1992-06-04

Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege that emanates from a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 that was made yesterday in the House of Commons by the member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
In the member's statement she imputed motives to an action that I had taken which I believe impedes me from doing my work as a member of Parliament.
In the particular statement she mentioned that I was endangering the lives of women and children by a pamphlet that I had given out wherein I had listed the names, the addresses and the phone numbers of some transition shelters that were listed not only in my riding but across metropolitan Toronto.
On March 31 in this House of Commons I participated in a debate where I read to the House a piece of material that was a gift to me from a survivor. It was entitled Women's Country and it talked about the issue of violence against women and children. At the end of that speech I received calls not only in my Ottawa office but also in Toronto for copies of this particular speech.
We went to the Department of National Health and Welfare and obtained some additional statistics on violence against women. We also gathered together a list of shelters and transition houses which we obtained from myriad places. We received them from libraries. We received them from a variety of places.
We then responded to the requests that we had received in Ottawa and in Toronto. The balance of them I sent to approximately 2,000 people in my riding.
Many of the people who called me and asked for this piece had said that they were survivors. Many of them had said that they were people who had worked in the violence against women issue for many years. I felt, based upon the reaction I had received, that I was doing the right thing.
Last Friday I started receiving phone calls. I might say that this was after about 10 days of the piece being out in the community. All of the calls that I received were positive, previous to this last Friday.
A leader in this violence against women committee said to me: "Dennis, you should not be releasing the addresses of these shelters". She did say, of course, that I was putting lives in danger.
I responded to her by saying two things. First of all I will not give out any more with the addresses on them. I will also call the chief of police, which I did, Chief William McCormack, to make sure that there would be an added security alert to the houses that were listed.
Some of the shelters that were listed in the pamphlet have their addresses listed in places that are quite public. For example, the two shelters in my riding have their addresses listed in the Toronto phone book. Not only does it have the phone number, but it actually has the address of the shelter.
I refer specifically to Nellie's Hostels for Women. The idea that these addresses are confidential is a debatable point. In other words, there are some shelters that do believe that they should be confidential and there are other shelters that publish them.
I leaned to caution and did not distribute any more with the addresses. I respected the voice of the women who called me. I must say, though, that if I am guilty of putting the lives of women and children in danger then I would ask the question: What about those professional organizations that also publish their addresses?

June 4, 1992
Privilege
I would also say that we in the Parliament of Canada spend millions of dollars a year advocating that women go to these shelters. Are we suggesting that they go to places that are not secure?


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to intervene in the member's question of privilege, but I have not heard anything yet that indicates a question of privilege. It seems to be a clarification of his own role rather than anything that happened in this House.
With regard to the member for New Westminster- Burnaby, she is not able to be here today, at least at this time of the day. It was one of his own colleagues who pointed out to us late last night during the votes that she was not feeling well. She will not be here for a while this morning.
However, I did not get up on that particular point. I got up on the fact that what the member for Broadview-Greenwood was talking about had nothing to do with a question of privilege. If he is talking about his own situation, that is a different issue and perhaps he wants to get up at some other time.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can try to be of assistance to members.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood raised this matter yesterday. I do not think I am trespassing by saying that he suggested to me earlier this morning he would want to raise it.
I understand that the office of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby was notified that the hon. member wished to proceed at this point. It may well be that it would be appropriate to hear the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby at some point when it is convenient.
The point the hon. member for Churchill makes I think is sound. There may or may not be a complaint here. I have not heard all of it, but I think the point that the hon. member for Churchill makes is reasonable. As this is a question of privilege, I know the hon. member would want to address it from the point of view of privilege and not stray into debate.
I accept the intervention of our hon. friend. I am sure that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood will wrap up his argument. At that point, depending on what
I have heard, I may ask the hon. member at least to have the opportunity to address it further if that is necessary.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up. Basically I want to make the point that at no time when I distributed this piece, Women's Country, with addresses attached was there any intent to do malicious damage.
My point of privilege is quite specific. When another member in this House accuses another member of putting the lives of women and children in danger, it makes it very difficult and impedes us in our work as members of Parliament. That is the simple point.
I have every intention of continuing to try to be constructive in advancing this issue which is of concern to each and every member of this House, but I do not think I will have any effect at all if my constituents believe that the actions I take are putting the lives of people in danger.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has raised this matter in the House this morning as a point of privilege because it relates to the use of the office of a member of Parliament to distribute information and the impact that can have on the general public and indeed on other members of Parliament.
Because this information was received in my own constituency, which is part of the same metropolitan community shared by the member who has just spoken, there was a lot of concern raised in my constituency. I think it is helpful the member has clarified his intentions as to what he was seeking to do.
Clearly a dilemma has been raised. On one hand this member, as many of us do in the course of fulfilling our public office, would want to let women know where the shelters are and how to contact them. The dilemma comes from the fact, on the other hand, that in many instances-in fact in most instances-these are safe houses and information generally out and about as to where they are can create very serious problems for those who are seeking refuge there.
In the case of the Etobicoke-Lakeshore constituency where Women's Habitat is located and for years has been providing this needed and unfortunately necessary service to women and children, there was great consternation that an address and a location that they tried to keep not broadly known was in fact revealed in this way.
June 4, 1992

It is a matter that raises an important question of privilege. I am glad that the member has taken the opportunity to clarify that before the House and on the public record, because it does have an impact on not only those of us who are members in the community but many of the women and their families who are living there.


Mr. Speaker:: What I am going to do, and I know the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood would support this and if the House would go along I would like to hear from the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby as to whether or not she would wish to make an intervention. When I have done that, probably we could arrange to bring the matter back to the House, if necessary.
I do want to say this because it is important that it is said. This may or may not be a question of privilege but the issue that has been brought to the House for all of us is a very serious one.
The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has made a positive contribution to the discussion this morning. All of us who are parents and all of us who care are deeply concerned about the matter that has been raised. In saying that, I am not saying whether or not it is a question of privilege. I will decide that in due course.
In any event, I thank the hon. member and I thank the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and the hon. member for Churchill for their interventions.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have had a communication from the office of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby. Apparently they understood this issue was going to be raised at three o'clock today. If the Speaker wishes, I suspect that is the time the hon. member would respond on this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for Churchill. I most certainly will give the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby every opportunity to address the Chair in the House later on today if that is appropriate.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a commitment I made to this House, I am tabling today documents pertaining to the federal government's assistance to the Westray Mine project.
Additional contractual documents are also being made available through the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification of the documents tabled. The minister indicated that other contractual documents were available through the department. Does that mean they have not been tabled but that a list is available to members to consult and to request them? If he could explain his comments please.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is that the total sum of all the documents represent several feet. What has been provided is a list and an opportunity for members, or anybody else, to access the documents in the library of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology and to copy them and so on. It was just simply impractical to table them all without a fork-lift.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
Routine Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
June 4, 1992
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, May 6, 1992, your committee has considered Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and has agreed to report it with one amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from a number of people from the town of Selkirk, Ontario, which was sent in by Norma Davidson of Selkirk.
It calls upon this government to accept or reject constitutional amendments as proposed by the government in a referendum. What these citizens call upon this government to do, which is different from the government's legislation, is for it to have a double majority, a majority of votes cast in the provinces with the territories being given the status of one province, and a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by many of my constituents from Malpeque, Prince Edward Island. They state that whereas pornography is a serious problem in Canadian society, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take measures to address the serious social problem, pornography, and protect Canadian women and children from its harmful effects.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to introduce today a petition approved by the Clerk from 87 residents of Canada, from many places including Toronto, Elmsdale, Gravenhurst, Willowdale, Thornhill, Scarborough, Downsview, Williamsport and several locations in British Columbia and the prairies.
The petitioners are concerned about the situation of the families of people who have been accepted as refugees in Canada but have not yet been able to bring their families, their spouses and children from countries where some of them are living in extreme difficulty, if not danger.
Therefore, the petitioners urge Parliament to urge the minister of immigration to issue minister's permits for spouses and dependent children of refugee claimants who have been permitted to apply for landing from within Canada, including persons in the backlog and persons accepted under the new legislation and allow them to be reunited in Canada for inland processing.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present petitions from several Canadians, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and ratified thereby, who call upon the Parliament of Canada to urge the Government of Canada to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention without delay and to mobilize Canadian diplomatic resources to encourage other nations, in particular developed nations, to ratify this important treaty as well.
The petitioners do that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that a statement from the World Commission on Environment and Development, commonly known as the Brundtland commission, states that the most significant initial action that nations can take in the interests of the oceans' threatened life support system is to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. It points out the critical role that oceans play in the life support systems of the whole planet.
There have been some objections to the ratifying of it. The Secretary General of the United Nations has come to agreements with some nations which had reservations about ratifying it and most of those concerns have been clarified.
June 4, 1992

Sixty nations are required for ratification of this convention, 51 now have and it is extremely important that at least 9 more sign it. It is certainly incumbent upon Canada to take its part in that.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table pursuant to Standing Order 36 calling upon the Government of Canada to rescind its decision with regard to terminating the Court Challenges Program. This petition is signed by residents of the province of New Brunswick, in particular from Campbellton, New Brunswick, as well as Mann Mountain, parts of Restigouche, Sainte-Anne, as well as other parts of that province.
The second petition deals with the same subject matter signed by numerous residents of Kingston, Ontario, who are all in agreement that the termination of the Court Challenges Program is indeed an injustice and the government ought to rescind its decision forthwith.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would like to revert briefly to the item Introduction of Government Bills.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Come now, I call upon the House to cooperate. I think I proceeded a little hastily earlier.


An hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This is not a matter requiring unanimous consent. The Chair made a mistake in proceeding a little too hastily and, thus, is allowed to revert to a previous item.



CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY WATER ACT


Harvie Andre: for leave to introduce Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Andre moves that the bill be now read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Government Orders



CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES ACT


Harvie Andre: for leave to introduce Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.


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


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: that Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak once again in favour of Bill C-81. This bill has been the subject of thorough consideration in committee and I am confident its provisions reflect the will of the majority of the House.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
It remains very important for members to keep in mind the purpose of the legislation. It is a precautionary measure designed to give the Government of Canada the ability to hold a referendum on constitutional reform, if such a step ever were to become necessary and desirable.
The legislation does not say a referendum will be held, nor does it detract in any way from the important deliberations that have been going on with respect to finding acceptable constitutional solutions that address the concerns of all Canadians.
This legislation has been the subject of keen and useful scrutiny in committee. The government promised it would seriously consider any amendments from the opposition which would improve the legislation, and we have honoured that commitment. Of the 29 amendments proposed by the opposition parties, 13 have been accepted by the government.
I would like to discuss for a moment several changes that have been made in the bill.
As hon. members will recall, when the bill was first introduced there was significant discussion about the issue of spending limits on the part of participants in any future federal referendum. Some hon. members expressed the view the legislation should have limits on spending to prevent any unfairness in the course of a referendum campaign.
It is certainly the intention of the government to ensure any referendum is fair. Measures to ensure fairness should be workable and sensible. In committee this issue was addressed and the legislation has been improved as a result of amendments agreed to in committee. The bill now proposes the spending regime, which applies to political parties under the Canada Elections Act would apply to each registered referendum committee.
This amendment puts reasonable constraints on any single committee. As I have stated to hon. members in this House and as has been expressed in committee, limitations on the number of committees are viewed by a considerable body of legal opinion as being an infringement of the charter provisions dealing with the freedoms of association and expression.
This discussion about the use of an umbrella committee has been, in a sense, a very frustrating one. In face of overwhelming legal opinion shown to the opposition, from literally all parts of this country that such an umbrella committee would clearly be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we nevertheless had amendments proposed last night to impose these various umbrella committees. They were defeated so in a sense it is academic, but one wonders about the wisdom of voters who in the face of this opinion say: "It doesn't matter. Politically it is a good thing to vote for so we are going to vote for it. It doesn't matter that it violates the charter".
Forgetting about the charter argument, consider for a moment the common sense practical consequences of trying to legislate an umbrella committee. Let us, for example, suppose there was a referendum on the Meech Lake accord and one would have in law that there shall be umbrella committees. Think about the practical consequences. First, how are these committees formed and who brings them together?
I suppose some official would call a first meeting of everybody who wants to participate in the committee and they would then set up an organization and run it.
Let's talk about the no committee, for example, on a Meech Lake situation. Attending this first meeting you would have, presumably, as diverse groups as the Assembly of First Nations, because they did not think there was anything in there for the natives. You would have the triple-E group because there was nothing in there on Senate reform. Presumably the National Action Committee on the Status of Women would be there because there was nothing in there for women. Maybe the CLC, the Canadian Auto Workers and who knows how many other groups would attend.
Then the question is how do they vote? Who gets what weight? Does everybody there have an equal vote? Do you give the same vote to an organization that has a million members as to an organization that has 10? Do you give the CLC a vote and also every one of its constituent political unions? In other words, the auto workers are members of the CLC. If they show up and say they want to participate do they have a vote as well as the CLC? Do they have 10 votes? How do you practically take care of that situation?
June 4, 1992

Assume somehow you can practically take care of that situation. Given what we have seen trying to reach agreements around this Etouse when we have three or four different parties in a relatively small committee and how long it takes, imagine trying to bring together that group.
Then you tell that group to raise an allocated limited amount of money.
"You shall raise and allocate a limited amount of money." The native groups would want money to fight this Meech Lake accord because there is nothing in there for Indians and aboriginals and they think it should be defeated.
The National Action Committee would say it wants some money to spend on fighting it because there is nothing in there for women. Then you are going to have the REAL Women organization saying it wants money to fight this because it thinks it has already gone too far in terms of the feminist agenda. Then the CLC is going to have its claim. How would those things be adjudicated?
Suppose the committee decided that REAL Women has a cause and it should be allocated a certain amount of money and air time to fight its cause. Is NAC not going to say: "Okay, that is fine with us"? Of course not. It is going to object strenuously and it will certainly go to a court. What judge is going to say: "Too bad, you cannot participate"?
Common sense indicates that is the wrong thing to do. For example, suppose the question had many parts where you were asking about a package that included Senate reform, aboriginal self-government and all the other items now under discussion.
You may want to campaign against aboriginal self-government and for Senate reform, or vice versa. Does that mean you have to be simultaneously on both the yes and no committees or do we have a multiplicity of committees? If you have a multiplicity of committees, do you have one yes committee and several no committees because each group has a different reason for wanting to say no?
Just common sense dictates that would be a foolish thing to do. It is for that practical reason that out of the 600 referenda held in the western world that were
Government Orders
looked at by the Hansard Society in the U.K. at a conference in co-operation with American Enterprise Institute, only one had succeeded in having umbrella groups with limited expenditures and everybody else excluded from campaigning, and that was in Quebec. What happened in Quebec? It was a very unique situation. The question was very simple, basically. You were for sovereignty or you were against it.
In the National Assembly there were two parties. One was for sovereignty and one was against. The legislation provided that committees be set up. The organization would be undertaken by the Parti Quebecois or the Liberal Party of Quebec and anybody who wanted to participate had to do so under one of those committees.
There were no subtleties. People were not asked whether they were for sovereignty with an upper house, sovereignty with native self-government, et cetera. It was a very simple question amenable to that kind of structure. It worked out fine. Everybody found that a reasonable way to participate, and it proceeded.
To impose that model on legislation that is enabling only, in which there could be multiple questions and which could be complex with many parts is to fly in the face of common sense. That is why we had to oppose it.
I thought common sense would dictate. It has been a considerable source of frustration that the common sense argument was either not understood or simply dismissed in the pursuit of the political objective of saying: "Ah, but for fairness you have to have umbrellas and limits", even while recognizing that kind of ideal is simply impractical, impossible, and there is no way in which it could be done.


