tanks at the reservation itself.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again inform the member opposite that the Canadian government is aware of the concerns with the Hanford nuclear site and has brought these concerns to the attention of the U.S. Department of Energy.
In 1988 the Department of External Affairs raised concerns about the impact of past releases of radioactive material from Hanford, Washington. An investigation was made by the Atomic Energy Control Board to provide a preliminary assessment of the issue. Their investigation included estimating the radiation doses possibly received by Canadians from historic and current atmospheric releases from this and other American facilities.
I would like to state very clearly that based on the history of atmospheric releases from the U.S. nuclear facilities under study, the AECB estimated that the maximum radiation dose to an individual at the border between the United States and Canada would not have been higher than one fifth of 1 per cent of the AECB's annual dose limit for members of the public.
In other words, as you have been informed previously, based on preliminary analysis, the historic and current atmospheric releases of radioactive contaminates from the Hanford nuclear facility are unlikely to pose any negative impact to Canada.

June 2, 1992
Adjournment Debate
As you are aware, the site is no longer an active weapons production facility and the problems on site are now largely related to the local leaking and seeping of chemicals, and this the hon. member has acknowledged. Present Canadian concerns with this facility are related to the cleanup work, reconstruction, and the risk or possibility of accidental radioactive releases from waste material.
In October 1991, an ad hoc Canadian Interdepartmental Committee on Hanford, chaired by Health and Welfare, with representatives from the AECB, Environment Canada, External Affairs, and Emergency Awareness Canada were formed to review the past, present, and future effects of Hanford operations on Canadians.
The U.S. officials are willing to address the Canadian concerns and to provide information on an intensive dose reconstruction project currently under way on the ongoing operations at this facility and on the development of emergency procedures.
The U.S. Department of Energy has undertaken a massive plan to clean up the site and safely dispose of the waste permanently. Currently the U.S. Department of Energy does not have all the information available to make some decisions and therefore research and development is required to get to the decision-making points. As this information becomes available the risk to Canadians can be reassessed.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. My constituent, Mr. Zvi Gitter, president of Imperial Cabinet in my riding of Winnipeg North, has been waiting for justice for much, much too long. He and nine other cabinet makers in Manitoba have lost over $300,000 unfairly and unjustly and the minister of internal revenue is yet to rectify this injustice. My constituents alone lost over $82,000. The money was lost when the cabinet makers were not given rebates due to them from the federal government.
A year ago last March I brought this matter to the attention of the minister in the House of Commons. In a press interview following Question Period the minister said, and I quote from the March 27, 1991 issue of The Winnipeg Free Press: "The bottom line is that I am satisfied on a case-by-case basis everything was done in accordance with the rules and regulations that were distributed fairly and equitably to everybody, every
manufacturer in every province, every town and every region".
Nearly a year later, on March 2, 1992 the Canadian International Trade Tribunal rendered its decision on this issue and found that Revenue Canada's memorandum of information, which was to benefit manufacturers of kitchen cabinets, was not made available to the industry served by the Winnipeg district office even though the information was being used by the ad industry in other parts of the country.
I would like to quote from this decision: "I. The error can be directly attributed to Revenue Canada; II. The error resulted in an inequitable and unjustifiable application of departmental policy to the industry in one region of the country; III. The memorandum that was unfairly applied to the Winnipeg region was not a regulation made pursuant to the Excise Tax Act".
The discredited departmental policy allowed one region of the country to benefit to the detriment of my city. Promulgation of such a policy, were it deliberate, is unconscionable. Not knowing such a policy was promulgated was, to me, a classic example of ministerial irresponsibility.
Therefore, I ask how the minister would explain to this House that he caused such a policy to be issued in violation of the tax law he has sworn to uphold. How will the minister explain to this House this determination by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal with the minister's statement of a year ago: "Everything was done in accordance with the rules and regulations."?
Nearly three months ago, March 12,1 again raised this issue in the Chamber and the minister again failed to give a satisfactory reply. Therefore, in light of this I ask the parliamentary secretary and I challenge him to reply to these concerns. I seek the support of this House to have the minister admit his mistake and make the appropriate restitution to my constituent and other cabinet makers in Manitoba in the name of fairness and justice. I would like the parliamentary secretary, as he replies on behalf of the minister, to remember the universal truism that justice delayed is justice denied.


Barry D. Moore: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet makers in Manitoba were treated equitably and the member for Winnipeg North knows this full well. The minister even gave the hon. member a brief regarding this subject.
June 2, 1992

In answer to the member's concerns regarding the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals by Imperial Cabinet and other Manitoba cabinet makers concerning the use of a determined value to account for federal sales tax, I must emphasize here that all kitchen cabinet makers across the country were well advised of how to apply for this discount. There were two separate excise news publications sent to all the licensees across the country, including those from Manitoba. Information was available at any excise office. The industry was well informed.
The facts of the matter are very simple. If licensees met two criteria, they were eligible for the discount. First of all, it must apply only to a regular product line and, second, they must have a published list price. If they met these criteria, Manitoba cabinet manufacturers like any
Adjournment Debate
other manufacturers across the country were then allowed to use a discount to calculate the amount of tax charged.
In conclusion, as the minister has already stated, Manitoba cabinet makers were treated in a fair and equitable manner, the same as all other cabinet manufacturers across the country.


An hon. member:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no points of order.

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 3,1992