Mr. Edmonston:: Show us the legal opinion.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Chambly walks in making comments. Typical.
Common sense indicates the charter is very clear in this regard.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: I hear heckles from the New Democratic Party, and I have never attributed common sense to the New Democratic Party. Do not worry, I am not talking about you. It is important the legislation be as fair, as reasonable and as workable as possible. I believe this bill meets this test.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
In the interests of fairness, disclosure and openness, the bill provides that all committees intending to spend over $5,000 be registered and the contributors and their contributions in amounts over $250 be made public.
The bill also ensures free broadcasting time will be allocated equally to both sides of the referendum question. I pity the broadcasting referee in the Chief Electoral Office who is going to have to make those allocations because it is going to be very difficult. But this is a relatively simple thing compared to what would be required should anybody be insane enough to agree to umbrella committees.
There is nothing in the bill to in any way limit access of all sides to the purchase of broadcast time. As a result, I believe all sides of any question will be able to be put their views fairly to the Canadian public if a referendum was ever held.
I would like to draw attention to the other issue which was discussed in committee. Opposition members expressed concern about the issue of consultation with respect to any referendum question. Opposition parties wanted to ensure there was appropriate advance knowledge about the question. The government agreed with this request and accordingly the bill was amended to ensure leaders of the two recognized opposition parties in the House are provided with the proposed wording of the question and consulted on this wording at least three days before notice of the motion in the House is given. This will ensure a minimum of four days notice before debate begins.
I want to advise the House as well the government agreed to an amendment limiting contributions to referendum committees to sources of financing within the country. This change will alleviate the concern about contributions from non-Canadians including foreign governments, companies which do not conduct business in Canada, and trade unions which have no bargaining rights in Canada.
In another area the government agreed to an amendment which clarifies what is a referendum expense. The change will ensure the normal conduct and responsibilities of members of the Senate and the House of Commons will be specifically excluded from the definition of referendum expenses.
This recognizes the role of the MP must continue during any referendum.
The bill was also amended to respond to a suggestion that provision be made for the text of the question to be made available in aboriginal languages in appropriate locations at the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer.
The bill as amended in committee addresses the issue for which it is designed. It enables the government to deal with any eventuality, but it should be repeated that no decision to hold a referendum has been made yet. Canada must have every appropriate means at its disposal to defend itself and promote unity.
This is a straightforward matter of prudent management.


Philip Edmonston: By leadership.


Harvie Andre: I see the member for Chambly is again shouting from his seat. Frankly I do not think you promote the unity of this country by aligning yourself with the Bloc Quebecois.
We know why they want to destroy the country. We wonder why the members of the New Democratic Party would align themselves with them.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think the government House leader knows better. We are not aligning ourselves with the Bloc Quebecois. We stated we are for a referendum. We do not agree with the legislation which is going to be in place for more than three years and can be used for any number of referendums in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I think it is not a matter of privilege or a point of order. It is a matter of opinion.


Harvie Andre: We believe Canadians have learned a great deal about the constitutional challenges facing this country. The citizen's forum, the hearings of the Beau-doin-Dobbie committee, the conferences over the winter and the multilateral processes have yielded important and significant progress toward the resolution of the Canada round.
Perhaps most important of all Canadians are getting to know one another through this process and are coming to terms with Canada's vast and endearing diversity. We are all too familiar with those who want to destroy this country. They do not understand Canada's greatness and they do not want to understand. Even more, they do not want others to know the real Canada much less come to appreciate it.
June 4, 1992

In a way one has to feel sorry for those with such an attitude. Theirs is the politics of division, discord, and suspicion. Their aspirations are oriented toward tearing down not building up, wrecking not improving. The real Canada is far from perfect but it is the best country in the world. No Canadian should feel bashful about saying it loud and saying it often. It is the simple truth. The real Canada at its best is all about tolerance, civility, peace and prosperity. These are values that Canadians want expressed more vividly through a renewed Constitution. These are values which they want to have translated and given increased meaning in their daily lives.
This legislation, of course, does not create the perfect future for this country. It would be preferable if such a precautionary measure as this legislation was not needed at all. The commitment of my government is to Canada's renewal and every tool should be available to meet any possibility. For this reason, I urge the House to approve this legislation. I ask, in particular, the members of the New Democratic Party to put partisanship aside.


Rodney Edward Murphy: After that stupid remark you just made.


Harvie Andre: I was in opposition a long time and I know the disputes that occur in opposition. I know that frequently in opposition the only thing you can unite on is opposition to the government.
I would ask the New Democratic Party, after their four-hour caucus where, figuratively, there was blood on the floor, to please recognize that what is at stake here is the best country in the world. I ask them not to put this best country in the world in jeopardy by their partisan concerns and their inability to come together as a party.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a very long statement. Nevertheless, I want to express my opinion on third reading of this bill, which is meant to give us a very useful tool in Canadian society, a way to consult the people on something as important as the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, you should know that in April 1991, our party was the only one that had studied the problem thoroughly and had the courage to submit a comprehen-
Government Orders
sive plan to Canadians to resolve the constitutional crisis which today needs to be resolved as soon as possible because the public is sick and tired of talking about the Constitution.

We decided as a party in April of last year to make a nine-point proposal. When the minister got up in the House yesterday, I was happy to realize that the nine-point proposition that had been submitted by our party, plus the process, has been accepted by the government. In fact we are on the last item of the process, which is the referendum.
Why did we suggest the referendum? It is because the Constitution of the land belongs to the people. That is a very simple proposition. For years we have debated this problem and we see it again at this moment. People are using this occasion to try to bargain something for themselves. When you really talk to the people of the country, they ask why.
This country should have a Constitution. It is very important but it cannot be the only problem we face from now on. It is very convenient for this national government and provincial governments to talk about the Constitution but when you go to the people, they do not want to hear about the Constitution. They want to hear about jobs, economic growth and social improvements. When they open a newspaper all they see is the Constitution. As a politician, when you make a speech on the economy, the press is there talking about the Constitution.
We are all fed up with that. We know that when the Constitution is in the hands of the people, it will be very difficult for any level of government to use the Constitution as a scapegoat instead of talking about the real problems of the nation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We did not propose a referendum for a deadlock-breaking mechanism. That has never been our intention. Whatever the result of these negotiations, we have to go to the people. We have to give the Constitu-

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
tion back to the people of Canada. We need to have this great day when Canadians need to say yes to this country remaining together and to enter into the 21st century. That is exactly what we want to do.
I want to say today, because it is very important, that there is an element of using the referendum to pressure people. That has never been the intention. The intention was to consult the people of Canada and let them decide what the Constitution of our land should be and legitimize the process. I am confident that when the people of Canada realize that, they will be confident and will gain back the pride that they have lost through these terrible last seven years.
We do not want the government to use it as an instrument to push people around, but to give a voice to the people of Canada for a new Constitution.
I do not like what the government is doing in terms of what it is going to do when it has a referendum. It should be very clear that we should not proceed with any change in the Constitution if one of the four great regions of Canada says no to this package or any package. It has to be clear that the Constitution will not be changed. Nobody can force us. We can say as a matter of policy of this House that if Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario or the west says no, then we are not proceeding. It should be very clear that this is the way it should be in a country as diversified as ours. It is as simple as that.
We are disappointed with some elements of the bill. We think that the government could have accepted many of the amendments that we made, but we will vote for the bill even in its imperfection. I do not understand the position of those in the NDP. They do not want to consult the people of Canada because they do not like the car that is going there. They say they are going in Cadillacs or they are not going at all. I find that stupid because I am willing to walk for this country if need be.
I am not happy. We made some suggestions. I think we should regroup the people. I know that when we have a referendum we will have an umbrella because I am willing to fight for Canada with the Conservative Party and the NDP Party and we will be together on the same platform. It is not that bad. I have done it before. I was on the same platform as the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs in Shawinigan for the last referendum.


An hon. member:: Oh my God.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was not that bad. I was with the Minister of National Defence. Imagine that.


Some hon. members:: Oh no.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In those days he was not arriving in his jet. He walked there. It is not that bad because it is a great cause.
We will do that. We will be together and we will fight for Canada because we believe in it.
We hear the noisemaker from Shefford over there. Yesterday he was so indecent. He would still be in his boat in the Magdalen Islands if the member for Papineau had not been his mentor and given him a chance to be a member of Parliament. At least he should have a bit of decency and respect. That is the reason why I was mad. He should have some respect for the member for Papineau.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I have no lesson to learn from the Leader of the Opposition on the friendship and respect I have for the member for Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel. My friendship and respect have been constant. We may have different political opinions but still respect each other.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not have time to spend with this member. I just made a point and I think that he understood that. I am glad that he says that he has respect for the member from Papineau. I do too. It would have been very nice yesterday to let him finish his speech without making the nonsensical noise that he made.
We will have this referendum and we want it. Whatever happens there will be a referendum. We want all Canadians to be consulted. I do not understand people who say that the legitimate Government of Canada and Parliament of Canada, that have been acting under one Constitution since 1867, suddenly in the words of the Bloc Quebecois-

-would not have the right to consult the citizens of Quebec. This is a referendum for all Canadians. The best proof that members of the Bloc Quebecois are Canadians is that they are here in this House. Why would they not want Quebecers to be consulted in the same was as Ontarians and residents of the Northwest Territories? Why would they not want all Canadians to say yes or no? That is democracy. Democracy must not
June 4, 1992

be managed piecemeal; it must apply equally to everyone. That is why we say there must be a regional majority to respect Canada as it really is. On the other hand, one part of Canada should not be excluded, because then the referendum debate and vote would be virtually meaningless.	.
I would have liked the bill to be more appropriate and spending to be better controlled. What will happen? The mechanism or vehicle may be defective, but the important thing in a referendum is that the ultimate verdict will be given by each citizen freely voting on this country that we believe in. That is what we have always proposed.
The bill is not perfect. Personally, I would like some parts of it to be changed. Some concerns have been expressed. But from the beginning, we wanted to co-operate with the government. In fact, as I said at the outset, if you take the plan as it was presented yesterday by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, everything that we submitted in writing and that was adopted by the Liberal Party in all regions of Canada appeared in the House of Commons report and again in the minister's announcement. What gives us great satisfaction is that the reservations we mentioned-

We had some elements we disagreed with in the Beaudoin report. We were not at the table, but the premiers and their representatives and the negotiations have retained some of our objectives. We did that because we felt it was important.
Take the matter of culture. We have to maintain the right to help all Canadians in that field. Of course, the mechanism could be different because it was not in the Constitution, but we gave a better definition.
It is the same thing with energy. We thought there should be a national say in the energy policies of the land. Why be together if we cannot take a national interest when it is needed from this Parliament?
We made a lot of progress. I am happy with that. I understand why the Bloc Quebecois does not want to vote, but I do not understand why all other members of Parliament do not want to vote together. We started to work together. We made our proposal and we fought very hard. It is unbelievable to have the New Democratic Party running away when we want to hear the voice of
Government Orders
the people. When they cannot make the distinction between the forest and the trees, it is absolutely unbelievable.
Politically I am happy because when I travel in Canada I will say: "These are the people he does not want to be consulted in a national referendum". That is good for me, but it is bad for the country that they cannot elevate themselves high enough to have the three major parties agree on a bill. Even if it is not a perfect bill, it is the bill that will be the cause of one of the greatest days of Canada.
On that day in Canada we will all get up and we will walk to the polls. On that day Canadians will decide to be together for the next century. The people of English Canada will get up and will say: "Let us go to the polls and say yes to Quebec. Let us say yes to a new Canada". The people of Quebec will get up and say: "Yes, we want to stay in Canada because it is the best solution for us".
It will be a great night when all together the different parties of people who believe in this country will have given birth to the Canada of the 21st century.
My members will vote for this bill. We asked the government to say clearly that when the referendum is held we will not proceed if we do not have a majority from the four regions of Canada. We want the government to understand that we never propose a referendum just to push the premiers around, to have a solution, but to have ratification by every citizen. They will be able to go, as I said, and say despite of all the problems arising and all the problems we will have in the future, we are still number one. It is worth fighting for it. That is why we are all in this House.
I hope the referendum will be held in this land this year and the future will be great for what I consider to be the biggest and best country of the world, our beloved Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would like to point out to the House that yesterday's Votes and Proceedings contain several errors in the list of votes. Because of major computer problems that are still unexplained, the printed lists do not reflect accurately the notes given to the Clerk during last evening's votes.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
The Chair has asked that a revised version of the Votes and Proceedings be reprinted later today and distributed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the printing and the distribution of the Debates are also delayed for the same reason.
We apologize for any inconvenience resulting from that situation. We now resume debate with the leader of the New Democratic Party.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak on third reading of Bill C-81. Certainly the previous two non-partisan speeches have been very interesting, as has the long series of non-partisan speeches on the Constitution.
It is very important to clarify what we are speaking about today. It is not whether Canada should have a referendum. It is not whether Canadians should have a voice. We are debating Bill C-81 which would set out the technical details of how that voice would be heard and how that voice would be interpreted.
I would like to deviate from the previous two speeches and speak about some of the substance of this bill. Throughout the constitutional process the New Democratic Party has supported a referendum. We continue to do so. What we do support is a fair referendum and a referendum where Canadian voices are truly heard.
On several occasions-first the Beaudoin-Dobbie report and second in the Beaudoin-Edwards report-we supported along with the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party that a consultative referendum should be held on constitutional matters. We stand by that position.
On second reading of Bill C-81 we voted in favour because in principle we wanted to vote for a referendum. It was our understanding that the government would be open to some substantive changes. As the government House leader pointed out, some changes were made, but in our view these changes were not the fundamental ones that would have made this a fair referendum.
Throughout this constitutional debate I am proud to say that the New Democratic Party has pushed for an open process and involvement of Canadians in a way that Canadians could have a really substantive role in constitutional debate.
We have argued that for the Constitution to succeed new approaches had to be taken. I proposed two years ago that a constituent assembly should be established to discuss constitutional matters. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party rejected that suggestion. They said no, that the old ways would have to work and they were not prepared to look at new approaches.
I believe that was an error. The six constitutional conferences which were subsequently held at the encouragement of New Democrats proved when Canadians from all parts of this country came together and listened to each other that they can come up with sensible and reasonable solutions and that in fact the citizens of this countiy have much to offer, as they would have to offer in a fair referendum.
Throughout this discussion of a referendum I have raised, as has other member of my party, many questions because we believe that a referendum should have careful thought and consideration. We have never put it forward as a magical solution to the country's problems. I think that would be unrealistic. But we have accepted it because we feel that we can trust Canadians and that when Canadians speak and have the chance to do so fairly they will make reasonable decisions.
Our goal in expressing concerns and in raising suggestions has been to ensure that if there is a referendum it is to be a fair one. It must represent a genuine reflection of the people's will and at the end of the day withstand scrutiny as having been the result of a just process so that one cannot discredit the outcome. It is very important that we start at the beginning to ensure success, not to build in failure.

That is why my party supported this bill at second reading and supported the reports of the Beaudoin-Edwards and Beaudoin-Dobbie committees. We voted in favour of that bill at second reading because we thought the government had given its assurance that it would accept the recommendations and amendments made in committee.
Our constitutional critic, the hon. member for York-ton-Melville, proposed several reasonable amendments in committee yet, all those amendments were defeated by the government without serious consideration.
June 4, 1992

Bill C-81 was made even more unacceptable when the government deleted the clause, in fact its own clause, that would have made this bill invalid after three years. That legislation has now become permanent.
The government displayed absolutely no openmindedness. It is true, as the leader in the House mentioned, that some amendments were made, but they were not fundamental ones. The government rejected any form of non-partisan co-operation. Unfortunately, the result is that we now have an unacceptable bill. Because of this bill, the referendum campaign could be non-democratic.
What will be the value of the referendum if the campaign is dominated and manipulated by the rich and the powerful?

Yes, many Canadians want a referendum, but they want one in which their votes count for something and their voices will truly be heard.
A referendum bill to be fair should ensure four things: first, that every Canadian has a chance to take an equal part in the campaign; second, that the process be non-partisan where governments act as facilitators of the process and not as partisans putting forward their own agenda; third, that the question on the ballot be fair and understandable; and fourth, that there be some agreed upon means to interpret the results.
I have to say with regret that this bill fails on each count. It fails the test of fairness at every step, and it gives me no pleasure to say that. We wanted to see changes. We put forward reasonable amendments. We believed the government when it said it was open to real change because we wanted to support this bill.
I want to talk briefly about where we feel this bill fails the test of fairness. First there is the question of spending limits. One of the hallmarks of Canadian democracy is that elections are accessible not just to those who have the money.
Today in the United States it costs a person who wants to run for senator an average of $3.7 million. Certainly that leaves out the majority of Canadians who would ever want to participate in an election, if we do not continue to have reasonable spending limits that mean we have a democratic system.
Government Orders
There is no doubt there are precedents in this legislation-they are not legally binding, I understand that- which could lead to that road and that Americanization of our system where we do not have those spending limits.
The government said that we could not put in spending limits, that it was against the charter of rights. Then it brought in spending limits of $8 million per committee with a limitless number of committees. Is there really anybody in this House who does not believe that an $8 million limit is really no limit at all?
We have asked repeatedly. If the government had been prepared to do it, I would have been prepared to recommend that we vote for this bill. If the government had said that this was an important issue and it would make a reference to the Supreme Court about whether we could have reasonable spending limits, it seems to me that would have been a reasonable gesture. It would have put to rest this question, because there were differing legal opinions about whether or not there can be spending limits.
We cannot accept that a referendum in which money can be the determining factor is a fair and just referendum for Canadians. Referendums to be fair have to be accessible to all Canadians and there have to be spending limits. At the time of an $8 million study of our electoral system and the Electoral Reform Commission proposing significant changes which would allow fairer spending rules for elections, it is strange this government is setting a dangerous precedent in going in the other direction.
As I said earlier, let there be no mistake: This is clearly a move to an American style system, a system where now in the United States less than 50 per cent of the people vote. Why is that so? Almost all incumbents get reelected. Few are challenged. It really is a system where people are influenced by lobby groups and by money. That is not the way we want to see the democratic system in Canada. Any long-term consequences this legislation would entrench are simply unacceptable.
It is interesting. A recent survey of American literature, just to illustrate this point, showed that winners in a referendum campaign spent eight times more than those who lost in a referendum campaign. It seems to me that says it all in terms of the importance of making sure we can have legislation that is fair.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
The question Canadians have to ask themselves is: Do they want a referendum that can be bought or do they want a referendum that can be judged on the merits of the issues? Obviously I support the latter.
There is also the question of what is the role of government in a referendum?

This brings me to say a word about the role of the government. We know that this bill allows the government to get all the publicity that it wants. It enables the government to take sides, to use taxpayers money to promote one point of view at the expense of the other.
Of course, if the question only consisted of asking the population whether it likes Canada or not, it would not matter so much. Obviously, all members of the federal parties like Canada.
The question should have to do with the content of the agreement that was reached. The role of the government would then be to give people the information they need to make a decision.
A referendum is a consultation process: You ask people what they think. To be able to make a decision, these people need to hear the arguments supporting the two views.
Do not try to tell people how they should vote. Listen to them. Trust Canadians.

Then we come to the matter of the question and the fact that the framing and timing of that question at this point in this legislation is left solely in the hands of the Prime Minister and the cabi net. In that case, this will be a government referendum.
Let me be honest. I really cannot understand why the government has chosen not to involve in a meaningful way the other federal parties in this House and why the government would not accept in the legislation that a question should be formed in a non-partisan way and that any question posed and discussed in this House should be approved by a majority of 60 per cent in this
House of Commons. Surely that is only reasonable. It is only common sense.
If we are going to be truly non-partisan, let us be non-partisan. Let us have meaningful consultation and co-operation and listen to the suggestions from all sides.
In previous days, I asked the Prime Minister if he would consult the provinces, territories, and aboriginal people as well about the formation of the question and he has rejected that.
Surely, all of us who want this country united, who believe that we have not been sent to this House of Commons to destroy this country, want to ensure there is a fair process to build on success. We want to make sure that we consult with all of the parties involved and make sure that we are going to the people with a question that is real, that is genuine, that is non-partisan.
Then the peopBle of Canada can say: "Yes, I want to vote for that kind of Canada because that is a Canada where politicians work together, where provinces, territories, aboriginal people work together. That is the kind of Canada I want to work for, and that is the kind I want to vote for".
That is the kind of referendum we want to see.
It seems to me the amendments we proposed were common sense. Heaven knows we are going to need all the common sense we can muster in the next few months.
Finally, I want to turn to the issue of how a referendum would be interpreted. All three federal parties in this House have signed reports on where they stand.
They stated that a consultative referendum should be interpreted by a regional or double majority so that no one part of the country could be seen to be left out. I agree with that. When we signed that, when we discussed that issue in those various committees, we were serious about that. We did not just sign that and say: "Oh, well, when it comes to a referendum we will just put that aside".
I know we said that in the report. We said there should be some interpretation. We said parts of the country should be assured they will not be left out but when it
June 4, 1992

comes to it we will just go along. We will not forget we said that and that we are committed to that.
The New Democratic Party has not forgotten it was committed to saying that the west has to have a voice, Quebec has to have a voice, Ontario has to have a voice, the maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador must have a voice, and the north must have a voice. It has not forgotten that. When our party makes those commitments in reports that it signs, it means them.
Obviously, it seems more expedient to put that aside, for the government to say no. It wants Canadians to have a voice, but it is not going to tell them how it is going to listen to that voice. Yes, Canadians can put their marks on the ballots and their views might be taken or they might not. The government will decide at the time. That is not good enough. It is not good enough for Canadians to become involved in their country, to mark their ballots for their country, and then to be ignored.

There are indeed many problems with this bill. I repeat once again that today's debate is not on the principle of a referendum but rather on the appropriate rules governing such an exercise.
I have already mentioned the two reports that we supported, just like the Conservatives and the Liberals did, and which recommended not only that all of Canada should give its approval, but also that each region should support the same constitutional objectives.
Those represent our major concerns about this bill. Some may suggest, indeed some have here today, that we have raised some of the worst case scenarios. Surely, it is our role as parliamentarians to analyse carefully what is being done here. I make no apology for that because legislation should foresee all possible scenarios.
We know that the result of any referendum could be called into question by those the Prime Minister has called the enemies of Canada. That is precisely why we have to build in fairness and legitimacy to the process, so that the process itself will not be called into question and so that these enemies, these people who want to destroy Canada, do not have that tool in their arsenal. It is fundamental that the process is seen as legitimate from the beginning.
Government Orders
A campaign bought by the rich with a meaningless question could be simply divisive. Those who want to destroy Canada would use it against Canada.
There are those in this House who say that we have to accept this inadequate bill, that we should not have a democratic debate because we should all just go along and that is the better thing to do and the nicer thing to do. I dare say there will not be one person in this House who votes yes on this bill who does not believe it is an inadequate bill. I have to say that, yes, the easy thing to do is to simply go along.
I have listened to the insults and the charges by the Leader of the Opposition and the government leader. I make no apologies that I take my responsibility as a parliamentarian seriously to raise serious questions in this House.
Yes, it is more comfortable in the short term to accept something knowing it is inadequate. Let us remember this is not as it was originally proposed, legislation that would be in place for three years, but now is permanent legislation. Therefore, those who are going to vote yes on this inadequate legislation should think they are voting now for permanent legislation.
As I said earlier, we are not debating whether there should be a referendum. If there is a referendum the New Democratic Party will participate in it. But the essence of parliamentary debate and what we are sent here to do is to raise questions when we feel they are serious, not to oppose for the sake of opposing, but to stand up for fairness and to ensure that all Canadians have a voice.
We will never back down from doing that and we will never back down from debate because of fear. We will debate on substance and merit. We will stand up in this House on every occasion, yes, even on the occasion of the Constitution and debate from the principles we believe, based on the substance and merit of whatever is being debated. We will not be intimidated by those who say: "Well, I will get you in the next election". I care more about this country than I do about the next election. It is our job as parliamentarians to raise questions and to debate.
I regret that we will not be able to support this bill at third reading. I urge the government to make sure it will reconsider and offer Canadians a fair voice.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party she has a lot of courage, and although we do not share the same vision of the future of this country, her respect for democratic values is shared by Quebec and by parliaments in other countries, including Great Britain. I know there will be a political price to pay for what she is doing, but I think that in the long run, people will realize that she was right, since this referendum will resolve absolutely nothing because of the undemocratic and unwarranted provisions this bill contains.
Let this day be remembered as one of the saddest days in the life of this Parliament and the history of this government. A government that was elected to bring Quebec back with honour and enthusiasm is now creating a machine to crush the aspirations of Quebecers.
If you were not convinced before, Mr. Speaker, you should have listened to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, who gave this government the kiss of death by supporting a bill that, he hopes, will bring Quebecers smartly into line.
This Parliament should be ashamed of this undemocratic exercise. To members who think that in the short term they will be able to make some political gain, I say that in the long run they will realize that the seeds they sow today will lead to the break-up of this country. I want them to understand that Quebecers will never feel bound by this referendum, and that this kind of provocation merely helps the cause of the Bloc quebecois, for which we are thankful.
In any case, the government has shown a lack of integrity in the way it treats its citizens. All this is just a smoke screen to hide what is in fact a deplorable failure. A government that apparently was sincere in its commitments to Quebec is now running roughshod over every jot and tittle of those commitments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind him that the purpose of the period for questions and comments is to allow comments or questions on what was said by the previous speaker.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker, and I was just getting to that.
I would like to say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that the weaknesses she found in this bill are there for all to see. There is not a person on this planet who could give the futile exercise the leader of the Opposition favours any credibility.
I may remind the Leader of the Opposition that if he had met the commitments he made in 1980, we would not have the kind of mess we have today, and since he was also among those who killed Meech Lake, he is doubly responsible for this situation.
Government members who have now become the accomplices of the leader of the Opposition should be ashamed. I see the Minister of Labour, who got the nationalist and sovereigntist vote by flirting with sovereignty. I say he has betrayed his constituents.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Shefford obviously does not agree with us on what the future of our country should be. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois does not want a future for Canada. The New Democratic Party does want this country to have a future, and that is why we want a fair referendum.

In listening to the political speeches of the three speakers today from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Quebecois, I feel very comfortable in saying that while there seems to be a lot of fighting of the next election here today in this House, I want to fight for Canada. I think that is what we should be doing now.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pose a couple of questions to the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party. It is usually the other way, that she is firing the questions over here. This is a rare opportunity.
First of all, the leader referred to a constituent assembly and I know her party has advocated one. It did in its dissent to the committee that I had the privilege of co-chairing. How does she reconcile the idea of a constituent assembly having no accountability? Does she not feel that constitutional change should reside here,
June 4, 1992

among people who are accountable in the most final way, in a general election?
Second, she referred to some United States precedents with the relationship between election spending and the successful candidates. That really has no relevancy to a referendum campaign. It does apply when there are candidates in the field.
Colleagues of the member made the point they thought the 1988 election had been bought by special interests. I would ask her whether she has seen any scholarly study or otherwise that would prove the relationship between expenditures made in the 1988 Canadian election campaign and the outcome of that election.
Finally, the member referred to the idea the Prime Minister had rejected the involvement of the provinces and territories from forming the question. Does she not believe they are intimately involved through the present process in determining what the package will be and thereby, by deduction, will be heavily involved in answering the question? I know she posed a question to the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago on the subject, but I think the question was an all-embracing one involving various groups other than the provinces and territories. I think the Prime Minister's response was if we consulted eveiybody, we would not have a question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a constituent assembly was proposed almost two years ago now at the beginning of the constitutional process. Obviously it is not a process that would be valuable at this time. That is why we support a referendum, but a fair referendum.
In terms of the constituent assembly, as it was originally proposed, I would say the constitutional conferences the government finally did support were microcosms of what that constituent assembly could have looked like. But it was rejected at the beginning. It was rejected as being too different and new. We had to go a traditional way.
A lot of countries have used constituent assemblies and there are many models. There are many ways this country could have gone at the beginning, but we are not at the beginning of the constitutional process now. I
Government Orders
think most Canadians hope we are definitely at the end of the constitutional process.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I would certainly agree we need to be debating much more in this House the questions of the economy and of our communities across this country that desperately need help; the services in this country that need help; and the unemployed who need the attention of this government and a change in economic policies.
Much work has been done in California and here in Canada in terms of studies about the use of money in referendums. I have not read any studies done on the spending of money during the free trade debate in 1988, which is what the member was referring to I assume. I think there is no doubt all of those people who spent millions of dollars just before the 1988 election to support the Canada-U.S. trade deal, to convince the Canadian people and put fear into their hearts, did not do it because they thought that money would not do any good. They did it because they knew it would influence Canadians and in fact spending that money does influence Canadians. I do not need a scholarly study. Those people did not spend millions of dollars because they thought it would be useless. They spent it because they thought they could put fear into the Canadian people. Now Canadians, including those who supported the Canada-U.S. trade deal, know what it meant is you will lose your job.
Finally, I specifically asked the Prime Minister whether he would involve the provinces, territories and aboriginal people. Those are the three parties, as well as the federal government, at the constitutional table. The Prime Minister clearly said no, it was the purview of the federal government.
My point in asking that question was simply to point out once again to let us try and build in some success here. Let us stop fighting the next election. Let us work for the country and let us do that together. That will be a non-partisan process.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-81.

Government Orders
This is legislation which will allow us, when circumstances warrant and when its effect is beneficial, to hold a referendum on constitutional changes.
Of course, this bill, and I emphasize this point, is not part of the amending formula of our Constitution. Neither does it replace the traditional means based on common sense that we used in the past to change the Constitution, that is the consultation, the discussion and the negotiation leading to a consensus, nor does it claim to impute to them other intentions.
The bill is not a substitute for the process I just described. To the contrary. It is another tool we are giving ourselves to try to find long term solutions to constitutional issues by consulting the people and putting to good use the opinions they will express on a given question.
If the situation allows it, the opinions thus expressed by the people could guide us toward a more solid consensus. A referendum would not solve the problem once and for all since it is not binding and has only a consultative value, but it could lead us further on the path toward a settlement of our constitutional differences.
This bill we are reviewing today is a good piece of legislation, which our colleagues in the legislative committee made even better. I will not deal with the policy issues concerning this bill. Rather, I will comment on changes made by the legislative committee.
All the members will remember that the government House leader announced, even before the committee hearings started, that the government was going to offer to set limits on the expenses of the referendum committees and would present an amendment to this effect. The legislative committee adopted an amendment which applies to the registered committees more or less the same rules as the ones political parties have to abide by when it comes to election expenses.
For the year starting April 1, 1992, the limit, just as in the case of a political party, is set at 56.4 cents per voter in the riding where the committee intends to campaign. A clause to this effect was added to the bill so that when a committee applies for registration, it has to state, in the application form signed by its president, in which riding it intends to campaign.
As far as the subsequent question of campaign contributions is concerned, a new disposition of the bill makes it impossible for any registered referendum committee to accept contributions from, first of all, an individual who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident; second, a corporation that does not carry on business in Canada; third, a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees in Canada and, fourth, a foreign government or an agent thereof.
This new clause will guarantee that any consultation of the people will be free of any outside influence. The reason for this provision is crystal clear; it will ensure an even greater fairness.
I would also like you to notice that when a government makes a contribution to a registered referendum committee, this contribution has to appear in the committee's report regarding its expenses and the contributions it received. This improvement also was made by the legislative committee.
The bill was further improved in a number of other areas. Among the very positive improvements, I note the amendment to clause 3 which was approved by all parties in the legislative committee which provides that the text of the question will be available in aboriginal languages. That is a new provision at the federal level; it says that the Chief Electoral Officer shall ensure that the text of a referendum question is available in such aboriginal languages and in such places in those languages as the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with representatives of aboriginal groups, may determine.
The bill was again amended in order to allow for better consultation on the question itself. The new subsection 5(2) makes it mandatory to consult about the proposed text at least three days before notice of the motion for approval of the text is given. The government is thus showing that it is open to consultation on any referendum question which could be debated in this House.
That amendment is proof of our willingness to co-operate in the improvement of the process itself and therefore, of the legitimacy of that process.
It is with that same spirit of openness and fairness that we added to the bill a clause which allows members to play a role; it lets them examine the regulations which the Chief Electoral Officer proposes to make to adapt the Canada Elections Act or respecting the conduct of a referendum in general.
June 4, 1992

The bill now says that each regulation that the Chief Electoral officer proposes shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons at least seven days before the day on which the regulation is proposed to be made. The appropriate committee of the House of Commons may make such recommendations it considers appropriate to the Chief Electoral Officer.
The Chief Electoral Officer, as an officer of Parliament, will be grateful to us for such a useful clause as it will allow him to take advantage of the background and past experience of hon. members. This clause will help guarantee that any regulation the government may use to govern the campaign is not only fair, but perceived to be fair.
Finally, other changes accepted by the committee deal with issues like enumeration for elections and revision of lists of electors, but there is also another very important change.
Bill C-81, as originally proposed, contained a sunset clause which provided that it would remain in force for a period of three years only, unless extended by a joint resolution of both houses of Parliament.
Our colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lake-shore, proposed to change that and provide for a review after three years. This change, introduced by an ardent proponent of direct democracy, means that Canada will keep on the books, for an indeterminate period of time, a statute dealing with constitutional referendums.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill that enables us to hold referendums on constitutional matters, if this is deemed useful. It does not, and I stress this point, commit us to hold a referendum. Rather, it allows us to prepare for a referendum in a way that will eliminate any doubt about its fairness and openness, and inspire confidence in its results.
This legislation respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in allowing for maximum participation; freedom of speech is respected while ensuring accountability. As members of Parliament, we are creating a new right to participate in the event of a referendum; with this new right comes the responsibility to campaign according to rules that are clear and fair and enforced by
Government Orders
someone in whom we all have the utmost confidence, the Chief Electoral Officer.
I am confident that this legislation is good for Canada. It will induce participation. If the government, at its discretion, decides that a referendum must be held, we will be ready.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: would like to express my thanks to the minister for his intervention during which he quite justly reminded us that some of the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party as well as by the NDP and the Tories have been accepted. I believe he is absolutely right in saying that with these amendments, the bill is a much better one than it was in the beginning.
There is however an amendment which was not received either by the House or by the committee because the Clerk of Committee had recommended to the chairman to rule against it because it was beyond the scope of the bill. It is a political matter and I would like to ask him a question about it. The question I wish to put to him deals with the interpretation of the results if there is a referendum.
We, of the Liberal Party of Canada, would have preferred that the bill provide for the results of a national referendum to be interpreted on a regional basis and that, God forbid, if a majority of citizens, Quebecers for example, refused to give their approval to the question, the Government of Canada commit itself not to implement the constitutional proposal.
I understand that the proposed amendment was ruled out of order, but the question remains: If the government has a referendum inviting Canadians to vote on a series of constitutional proposals, will the Conservative government give us the assurance that it will not implement these proposals if a majority of Canadians do not give their approval in all four regions of the country?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, were we to focus the debate on the political issue instead of on the legal nature of the amendment my hon. colleague presented in committee, I would agree with his position and with his amendment if the referendum bill introduced by the Government of Canada was binding. Then, I would understand why he moved this amendment which, I must say, I would tend to support.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
However, Bill C-81 being read a third time today is a consultative piece of legislation. So, I do not think it is necessary, from a legal point of view, to specify in the bill how the results should be interpreted.
However, I must say tp my colleague that the object of this exercise is to bring Quebec back into the Canadian Constitution. Consequently, if Quebecers say no, then I do not think it would be wise for a government, whichever it is, to force a view or a bill on the people.
I can understand the position of the Liberal Party of Canada in this debate. We appreciate their support for this bill, but I do not think the concerns of my colleague are justified, since C-81 is a consultative bill.


Philip Edmonston: I have listened with great interest to what the minister just said, Mr. Speaker. I would indeed wish to underline that the minister represents a neighbouring riding of my own. Contrary to what the Bloc Quebecois member for Shefford said earlier, I admire the excellent work he does for all his constituents, both nationalists and federalists. This, to me, is highly important and needs to be underlined.
The question I would like to address to the minister is the following: the government House leader has stated that all those who vote against this kind of referendum are somehow against Canada. I know that some of my constituents oppose this referendum and likewise in the neighbouring riding represented by the minister.


An hon. member:: Most of them.


Philip Edmonston: Please, I can speak for myself. I would ask him if he can dissociate himself from these comments about his constituents, a great number of which may be against the referendum? Can he dissociate himself from the comments made about people being against Canada simply because they are opposed to the referendum.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I was not here when the government House leader made his remarks, but as I understand my colleague here, he seems to be saying that if someone is against this bill in the House, that person is against Canada. I do not think one can oppose
this bill because of some technical points that are not in it; I understand that very well.
As a Quebecer, the hon. member for Chambly knows very well that we in Quebec really had a model referendum law in 1980. But my colleague also knows that in the 600 or so referendums held in the western world, about 324 in Switzerland and 300 in all the other countries, there was never legislation similar to what Quebec had in 1980. It was unusual legislation. The reason it was possible in 1980-and the Quebec legislation is undoubtedly very laudable-was that a consensus could be reached, I think. People on both sides agreed at that time that they wanted it to happen in that way. Also, they did not have what we have now: opinions on the charter.
As my colleague knows very well, we discussed the bill at length before reaching this stage. I put some direct questions-I was not on the committee, and my colleague must have done the same if he was there-to the Deputy Minister of Justice, who is in fact the government's legal adviser, and to the Minister of Justice. These people felt that we could not proceed in the same way as the Quebec Referendum Act. It would be contrary to the Charter. Governments must be responsible. A government cannot go against the advice of the Department of Justice and of those whose duty it is to advise the government. That is why we allowed some amendments in committee. We ensured that all spending in a referendum campaign, including spending by the government, would be completely open.
What my friend, the member for Shefford, just said is wrong, because he knows very well that all government spending will be public. If a referendum is held and the government decides to participate in it, the government will have to proceed as the law requires and form a committee. We are thus assured of as much openness as possible, I think, Mr. Speaker.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate at third reading and support Bill C-81.
I listened very carefully to all the speakers, the members of the government as well as the members of the different opposition parties. What strikes me is the
June 4, 1992

fact that during the debate at second reading as well as at the report stage several speakers made, to my way of thinking, a fundamental mistake by overlooking an important distinction. Indeed, this debate is on a bill which will provide a referendum tool for the government, but there will be another debate if the government decides to submit a referendum question to the approval of the House of Commons and to consult Canadians.
Yet, a good number of arguments made by members of the New Democratic Party as well as speakers from the Bloc Quebecois may well be pointless, depending on what wil happen when the government decides to use this tool that we are giving him with this referendum act.
We do not know if the Canadian government will hold a national referendum in only one province, or a referendum in a number of provinces. The Bloc Quebecois members are up in arms against the government because it might try to move the referendum that should normally be held in the fall in Quebec, under the provincial legislation.
This is merely speculation. The Bloc Quebecois members do not know if this fall, following an agreement between the Canadian and provincial governments, the federal government will use this legislation to hold a consultation only in all the provinces where there is not already a referendum act allowing provincial authorities to hold their own referendum.
I say this: Be patient; you can voice your fears and concerns at that time, if need be, but it is certainly premature to do so now. You are wasting your time because you have no way of knowing for sure how the consultation process will be implemented this fall.
Second, they tell me the Prime Minister has made a statement. Well, the Prime Minister makes statements every day. He once said that he was in favour of a referendum. Then, a few months later, he said that no, he was not totally sold on the idea. The Speech from the Throne included a promise to table a referendum bill. Then, the minister said that no, there would be no such legislation. In the end, we do have a referendum act. I am not about to be concerned by a statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister. The reality is in the legislation. Section 3 of Bill C-81 states clearly that the government can hold a national referendum in all the provinces or only in one province or some. We will see what happens when the government decides to hold its referendum.
Government Orders
Again, I tell our friends from the Bloc Quebecois: Save your breath; there is no need to worry at this point because you do not know what the referendum will be like; when concerns are expressed about the Government of Canada having a referendum and that referendum not being democratic because there will be no umbrella committees. We do not know either whether it will be on a single question or several.
Bill C-81 enables the government to ask one orA several questions. Serious legal opinions were received from the Department of Justice as well as from respectable legal firms across the country. The hon. member says they are Tory legal firms. I know for a fact that lawyers with affiliations with all political formations can be found in all major legal firms. In Montreal, they even have pequiste lawyers.
Therefore, every major legal firm has someone tuned in all major formations. Personally, I go with the legal opinions provided and they say that government must draft its legislation very carefully so as not to impede on the freedom of association of individuals.
If several questions are asked, it will obviously be extremely difficult to get people to group together under either the yes umbrella or the no umbrella since, there being several questions, some will answer yes to one and no to another. So, if there are only two umbrella committees, one yes and one no, you can be sure it will be impossible to properly categorize everyone under one or the other.
I will remind the hon. members opposed to this bill that it does not repeat word for word what the Quebec legislation passed in 1981 says, where it was perfectly clear that there were to be only two umbrellas: one for the people who wanted Quebec to remain a part of Canada and one for those who wanted Quebec to separate. In that case, there were clearly two umbrellas and only two.
Again, what we have is omnibus legislation allowing the Government of Canada to call referendums on the Constitution of Canada. To those who oppose this bill because it does not specify whether there will be a yes umbrella and a no umbrella, I say: "Hang on, when government will use this piece of legislation to submit constitutional amendments to the approval of the people of Canada, we will see if there is more than one question

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
and if people will spontaneously break into two groups only. And, whether the law says so or not, common sense will prevail". Of course, we will be able to tell whether it is normal and natural to have only two umbrellas and whether people will spontaneously get under one or the other.
I repeat, those who oppose this legislation do so without knowing how it will be applied and it is too early to tell.
Third I say to those who think that the government will take advantage of its position that they are speculating on the circumstances surrounding a future referendum.
Evidently, we in the Liberal Party will ensure that Canadians may express their opinion on the constitutional reform, and particularly that Canadians have the opportunity to say yes to Quebec and Quebecers to say yes to Canada.
We think that when the government establishes that most democratic process to consult the people on constitutional reform, it will be possible to obtain with them a reform which will take into account the legitimate demands of Quebec, of the aboriginal peoples and of the citizens of the less populated provinces of Canada, provided that the constitutional proposal meets the objectives which were expressed so very clearly and precisely by the leader of the Liberal Party. If that constitutional proposal is submitted to the people, we have no hesitation, we are sure we will come alongside of the government.
If I understood the statements of the NPD leader properly, I think they also will join with the government and with us to fight in favour of Canada. I say to those who are here under false pretence-except for the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie-that in the province of Quebec, people will vote in favour of a renewed Canadian federalism which would satisfy Quebec's objectives.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: Finally, a lot has been said about the fact that this bill is flawed-


An hon. member:: Totally.


André Ouellet: -because it does not provide a clause to interpret the referendum results.
Earlier today in the debate, our leader expressed the hope that no constitutional change would be made
without the approval of a majority of citizens from the four major regions of the country. Of course, we think that it would be more appropriate to insert that clause in the legislation itself.
I raised that matter earlier with the minister, who assured me that the referendum bill has no legal effect per se to amend the Constitution. So, it is obvious that, even if this consultation of the people has no legal value or is not binding, it will necessarily have a huge moral and symbolic value.
We think that when the Prime Minister decides to put to the people of Canada a constitutional proposal, since it is not in this bill, it will be extremely important that he announces, even before the referendum, that his government undertakes not to proceed with a series of constitutional amendments unless they have been approved by a majority of Canadians in each of the major regions of the country.
To us, of the Liberal Party of Canada, it is obvious that, in the future, we will let such a commitment be our guide.
One thing is certain. When we return to power, this referendum legislation will be amended. The bill provides for its revision by a parliamentary committee in four years. By that time, I hope, the Liberals will be back in power and in a position, with their majority, to amend this legislation. We shall ensure that, in future, constitutional amendments will have to be submitted to Canadians for approval and will require the approval of not only an over-all majority of Canadians but of a majority of Canadians in the Atlantic provinces, in Quebec, in Ontario and in Western provinces.
I see that my time has just about run out, but I would like to raise another point before concluding. I would like to stress that a parliamentary committee gave this bill very serious consideration.


An hon. member:: Over two days.


André Ouellet: Some Bloc Quebecois members made a lot of noise for the media over the manner in which this bill was considered at report stage. I would point out that few of them made an appearance while the parliamentary committee was examining this bill and they stayed only for a few minutes. They completely underestimated the very serious work that was done at that stage. I would remind them that a large number of amendments were presented.
June 4, 1992

Government Orders
I point this out because that is why the Liberal Party supports the bill.
I would like to say that I am very sorry. I accept, I understand, and I respect the position of the New Democratic Party. It will not vote for the bill, not because it is against the holding of a referendum but because it thinks the bill is no good. That is that party's decision.
We want the Canadian government to have an instrument to consult the people. If we vote against the instrument the government is giving us at last then we do not have the instrument. On one hand the NDP is saying that we should have the possibility of consulting the people through a referendum, but on the other hand it is not voting to allow it to happen. Frankly I accept and understand its position to a certain degree, but I fail to see the logic in it.
There is never perfect legislation in Parliament. Mr. Speaker, you witness day after day bills being studied in Parliament. They are passed but they are never perfect.
I want to give credit to the government. Otherwise it would not have been possible to have these amendments. The Liberal Party presented 12 amendments, 7 of which were accepted by the government. They are amendments that I consider important.
There is a few I would have liked to have seen accepted, but they were not accepted. Anyway, I believe the fundamental exercise here is to give an instrument to the Canadian government to consult the people of Canada on constitutional matters and amendments to the Constitution.
To the Liberal Party this is absolutely essential. We cannot accept that the people of Quebec could be consulted on their political future and the rest of Canada could not be consulted. Therefore, we feel this instrument, this legislation, is a tool in the hands of the government that is absolutely essential at this time. We will certainly support this legislation at third reading.


Mr. Plamondon:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. This member was the last one to rise. During the 10-minute question and comment period, you should not go by any list, but by the first members to rise in order to be recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to remind the hon. member, who has a lot of respect for the parliamentary process, that traditionally, when an hon. member has just made a speech, the Speaker looks to the other side of the House. According to this great British parliamentary tradition, I looked opposite the direction of the previous speaker and I noticed the hon. member for Edmonton South West standing up. Right after his question, I would be glad, of course, to look over your side and, if you are standing up, to recognize you. The hon. member for Edmonton South West.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the previous speaker was a member from the other side of the House. The present speaker is from this side, and then we will have a question from the other opposition party, the NDP. It is quite normal that we should also have an opportunity to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think the hon. member is trying to do indirectly what the Standing Orders will not allow him to do directly, that is to question the Speaker's ruling. The previous speaker was to my left, so I looked right. I am glad to recognize the hon. member for Edmonton South West.

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I think our friends opposite, having had a little practice over the last few days, have decided they like to shout and barrack.
I have a few questions for my hon. friend for Papi-neau-Saint-Michel who has contributed so much to the constitutional process in our country over the last dozen years or more.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
I appreciate what he said about the detailed study of this bill which took place in committee. I did a totalling of the hours in committee and it sat in excess of 18 hours over three days. It heard from the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Justice and later on from the three expert witnesses. Finally, there was the long day of 11 virtually uninterrupted hours doing the clause by clause study. He contributed an immense amount to the success of the bill in committee.
The hon. member referred to the NDP members' position on this bill and like him, I respect their position. But I am a little sorrowful about it because it gives the appearance the NDP members may be opposed to the holding of a referendum although we know that is not their intention. I wonder if he might undertake to use his good offices to persuade his neighbours to perhaps change their minds between now and 4.45 p.m. when we vote.
On the questions of substance on the Liberal position, I wonder if my hon. friend could comment a little further on the four regional majorities idea his party has advocated consistently for some time. Beaudoin-Dobbie advocated there be a consulted referendum but without regional majorities. My friend and I worked on a committee the previous year that recommended those majorities. He will recall there were provinces that immediately rejected the idea and said it violated the idea of provincial equality. They said it moved in the direction of regions on which this country was not built.
I wonder if he would comment on the positions of Alberta and Newfoundland in particular on that issue and on the more recent development that British Columbia regards itself as a fifth region. Has he consulted with his colleague and desk mate from Vancouver Quadra on that issue to learn what the British Columbia position would be?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. I must interrupt the hon. speaker because many other speakers want to raise questions to the hon. member.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer the hon. member's question and to explain very briefly why we are talking about regional majority in this country.
You have to acknowledge that Canada is one of the most decentralized countries there is. Throughout the years, provincial premiers have gained in importance and
influence like none of their counterparts elsewhere in the world. You just have to compare the influence of a provincial premier with that of a governor in the United States to see how our premiers have become omnipresent and important in our political process. It has reached a stage where it took us almost 50 years to patriate the Canadian Constitution. Why? Because at the federal-provincial conferences, the Prime Minister of Canada could never reach an agreement with the premiers, who were just trying to get benefits for their own province, always to the detriment of the central government.
We, in the Liberal Party think that to leave the final decision to the people is one way to put an end to this inevitable trench war between the Prime Minister and the premiers. It is only natural that a premier would defend the interests of his province and demand the best for his people at a federal-provincial conference, but what is best for his province is not necessarily what is best for the whole country.
That is why we think that if we ask the people, all Canadians as Canadians, to vote on this question and if we get a majority in each of the major regions of the country, then the will and the common sense of the people will prevail, not the provincial or regional interests of the premiers.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told us this bill was not legally binding and that it was merely consultative. Many members on the government side have told us the same thing. It is what we were told in 1942, before the referendum on conscription. The Prime Minister at the time used a crystal ball and consulted his dog before making decisions.


Mrs. Venne:: It was Mackenzie King.


Gilles Duceppe: Perhaps they were better than our Prime Minister's current advisers, who in many cases are the same people who advised the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau.
I get the impression the purpose of this referendum is to sabotage the Quebec process. Time allocation is being used to restrict debate on this bill, but the hon. member says "I will support it, although I have a number of reservations". His party did not support Meech Lake, especially his leader with his "thank you, Clyde", as he said, although that exercise was supposed to save Canada. They had reservations, and they did not support Meech. I fail to see the logic in all this.
June 4, 1992

I wish the hon. member would answer the following question: If we recognize Quebec's right to self-determination, would it not make more sense for this Parliament and the other legislatures to put offers on the table? When a referendum is held under Bill 150, would it not make sense for federalists in Quebec to use these offers to say: "Vote no to sovereignty"? I think it would because the process would recognize the right to self-determination.
When all is said and done, I wonder whether the hon. member feels confident enough to face Quebec's federalist leadership, starting with Premier Bourassa. Is that not the real problem? Is that not why they want to sabotage the process? Do they think the federalist leadership in Quebec is incapable of defending the federalist option because it feels uncomfortable if no offers or only unacceptable offers are forthcoming?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say that Mackenzie King must have a very good adviser, since he was Prime Minister for 23 years.


An hon. member:: Yes, his dog.


André Ouellet: I would also like to say to the hon. member for Laurier-Ste. Marie that, like so many Quebecers who want to see Quebec separate from Canada, he is sadly mistaken when he deliberately perpetrates the myth that the Leader of the Liberal Party was the one who prevented Meech, because that is just not true.


An hon. member:: It is.


André Ouellet: If the leader of the Bloc Quebecois had been a little more frank in his disclosures, a little more "A visage decouvert", he would have told us he was one of the people responsible for the demise of Meech Lake. He left the Conservative Party even before the Meech Lake Accord was rejected. He sabotaged the process that had been started to save Meech when he made his sensational exit from the Tory government.
Government Orders
At the very moment the parliamentary committee chaired by the Minister of the Environment was making recommendations that might have saved Meech, the leader of the Bloc, probably anxious to see the accord fail, left the Conservative Party. I imagine, and I say this with regret, that if he had not left the ranks of the Conservative Party, it probably would have been much easier to get an agreement on Meech at the time. However, by leaving the party and doing what he did, he precluded any possibility of an agreement.
Today in Parliament, with the exception of the hon. member for Laurier-Ste. Marie, whom I respect because he was properly elected, while his colleagues who crossed the floor and have no mandate from their constituents to take the kind of position they are taking, these people are trying to break up the country. I say to them that Quebecers want -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The period for questions and comments is over.
[English)


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak at third reading on the bill before us, Bill C-81, an act to provide for the possible holding of referendums in Canada.
I listened with care to the interventions that preceded this, and in particular to that of the hon. Leader of the Opposition who said a couple of things I wish to comment on. He said, first of all, a referendum is not proposed as a deadlock-breaking mechanism. I am sure he was not contemplating the government would use it as such.
I think all parties whose members have subscribed to this idea and to this legislation are holding to the recommendations of Beaudoin-Edwards and Beaudoin-Dobbie, which have identical wordings. "We recommend that a federal law be enacted to enable the federal government at its discretion to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal either to confirm the existence of the national consensus, or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions." That is not a deadlock-breaking mechanism. It is a facilitative mechanism.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition went on to say, and I believe this is a direct quote: "Whatever happens, there will be a referendum". That is not the intention of the government. The government would much rather this process be seen to a successful conclusion without the holding of a referendum.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
The whole purpose of having this bill proclaimed into law, as I hope it will be soon, is to be able to use the device of a referendum if absolutely necessary. Mackenzie King was quoted just a moment or so ago, and I would say a referendum if necessary, but not necessarily a referendum, to paraphrase that Canadian statesman.
As colleagues have said, there was very detailed discussion in committee. The bill does not say a referendum must be held or how it should be interpreted. There were 29 amendments proposed in committee. Thirteen of those were accepted in committee or at report stage, and as my hon. friend from Papineau-Saint-Michel has said, seven out of the twelve were Liberal amendments.
It is correct, as the hon. House leader was saying, that there are rather strict limitations on what can be done in the context of 1992 as opposed, for example, to 1980 in the sense we are operating within the atmosphere of a charter today. The freedom of association issue as well as the freedom of speech issue have to be dealt with.
If there are to be umbrella committees that happen voluntarily then that is fine. They presumably would work if they were made to work, but it is our belief to mandate them would be unconstitutional and in some ways perhaps absurd.
With reference to the consultation on the question, I would like to point out not only did we provide a public undertaking to consult the leaders of the recognized parties in the House as opposition parties had requested, but we went a step further. We made that commitment in the bill itself, so it is required now by law as well as by moral commitment, or will be when the bill is proclaimed.
On the issues of financing and the definition of expenses, we have taken the concerns of Canadians into account and have gone a step toward the aboriginal peoples of Canada to make sure the text of the question will be available where appropriate in aboriginal languages.
I would like for a moment to deal with the proposed amendment which was defeated last night and which had
been offered by my hon. friend, the member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore. It is an issue that has puzzled a number of people. What is the appropriate word to describe what we have before us? Is it a plebiscite or a referendum?
Some study on the issue indicates that the word "referendum" and its French equivalent referendum are much more widely understood and accepted, at least in Canada, than the words "plebiscite" and plebiscite. That is particularly the case in the French language. The French word plebiscite is usually given a different meaning. The Quebec legislation which is la Loi sur la consultation populaire uses the term referendum. Using another term in the federal legislation might lead to confusion. To avoid this confusion we might have to use the word referendum in French even if we agreed to the change proposed by my friend, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, in the English version of the bill. While that may be technically correct in French, it might lead to a different type of confusion which we would all like to avoid.
I had the opportunity to meet an international expert on referendums, Professor Francis Delperee of the University of Louvain in Belgium. He has put together one of the most definitive works on the subject. It is titled simply Referendum and has several articles from many countries that have had referendum experience.
I will quote from the Canada section of that work. The article was written by our distinguished colleague from the other place, the hon. Senator Gerald Beaudoin:

There are several types of consultative or deliberative referendums. In the first, the people are consulted; in the second, the people participate in the legislative process. Furthermore, the referendum can be optional or required. In Canada, because the Constitution is silent on this point, referendums are optional.

In other words, the word "referendum" is used in the article by Senator Beaudoin exclusively. He, I submit, is one of the resident authorities.
June 4, 1992

However, I was not content to stay with Senator Beaudoin in investigating this issue. I purchased yesterday a book called The People's Mandate: Referendums in a More Democratic Canada by Patrick Boyer who is the very member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who had proposed the amendment. I am quoting from page 23 of that book:


Mr. TVemblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is talking about some very important matters and I see that there is no quorum in this House. I would ask you to take the count.
And the count having been taken


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to reassure the hon. member that there is indeed a quorum.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am quoting from this book by my friend for Etobicoke-Lakeshore at the bottom of page 23: "Legally, a referendum is binding on a government, whereas a plebiscite is not. Expressed in slightly broader terms, the distinction that ought to be drawn is that a referendum in its legal meaning is a binding verdict of the people that must be reflected in a law or action by the government, whereas a plebiscite is a formalized expression of public opinion that can serve to guide the government on a specific issue or question".
My friend for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, in proposing his amendment which was defeated last night, no doubt was using his own argument. However, he said in making his argument that those were legal definitions. I then sought to find some authority, since there is no authority cited in his book. In Petit Robert, the definition of-

Plebiscite: a direct yes or no vote by the electorate. [English]
There is no question as to whether it is binding or not. The definition from Petit Robert:

Referendum: vote by all the citizens to approve or reject a measure proposed by the executive authority.
Government Orders

Again, there is no definition as to whether it would be binding or simply advisory.
Here is the definition of a plebiscite from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: "A direct vote of the whole of electors of a State to decide a question of public importance; also by extension, a public expression, with or without binding force, of the wishes or opinion of a community".
The definition of a referendum in that book is: "The act, practice, or principle... of submitting the direct decision of a question at issue to the whole body of voters. Again, there is no question as to whether it would be binding or not.
Perhaps Black's Law Dictionary is a more authoritative voice on the definition of plebiscite: "A vote of the entire people-expressing their choice for or against a proposed law or enactment, submitted to them, and which, if adopted, will work a radical change in the constitution, or which is beyond the powers of the regular legislative body.
Finally, here is the definition of a referendum from that book: "The process of referring to the electorate for approval a proposed new state constitution or amendment or of a law passed by the legislature".
I would submit that the issue was, of course, resolved for us last night by the defeat of my friend's motion. I know he had hoped to be here today to speak to the issue. I hope I have done some service by addressing the issue on his behalf. I will now deal with the broader issue of this bill and what it will put into effect. This bill will put into motion a challenge to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to begin preparing for the possibility of a referendum, presumably at a later date, but more likely this year if one is to be held.
The Chief Electoral Officer has informed the government and has testified in committee that it will take him a minimum of three months to set the machinery up for holding a referendum. Therefore, there is some anxiety on this side of the House and I know it is shared by members opposite. We want to see that the bill gets proper attention, but that it is also dealt with expeditiously.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
I greatly appreciate the co-operation of members of the Official Opposition and the representative of the New Democratic Party on the legislative committee who worked so hard to see that the bill was improved at committee stage.
The question which will be put, as I suggested earlier, will be discussed fully with the leaders of the recognized opposition parties and will, of course, be debated in three days of debate in this House and three days of debate in the Senate. It is contemplated that the question which will be put will thus be the will, not only of the officially recognized parties, but also of this Parliament. That is a lot of time for debate.
It is, of course, a question which will have gone through the crucible with the provinces, the territories and other constituent groups. The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party referred earlier to the aboriginal peoples. There is input being received on an almost daily basis on this issue and, ultimately, the question. What will precede the framing of the question will be a resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate which will again be brought to both Houses for debate after the response to the Beaudoin-Dobbie report as tabled by the government. This is after the successful conclusion, one would hope, of the discussions or the conferences with the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal leadership. I believe this is due to resume in a matter of days.
The response to what has been going on in this House and in committee over the last few days, I think, has been quite positive. The reaction and the interest of the Canadian people has been engaged. We have received a good deal of feedback in our own offices about the referendum legislation. There are many who were asking us to please get on with it, please have it there and please have it available as an option if it is required.
They are puzzled by the voices of those who seem to oppose the idea of a referendum and they are profoundly puzzled by those who suggest that this referendum is an anti-democratic procedure. They are completely flabbergasted that-


Louis Plamondon: This bill.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: -that suggestion would be made.
My friend says: "This bill". This bill could not be more democratic. It is framed with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in mind. It is framed to give maximum opportunity to Canadians to express their points of view.


Jean-C. Lapierre: The power of money.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: My friend says it is open to the use of money.
We had an interesting discussion with the Leader of the New Democratic Party earlier in the House on the question of money. I challenged her because she was quoting studies in the United States that said that candidates for Congress had been more successful when large amounts of money were spent on their campaigns. That may well be the case.
However, to transliterate that right back to the Canadian experience is very difficult to do and I challenged her to-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Free trade.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: The free trade debate. I challenged her on that very subject and asked if there were any studies that she could point to that would demonstrate that there was a linkage between anybody's expenditure in the free trade debate, on one side or the other, and the results of the 1988 election. She was not able to provide me with any through either the comic book of the CLC or any other campaign that was mounted.
The reaction has been generally positive. I quote from today's edition of The Gazette in Montreal: "The Mulro-ney government need not apologize for using its majority to pass a bill authorizing a national referendum on constitutional change. It is a crude move, but it has to be done and it has to be done quickly. Ottawa has the right to give itself the legislative tools it may need to try to break the constitutional deadlock. It has the duty to acquire the tools by urgent means because the country faces urgent deadlines".
That is a statement of reality and I think that Canadians from Quebec and from other parts of the country are very much awake to the urgent reality that is facing us.
The Gazette goes on to say: "The bill is just an enabling bill or legislation to enable the federal government to hold a national referendum on a question of its choosing and to set certain conditions for the vote".
June 4, 1992


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting quote from The Gazette that the hon. parliamentary secretary just read us. Now, if his colleague, Mr. Loiselle, could hand him this morning's edition of Le Soleil, he would see that they call it a "referendum bluff". It might help him understand how we perceive this bill in Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: That was not a point of order. The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has one minute left.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: My friend knew what I was coming to when he interrupted. What I was coming to was this. I am quoting The Gazette again:
Bloc Quebecois members merely cover themselves with ridicule
when they attack this inoffensive bill as "an illegitimate, antidemocratic holdup" and compare its supporters to "Cains" and "Nazi
collaborators" -
In fact, the bill is just an instrument that Ottawa may need to break a deadlock, to respect Quebec's democratic agenda, and to consult all the people on matters affecting the future of the whole country. No one this side of the lunatic fringe would contest that objective.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Edmonton Southwest and he was referring to several learned texts during his speech. I would like to come back to The People's Mandate: Referendums and a More Democratic Canada written by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I believe this book just came on the market in the last two days.
One of the criticisms we have been hearing from the Bloc Quebecois is the fact this bill has been put through here in a rather hasty fashion. Of course one of the arguments they have been advancing is the fact very few Canadians, and I am sure they do not mean just Quebecers, really understand all of the ramifications of the bill or just referendums in general.
I must say to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, there are many members in this House who do not have the understanding of all
Government Orders
aspects of this referendum legislation and what it means. It has been studied by the member for Etobicoke-Lake-shore for many years. He is an expert on it and we all acknowledge that in this House.
Would it not be a good idea for the Government of Canada, in its effort to assist Canadians who it wants to participate fully in this debate, to consider maybe having this book translated and making it available not only in every region of this country, but in high schools, colleges and community centres? In this way we can educate as many Canadians as possible over the next 30 or 40 days, as it takes a 90-day period to prepare for the referendum, as to all the various aspects of what the referendum is all about.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I appreciate the question of my hon. friend who I think was suggesting the Government of Canada perhaps expend some money for the translation and distribution of a book written by a member of Parliament. Were my friend from Etobicoke-Lakeshore not a member of Parliament, I think it might be a subject worth considering. However he is an author and does receive royalties so I am not sure it would be appropriate.
It is a very useful layman's guide to the history and use of referendums. While I took issue with his argument on definitions, I found it very useful in understanding the issue myself. He had written an earlier, perhaps more learned tome which is a scholarly work on referendums. It is heavily footnoted and perhaps not readily assimilated by the layman.
I would remind my hon. friend his suggestion has merit, but beyond the present situation there are provisions in this bill that would provide for the review of this legislation over a predetermined period. Maybe at that time, as we deal with the question of referendum legislation in a more mature way, a long-term education program could take place.
I agree with my friend there is probably little understanding of how the conventional electoral process works, but we are being thrust into a totally new situation and some kind of public education program would probably be well in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.ra.
At 13.01 the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate before this House how proud I am to be a Canadian. The number of noteworthy projects is growing throughout this country.
Here is one that exemplifies the level of co-operation between provincial governments and the industry, again emphasizing the efficiency of the federal system. The first maritime petroleum production system is being put into operation today. Most likely this project will be held up as an example all over the world because it is unique in that it will allow to search for small oil and gas reserves off the east coast.
For the first time in Canadian history, we are witnessing the coming into operation of a maritime oil production system with a yield of 30,000 barrels per day. Like other light substances, petroleum would evaporate quickly in the event of a spill. Besides, a review of the environmental studies reflect support for this project.
I reaffirm my pride of belonging to such a prosperous and vigourous country. This great track record only strengthened me in my resolve to never do away with my Canada-wide assets.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, a veteran and old age pensioner in my constituency of Surrey North, Arthur Cain, is typical of seniors in Canada.
They now pay the 7 per cent GST on almost everything they buy and some have had their pensions clawed back by the Mulroney government. Yet, their old age pension increase is a meagre 37 cents a month.
Mr. Cain is also typical of seniors in that he holds the Prime Minister personally responsible for the financial difficulties he is now facing.
Mr. Cain also resents that the Prime Minister will retire with a pension far greater than any public pension paid to Canadian seniors.
Mr. Cain has decided that he wants to show disgust by donating his 37 cents a month to the Prime Minister. I have in my possession a cheque made out to Brian Mulroney for no dollars and 37 cents-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment please. We have some precedents. Members' statements are not to be used to carry out a personal attack against any other members of the House. I am sure the hon. member would want to be reminded of that.


CANADIAN BOUQUET
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the House about an artist in my riding who has completed a painting called Canadian Bouquet.
It depicts all the provincial and territorial floral emblems of Canada. My constituent hopes his painting will make a difference as we celebrate our nation's 125th birthday.
He wanted something symbolic that shows all provinces and territories together. It represents a unified Canada. It illustrates the natural beauty Canada offers.
Already the response has been overwhelming, with over 300 prints sold to raise money for charities across the country.
I congratulate Mr. Reynolds for his pride in Canada. He feels Canadians have to get out and take action rather than sit back and wait for events to unfold.
He related the painting to how one sends flowers when someone is sick. In this case, the flowers are going to Canada, which Reynolds sees as a little sick now, but with enough strength to recover. We do not want the Canadian bouquet with petals lying on the ground.
June 4, 1992

The award-winning artist, Michael Reynolds, urges all of us to celebrate Canada. It is a beautiful country.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mr. Reynolds, I would like to present you with one of the prints.


BREAST CANCER
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, recently many women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer and who live in the riding I represent have asked me to speak out on their behalf. Given the facts of this terrible disease, I feel compelled to do so.
Consider the following: Treatment techniques have not changed in 30 years and the effects of the treatment make women very ill and unable to properly care for their families. Over-all mortality rates have remained unchanged in 30 years, despite improvements in early detection techniques. The incident rate of breast cancer has increased tremendously from one in twenty Canadian women in 1960 to one in nine in 1990. In 1991, there were 5,000 deaths from breast cancer compared with 161 for AIDS. Funding for breast cancer is only $750 per death, compared with $458,000 per AIDS death.
From a woman's point of view, breast cancer is exclusively suffered by women. Women feel research dollars and results are insignificant compared to what has been committed for other diseases.
I am today urging the federal government, despite all the financial pressures it faces, to increase research dollars for breast cancer and to do all it can to support those 40 Canadian women a day who are diagnosed. They deserve more.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is National Access Awareness Week. It is dedicated to increasing awareness in the general population about issues of particular concern to people with disabilities. Many barriers prevent Canadians with disabilities from participating fully in the mainstream of Canadian life.
At present, we have Bill C-78 before the House, a piece of legislation which attempts to address a number
of those concerns but which also has a number of flaws in it which I hope will be corrected at the second reading stage of debate.
There is much more to be done in the areas of employment, transportation, broadcasting and in the area of the Criminal Code and access to information, just to name a few.
Several years ago when the standing committee on human rights raised a number of concerns that we had around the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, you were fast off your feet to correct those concerns.
It seems to me that members on the government side should be as quick on their feet to correct these other outstanding problems.


ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the St. Andrew's Church of Ottawa, located in my riding, is in the forefront of the fight against poverty.
In 1991, the church began the Partnership Against Poverty program with a mandate to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. The program unites the efforts of politicians, both national and provincial, as well as members of the business community, various church denominations and other community organizations.
The partnership program encourages the development of co-operative food bank clubs, community garden clubs and family nutrition programs, otherwise known as collective kitchens.
St. Andrew's Church is also hosting a worship service for the Grand Orange Lodge of Canada next week. These men and women will be coming from coast to coast for a national convention.
The lodge's mandate includes a commitment to charitable endeavours, in particular, cancer research. The Ottawa region has historical significance for Orange Lodge members who count among their membership such eminent Canadians as Prime Minister John A. Macdonald.
I would like to welcome Grand Orange Lodge members to Ottawa and wish them a productive conference and enjoyable stay.

June 4, 1992


HECLA ISLAND
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, there is a special jewel located within my constituency of Portage-Interlake in Manitoba. The jewel is known as Hecla Island. In the summer, it sparkles; in the winter, it shines.
My constituents and I want Hecla Island, currently a Manitoba provincial park, to join the roster of national parks across Canada. We want this to occur sooner, not later.
I have made a request to the Minister of the Environment to visit Hecla Island this summer to view the splendour and the beauty of this unique area with his own eyes.
Canada's national parks have world-wide recognition and reputation. Hecla Island will be a valuable addition to the system of national treasures, truly a crown jewel of national parks.


SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: For years, the people of eastern Prince Edward Island have asked the government to make needed repairs to harbours and wharfs and for years, their calls have fallen on deaf ears.
However, the people of St. John's West seem to speak the language the minister can understand. More money was spent on one wharf in St. John's West in one year than was spent on 28 wharfs in Cardigan riding for the last five years combined.
The time has come for the minister to realize that there are more people who need small craft harbour work than his constituents.
I call upon the minister to be fair to the fishermen of Cardigan and make sure the work to small craft harbours that needs to be done gets done.


MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the mining industry, which used to be one of our worst
polluters, is becoming a leader in respecting the environment. Mines are planning to invest nearly $500 millions in the environment.
Mr. Jean Roberge, the assistant director of the Quebec Metal Mining Association stated that the Quebec mining industry as a whole, and not only big companies like Noranda, went green between the spring and the fall of 1988 and that we are just starting to notice the effects of this shift.
Quebec mines also have the best track record in Canada for respecting the environment, according to directors at Environment Canada.
Back in 1988, the officials of the Quebec Metal Mining Association developed an "environment savings plan" based on the RRSP system to fight pollution during the life cycle of a mine.
The Association has now published the "environmental bill of health of the industry", the first one ever in North America, and it is arousing interest in Europe. The Quebec government is presently distributing it at the earth summit in Rio.


SENIORS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the beginning of summer is traditionally the time when Canada salutes its seniors, those older Canadians who helped shape this great country and who share our vision of a prosperous and united future for Canada.
Each province and territory has planned activities and events from late May until the end of June in order to mark the substantial and varied contributions that our older citizens make to this country.
Canadians young and old are taking the time to acknowledge the solid foundation that older people have laid for the society we enjoy today.
As I speak, a number of activities and events are taking place in my home province of Saskatchewan under the theme "Canada's Heritage: Bridging the Generations".
June 4, 1992

It is with great pride and enthusiasm that I urge all members, and indeed all Canadians, to join with their communities in celebrating the achievements of our seniors.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on March 14 this year, the ITAC committee (Industry, Tourism, Agriculture and Commerce) of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell sent a letter to the Prime Minister stating the following facts:
That eastern Ontario has suffered a substantial loss of industrial jobs and that the unemployment rate in our communities in eastern Ontario is twice the national average;
That a number of federal and provincial programs have been cancelled, "thanks" to this government;
That the federal government closed its regional development office for eastern Ontario; and
That the federal government is responsible for social and economic development assistance to disadvantaged regions like ours.
I support the demands of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, and I want to ask the government to establish a regional development program for eastern Ontario in order to help Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Stormont-Dundas,	Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke
and other ridings in dire need of assistance.


ANDREW DES LAURIERS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday evening, Andrew Des Lauriers, a North York fire captain, was trapped in a tragic blaze in Don Mills. He was put on life support at Toronto General Hospital but despite the hopes and prayers of family and colleagues, Andrew died last night.
I want to convey my condolences to his family and friends. I want to pay tribute to Andrew and all firefighters across Canada for their bravery and dedication.
My son-in-law, Mark Zaorski, has been a fire-fighter in North York for eight years. He was one of the dozens of fire-fighters trying to contain this tragic blaze.
Fire-fighters are always ready to protect our lives and property, putting their own lives at risk time and time again. Canadians owe these men and women much gratitude and respect.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, farmers are being sent a bill for a $41 million mistake made by the federal government.
The government paid out interim cheques under the Western Grain Stabilization Program about a year ago, based on a guess on how much the farmers' crops would be worth for the last three years. It was not until last August when the program ended that it took a second look and found its mistake.
With the Saskatchewan election pending no decision was made. But now, farmers who had no say in how much they received from the program in the first place are being billed and not being told why. Even farmers who had left the land in 1989 are receiving bills of up to $750.
The grains and oilseeds minister acknowledges this is a difficult time to be asking farmers for cash. He claims, however, the government has to collect and has given farmers until July 15 in which to respond.
Last year's deficit was $2 billion more than estimated. Does this mean other Canadians will be receiving bills demanding repayment for the government's overspending too?


SUN AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the week of June 1 to 7 has been proclaimed Sun Awareness Week in Canada by the Canadian Dermatology Association.
In an effort to stem the ever-increasing number of people developing skin cancer, Health and Welfare Canada and the Canadian Dermatology Association are reminding Canadians of the need to protect against over-exposure to the sun.

June 4, 1992
Oral Questions
Since sun damage to the skin usually begins in childhood and every sunburn and sun-tan harms the skin and the damage is cumulative, this is especially directed toward parents and young children.
Health and Welfare Canada is preparing an issues paper entitled "Preventing Skin Cancer: It's Up To You". It will be available soon and will be widely circulated so all Canadians can be better informed on this issue.


FAMILY ISSUES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Globe and Mail, 35 ridiculous Tory members of Parliament, who call themselves the Caucus Committee on Family Issues, are proud that they are responsible for killing a national day care program.
They are proud and believe that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms undermines Canada and they also hold the silly view that social policy in this country goes too far in helping people. It does not surprise me that Tory dinosaurs believe this.
What does shock me is that according to this article, they are supported in their views by the minister of energy, the communications minister, the minister for privatization, the minister of small businesses, the minister of science and the minister for external relations.
Do we really have six cabinet ministers in this country who think we would be better off if women did not work outside the home? Welcome to the world of Dan Quayle's Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
Documents possessed by the government and released today say this about the Westray coal mine. I quote from the documents: "The interpreted structure is recognized
to contain considerable uncertainty-The mine ventilation section, which describes the results of the methane desorption test does not give one confidence-Three, based upon experience elsewhere in the world zones around faults made of elevated spontaneous combustion risks, the seam's thickness also constitute an increased spontaneous combustion risk".
Knowing of those risks, each and every one of those, did the minister responsible exercise his right under the agreement which was consummated by the Government of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia and Curragh Resources to do inspections of that mine? If so, will the minister explain to the House as to what those inspection reports said to him?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the first and most important statement one must make about the CANMET report from which he quotes is the study itself concluded that the proposal for a mine at Westray had no major failings. That was its conclusion.
The report was clear about some of the challenges that should be dealt with, the challenges that could be dealt with and therefore the proposal had no major failings. The report also notes that the mine would operate under a Nova Scotia Department of Mines and Energy mining lease.
What does that mean? That means the lease would not be given unless it contained clauses of what the owner can and cannot do. Finally, the federal government's contracts between the mine developer and its lenders required that the company fully comply with all Nova Scotia mining laws and regulations.
What happened was the federal government decided to guarantee the loan based upon an assessment that this was a technically feasible mine and that the challenges could be met. The mining leases to be granted by the province of Nova Scotia would make sure that all provincial regulations were complied with and, of course, we ensured on a regular basis that they were complied with.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. On a previous occasion, the minister referred to the Associated Mining Consultants as doing the independent safety reports. But they have said and I quote: "We didn't independently check any safety conditions".
June 4, 1992

The minister himself has said in this House that the firm's primary role was to monitor the levels and cost of coal production. I ask the minister responsible if he will confirm whether or not he has exercised his right under the consummated contract in order to inspect the West-ray coal mine for safety reasons, where are those reports, and will he explain to the House the contents of those reports?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member persists in misunderstanding what provincial jurisdiction is and what federal jurisdiction is. He persists of course because he wants to suddenly invent a whole mining regulatory responsibility for the federal government. It was provincial.
What we had to do, and I think it very important that we did this, was on a monthly basis when there were advances of the loan and the guarantee followed with it, was to make sure that provincial regulations, all of them, were being complied with. This is what the mining engineers did.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the minister had in his possession an independent technical report telling them there was a high risk of an explosion.
The minister also had a binding legal document allowing the minister to inspect the mines. Knowing of the high risk of an explosion, why did the minister not exercise his right under that consummated contract? Why was the federal minister responsible so grossly negligent in exercising his responsibility?


Thomas Hockin: You know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raising his voice does not make his point any differently than he did two weeks ago. There is nothing new in his question. It is the same question; he will get the same answer.
What he is asking is essentially did the federal government do its own independent inspection of the mine. The answer is no. That is the province's responsibility.
What we did, and we did very carefully, was to make sure that compliance certificates were issued by the mining engineering consultants, and they were issued. In fact, I think that was responsible for the federal govern-
Oral Questions
ment to do it. I have tabled with the documents today what those certificates contain.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Business.
This loan insurance agreement between the Government of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia and Curragh Resources commits the federal government to providing up to $85 million to the banks in the event of the failure of the Westray project.
Section 7, subsection (i) of this agreement authorizes the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology to carry out inspections of this project to ensure that the project is being carried out in accordance with prudent business management and good mining practices.
My question to the minister is this: In light of his previous answers, is he satisfied that good mining practices, including adequate provisions for safety, were carried out by Curragh Resources? If so, does he accept on behalf of his government its responsibility to provide up to $85 million to the banks in the event that this mine is not reopened?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, today it is possible because we have tabled the documents to answer my hon. friend's question in some detail.
First of all let me quote from the documents. This is the loan agreement document: "Prior to each loan advance Curragh must certify"-this is the document that was tabled this morning-"that all government approvals required to be obtained under the Curragh agreement have been duly obtained and are in full force and effect".
This is further supported by an independent engineer's certificate which includes certification of government approvals and compliance with laws. I can read all of those if the hon. member would like, and I will in answering a supplementary if he likes.
What we put in place through this contract was a situation where there would be compliance with all provincial regulations and this we did and certified monthly.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.

Oral Questions
The federal government had numerous reports warning of high methane levels at the foord seam. The federal government's own agreement with Curragh Resources and the Bank of Nova Scotia authorizes it to carry out inspections of these mines. The federal government is on the hook by this agreement for up to $85 million.
How can the minister justify to the taxpayers of Canada, not to mention the families of the 26 dead miners, the failure of his government to carry out inspections to ensure that this mine and the government's investment was secure?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the logic of the hon. member is that if there are some challenges that have to be inspected by the province that he does not think the province can do, the federal government should take it over. We received a report a couple of months ago from the Economic Council of Canada saying that education needs to be revamped and improved in Canada. Following the member's logic, the federal government should move in and take over all the schools. That is really the logic of what he is saying.
It may be a good idea. Essentially, he is suggesting that we not abide by provincial jurisdiction. This we did. They inspected on a very regular basis and we received monthly certifications that they were doing so.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Of the 2,000 pages of information released today on the Westray mine, there is a document apparently provided to cabinet entitled Westray Coal Inc., Pictou County Coal Project, Technical Review. This report stressed serious safety concerns about operating the mine. I will quote the section quoted formerly by a member about the mine ventilation section. In -this report it says, and I quote: "does not give one confidence".
The report also mentions inadequate time and inadequate documentation. Again I quote from the report that says: "No attempts have been made to assess pillar stresses, roof response, floor response and the like in the report. The time available and limitations in the documentation preclude such attention to detail".
My question to the Prime Minister is what was the rush on this project? Why could there not be sufficient
time given for the approval to provide attention to detail? That detail might have prevented a tragedy.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party that all of us would have liked to have seen the tragedy prevented, but her chronology is terribly flawed.
First of all this CANMET report was done a number of years before the mine opened. In fact the mine was just beginning commercial production. Between the CANMET report and when the mine opened, there were all sorts of engineering adaptations to make sure it could be safe, to make sure that it could technically comply with all provincial regulations.
This is what the member has to understand. CANMET made some suggestions and they were dealt with in the engineers' drawings and work following the recommendations of CANMET. Also, the CANMET report does not just say, and this is very important, that there is a high danger of methane.
I would ask the House to listen carefully. What the report does is summarize all previous technical reports. Some technical reports, most of them in fact, say there are very low levels of methane. Some say it is moderate. There are a few that express concern. There is a whole spectrum of concern expressed from moderate concern, to very little to some methane. Therefore, the engineers and all of those who put the mine together tried to accommodate that in the years following the CANMET report.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary for the Prime Minister. The premier of Nova Scotia had made it quite clear in a number of interviews that he felt "federal bureaucrats were interfering with the process of approval for this mine". According to the minister, that work was done after the CANMET report which I just quoted from.
In these 2,000 pages of documents that have been filed, there is no example of correspondence between officials of government departments or, indeed, between government ministers. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if work was done after this CANMET report, if he can tell this House what information he was privy to that reassured him that these steps had been taken and is that material about to be tabled with this House as well? If not, why did the premier of Nova Scotia feel that it was "government bureaucrats" who were holding this up?
June 4, 1992


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I know what the the hon. member is trying to do with her question. She is trying to give an impression that nothing was done to accommodate any of the suggestions in the CANMET report.
What she fails to understand is that to even open a mine you must get a lease. In order to get a mining lease in the province of Nova Scotia, you must comply with all safety and other regulations of the province of Nova Scotia. This they worked hard at doing and this they did or they would not have been given the lease.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
What I am trying to get at, which the Minister Responsible for Small Business does not seem to understand, is why this project was hurried up. Why was there such a timetable? There was inadequate time given to deal with the serious concerns that were raised.
In fact, in April 1991 a Calgary engineering consultant who had worked on a number of mining projects was quoted as saying that this mine was one of the most rapid he has ever seen in terms of construction.
The question we are trying to get is simply: Why was it so rapid?

My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: Could he indicate to the House whether he has had discussions with federal or provincial politicians, either in writing or in person, about the time frame for this project?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, only a few days ago I referred in the House to conversations I had with the present premier of Nova Scotia and other provincial premiers on regional development projects in their respective provinces.
I talked to the premier of Yukon about a mining project involving the same company, in the hon. member's riding. In supporting federal involvement in the project in her riding, I applied the same objective criteria that were used to support the project in Nova Scotia.
Oral Questions


STEEL INDUSTRY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, we received a visit from the steel producers of Canada. They informed us that they face a very serious problem at this moment. Again, despite the free trade agreement, they are about to face some action in Washington. Already some clients are cancelling orders because they do not know if they can rely on Canadian producers.
Despite the free trade agreement, almost every month now we see a new problem developing in trade relations between Canada and the United States. It is always initiated in the United States. When will the Prime Minister do something about it? He was bragging in this House last week that he can talk to George any time. The time to call him is today.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition must know that this dispute is being brought by the American steel industry under American laws.
There has, as yet, been no definitive information as to whether Canada will be included in this dispute. It seems to me a little premature to be raising a flag of fear when we do not know the answer to that question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadian steelworkers who saw their jobs disappear because of this government's failure to act will not look kindly on the fact that the Prime Minister does not bother to answer this kind of question.
At a time when Quebec has been hit by a very negative decision on magnesium and a 35 per cent surtax and today, Sidbec-Dosco will be faced with the same problem, will the Prime Minister, for once, start doing something about the problems of Quebec and Canadian workers?

June 4, 1992
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting inasmuch as my hon. friend speaks so disparagingly and contemptuously today of the President of the United States.
Did he say that to George in the Oval Office when he was down there? When you were down there, were you acting-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He was down there, Mr. Speaker: "Yes, Mr. President. I am so happy to see you. Thank you for having me in the Oval Office."
Then he comes back talking like a big shot. Then he comes back

with his public relations exercise.

He forgets that we saw him in such a supine position in Washington.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of trade said there is "some flexibility" on the question of U.S. demands for an increase in the North American content requirements on automobiles. Yet in 1990 the minister of trade said: "Most of the cost of increasing the content rule will fall on Canada while most of the benefits will be reaped by the United States".
Why has the government changed its position? Has the government prepared a study of how this decision will deter new investment or even the expansion of existing plants in Canada?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should make it clear that there has been no agreement to date on this particular issue.
In terms of where the Government of Canada would settle on this issue, we should make it clear that the Canadian auto workers, the Canadian parts manufacturers and the three large assemblers all want a higher content ratio than the 50 per cent negotiated under the
free trade agreement. We know that we want to listen to them.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of trade said: "We should maintain Canada as an attractive place for foreign car manufacturers to invest". A spokesman for Honda immediately responded by saying: "It is quickly becoming more sensible to invest in the United States rather than risk the problems associated with assembling cars in Canada".
I ask the minister: Is the government's policy to maintain the agreed level of North American content or is it to concede to the United States becoming the hub of a more protectionist North America?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, what we have always been after in the North American free trade agreement is the best deal possible for Canada. There are of course two sides to this.
We know the position of the transplants and we have to take that into consideration. We also know the position of the rest of the Canadian industry and we must acknowledge that.
What we are trying to do is to find an agreement that will satisfy both sides of this. Where the United States wants to go is not the issue. It is where does the Canadian industry want to go. That is our question.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I cite some of his recent quotes before and after a visit to Washington.
Referring to American trade harassment, the Prime Minister has said that he might accept it from some tin-pot dictator in some tiny little country somewhere. He refers also to low-level bureaucratic harassment. Upon his return to Ottawa he stated: "I am confident that frivolous and vexatious American trade actions will cease".
Strong and confident words, but now they ring hollow. Americans will place their good Canadian friends with Korea, Japan and a host of other countries and charge our suffering, fair-trading Canadian steel makers with dumping.
June 4, 1992

Is the Prime Minister prepared to implement some of his rhetoric into concrete actions and, if so, what is he proposing to do?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Burney has registered very strongly the objections of the Government of Canada to Secretary Franklin in the United States in regard to what we believe is a side-swipe action, very counterproductive and quite unacceptable to the Government of Canada.
In the past the American industry, having taken this action, that would have been the end of it, but because we have the free trade agreement we have an independent dispute settlement mechanism which has rendered a growing number of decisions favourable to Canada.
Because of the free trade agreement and the independent dispute settlement mechanism, we are able to envisage the future with some confidence in regard to this action as, for example, most recently we did when we won a most important decision on behalf of Canadian agricultural producers on the question of pork.
We view this very seriously. We are going to take all vigorous action and we are going to join with the industry and support the industry throughout the process until Canada emerges successfully from this.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the Prime Minister's comments, but I thought the free trade agreement would guarantee access to the American steel market as it had promised.
There is the so-called free trade agreement and the so-called Prime Minister's friendship with the President, but the American President pays no attention to Canadian steel workers, no attention to softwood lumber workers, no attention to Canadian auto workers and no attention to the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister place yet another telephone call to the President and, if that fails, will he assist Canadian steel producers for the first time in preparing counterdumping actions against American steel producers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this will impress my hon. friend because he is clearly not concerned about this part of it, but it is important for the record to note that this action
Oral Questions
was not initiated by the administration. It is an action initiated by the American steel industry.
I think my hon. friend would acknowledge that it would be improper for the Government of Canada or the Government of Ontario to interfere to preclude the possibility of a Canadian company initiating a trade action against the United States. This is not one that is initiated by the political administration of the Government of the United States.
That being said, we still think it is a side-swipe action where they are looking for others, particularly for example the Koreans, and they are side-swiping Canada where we have the largest integrated steel market in the world.
The American administration will work with the administration of Canada to make sure that we are not subject to these side-swipes.
Failing that we fortunately have the dispute settlement mechanism of the free trade agreement which is providing, as my hon. friend knows, an increasing number of very substantial victories that otherwise would have been lost.
My hon friend, given his own experience in this area, has expressed his satisfaction in the past with the existence of this important provision.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Youth unemployment across Canada is at an all-time high of 16.8 per cent, compared with the rate of 11 per cent in the general population. The figures are even more tragic in my province of Nova Scotia where youth unemployment is at 22.6 per cent.
My question for the minister is simply this: What is he prepared to do to get these young people working?
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the general programs of employment and immigration obviously apply to unemployed youth.

Oral Questions
We also have the youth initiatives under the Challenge program. As my hon. colleague knows or should know, its budgets have been increased this year for the second year in a row. According to the job prospects that we are going to have this summer, notwithstanding the fact that it is going to be difficult we need the partnership of not only the private sector but of provincial governments.
I believe we have what is needed right now to face the serious situation that exists, a situation that has been dealt with, particularly with the government's initiative with respect to stay in school, where we have to make sure that our youth get the fundamental instruments to deal with the future.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, they cannot stay in school when their rates for tuition have gone up 25 per cent and their unemployment rate is at 22 per cent.
The minister says that there have been increases in these grants over the past two years. Yes, small ones, but over the past seven years the cutbacks in these grants amount to over $70 million. On top of that is the decimation of established programs funding crippling universities in Atlantic Canada and making them raise tuitions. Send them back to school with what?
What plan does the government have to give young people in Atlantic Canada some relief and some hope?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to hope, again the hon. member has to look at government initiatives as a whole.
The prosperity initiative is specifically about hope and about future prospects. So the youth of today do not have to pay the debt of past governments.
What we are doing right now is making sure that the fundamentals are there. The stay in school initiative is about that, and the training programs my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration has put forward are at $3.4 billion.


JOB TRAINING
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
One and one-half million Canadians are unemployed. Part-time jobs are replacing full-time jobs. We have record levels of food banks and homeless people, and the minister makes excuses for not doing more.
Does the minister not realize that money spent on training and the unemployed is an investment in human resources which expands our skilled work force, produces wealth and helps reduce the deficit?
When will the minister take off his Tory blinkers and put more money into training and job creation?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that a Liberal stands in this House today and congratulates the government for having targeted training as a priority area of activity.
He should have been there when they blocked passage of a law in this country that has allowed us in the last two years to triple the amount of money going to the training of UI recipients in this country.
I thank the hon. member for his reconnaissance de notre bon travail.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the government is spending more on training out of the unemployment insurance fund but less out of general revenues. To do that the government has cut back on unemployment insurance benefits, which has shifted the burden of the unemployed to the provinces and to the municipalities. That is what it is doing.
Our major competitors in Japan, Europe and the United States spend more on training and education. Does the minister not see that more money spent on training today will produce wealth and dividends tomorrow?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member read our learning paper. These words come from exactly what I published three months ago. I thank him again. He is right. We have to invest more in people. We have to
June 4, 1992

invest more in training. That Liberal is finally seeing the light. He is right.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, if we could all get some glimpse of the light from the minister of employment it would be useful.
Yesterday the minister of employment said that he would have an announcement to make in the next day or two with respect to more support for training. Across this country there are people who are in desperate need of training and of increased support. Our concern, however, is that the minister is going to rob Peter to pay Paul.
First, is the minister prepared to make the commitment today that there will be more money for training? Second, will he make it with an added guarantee that this increased money for training will not be at the expense of other support for training in other areas?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member come clean with Canada, stand up and apologize to all those workers that need training?
Because of his actions and those of his party, we were delayed for a year and a half. Who is paying for that delay? Canadian workers who could have been trained over a period of 18 months have been deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister should know that thousands of workers in Canada have decided to take the training option. For the last three weeks they have been waiting for some kind of specific answer from the Minister of Employment and Immigration to know whether the money will be there to allow them to access training programs. Some of them are unable even to sign up at community colleagues because of the no refund policy.
I want to ask minister a very specific question. Is he prepared to announce today that his government has found a way to reallocate money so that fee paper training can be accessed by thousands of workers across this country? Yes or no.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 18 months that they devoted to preventing unemployed Canadians
Oral Questions
from getting training. I should be able to have an answer within the next few days.


BANKING
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Garth T\irner (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In the 1980s, after the big banks' loans to the Third World countries went bust, Canadian consumers ended up paying vastly higher service charges.
In the 1990s, after the big banks' loans to real estate developers like Olympia & York have gone bust, what assurance can the government give that once again the real burden will not fall on Canadian consumers who fear being handed a bill for the bankers' lack of foresight?
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have noted those comments and I have been in contact with the Canadian Bankers' Association seeking assurances that that was not the case.
I can tell my hon. colleague that indeed I have been informed by the Canadian Bankers' Association that the impact of the O & Y situation will not reduce their capacity to serve their customers, and particularly their small business customers.
I have also been assured that there is no way in which they would attempt to recoup any of these losses from the small business sector. I think that is most encouraging.
I have also been advised by the Canadian Bankers' Association that it will co-operate fully with the small business financing program and other government programs to ensure the small business sector has the adequate financing it needs, and particularly those small businesses in financial difficulty.


GRAIN INDUSTRY
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. It has to do with the stalled grain shipments to Russia.

Oral Questions
The situation is very serious and cannot be allowed to continue. Yesterday industry sources told me that a solution may soon be found to get the grain moving, and today we hear that the government may ease restrictions faced by cash starved Russians.
Can the minister confirm now whether credit conditions will be changed? Will the Russians be able to use Canadian credit toward ocean freight costs?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, to bring the member up to date, that has been the case for probably two or three months with the line of credit the Canadian Wheat Board has available to deal with the Russians.
It has been the case for I guess a year on some loans that were put out by EDC. It has already been used by the Canadian Wheat Board I believe in one shipment of grain off our west coast to eastern Russia.
In point of fact the Wheat Board has had the latitude to do this for a number of months. It has been its judgment that it has not needed to extend this type of credit in order to make grain sales.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks as if there is no problem out there at all. I want to remind him that freighters have been tied up and workers have been laid off. This tie-up, if allowed to continue, threatens directly the lives of prairie farmers.
Will the Russians get the new credit terms? When will the situation change? How much credit is going to be made available for freight costs? Above all, can the minister assure the House that this kind of backlog will not happen again?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this into context. There is a problem in the Great Lakes, the problem being that over half the fleet is tied up.
To look at the over-all situation, we still have the chance of having a record amount of grain shipments as well as grain movement in this country for this crop year. To suggest that the whole system is grinding to a halt is simply false.
I already said that the Wheat Board has the latitude and continues to have the latitude to use part of the
credit extended to the Russians to pay for freight. If the member is suggesting that the Wheat Board is not using good judgment in this, that surprises me because he has been very supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board. If he is suggesting that I go in and tell the Wheat Board how to run its day-to-day commercial activities, he would be the first one on his feet accusing me of political interference.
I wish he would get his stories straight.


BANKING
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for small business.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has expressed a concern that consumers and small businesses could bear the brunt of any fall-out from the O & Y collapse. It has also said that bankers are tightening their loan policies for small firms struggling to stay in business.
When will this government take some action to help these small businesses gain access to credit? Or, will this government continue to sit idly by and see jobs go down the tubes?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I really must thank the hon. member for her question. On June 1, the financial institutions reforms which have been finally put into effect allow trust companies over and above a certain size to do unlimited commercial lending. Life insurance companies will have a vastly increased ambit for making commercial loans to small and medium sized businesses.
This is the most fundamental reform of the financial institutions structure in the history of Canada. We are very proud we have done that.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, that answer is totally unacceptable to the small business people across this country. Even some of the minister's own backbenchers are calling for action in this area.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. When will the minister realize that more action is needed now to deal with the credit crunch on small business so that we can create much needed jobs in this country?
June 4, 1992


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's first question was what the government has done.
I agree with her that there is a constriction of credit in schedule A banks toward small and medium sized enterprise in Canada. I think it is a concern. The Minister of Finance and I have carried that concern to the Bankers' Association and to individual bankers.
In fact the last budget brought in some very important new provisions to help small business. The foremost of course is the Small Businesses Loans Act. We are going to lift the limit to $200,000 under the small business financing program. We continue to have the lowest rate of tax of any country in the OECD for small business.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
The Beaudoin-Dobbie committee unanimously recommended a preamble as part of this Canada round of constitutional renewal. The minister knows that the government has received over 35,000 letters from business and community leaders, chambers of commerce, service clubs and thousands of individuals from coast to coast who have strongly endorsed the special joint committee's preamble as a poetic statement uniting Canadians with their history and the values we all hold dear.
Can the minister tell the House that the preamble is in fact a part of the government package it is negotiating with the provinces and that the government is actively seeking their support for that preamble?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a poetic preamble. I get it read to me at meetings across the country. There have been thousands of representations made to the government.
The question is: What legal weight would language of that kind have in a Constitution? That is the question we are looking at now. I cannot give any guarantees as to exact language, but it is agreed in the conference I am chairing that it is important the document finds some
Oral Questions
way to summons a sense of pride in the country. We are looking at both that draft preamble and some other language. We will do the best we can.



Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In his recent statements, I believe it is obvious that the Prime Minister is cooking up a unilateral referendum fraud in spite of the firm opposition expressed by the National Assembly in Quebec and Premier Bourassa.
My question for the right hon. Prime Minister is this: Why is the Prime Minister about to become a traitor to Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: The preamble as well as the wording of the question are absolutely unacceptable.


Some hon. members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows perfectly well that the question was unacceptable and is improper. I am sure as a member of long standing in this House-and I know the respect he has for this place-he would want to withdraw.
I am asking the hon. member to withdraw.


Some hon. members:: No.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister owes everything to Quebec. He is now denying it and I must raise this matter in the House.


Pierrette Venne: Exactly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is an experienced member here and has been here for many years. He knows perfectly well, it seems to the Chair and it probably seems the same way to other members, that the comments that he has made and the comments that he made after I asked him to withdraw are clearly designed to be such that they are not acceptable in this place.

June 4, 1992
Business of the House
If the hon. member does not have enough respect for this institution, which he always has shown in the past, to withdraw his remarks then I must ask him again to do the proper thing for this place and withdraw the remarks. Of course, if the hon. member is not prepared to withdraw them then I shall have to decide how the Chair will deal with that. I do ask the hon. member again to do the proper thing with respect to this institution.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, although I am the target of the member's comment, I do not at all insist, personally, that he withdraw his remarks, but they are still disgraceful comments about another Quebecer and Canadian.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Because it's true.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Unfortunately, that is becoming more and more his style.
Mr. Speaker, I was elected twice in Quebec, as a Quebecer and as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and its leader. The member who just accused me of treason was elected as a Liberal. He was never elected as a separatist.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will not say that the member for Shefford betrayed the mandate his constituents gave him, but others might say so at an appropriate time.
As far as I am concerned, I ran as a Conservative and in spite of my faults, I remain a Conservative, because I am a man of my word. I respect the commitment that I gave to Quebecers, just like those who were elected as Liberals have respected their commitment, and similarly for the New Democrats. Mr. Edmonston respected his commitment to Quebecers. Those who refused and went back on their formal commitment-


Gilles Duceppe: Call an election, then.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to Quebecers are not sitting here or there, but behind.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the government House leader. Would he indicate to the House the business for tomorrow as well as for Monday and Tbesday and the remaining days of next week.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the House will complete third reading of Bill C-81, an act to provide for a referendum for the Constitution of Canada, this afternoon.
I would like to formally designate tomorrow, Friday, June 5, as an allotted day. Monday the government will call Bill C-41, the Energy Emergency Act, for completion of report and third reading; Bill C-78, an act to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities, for second reading. Hopefully we will begin report stage of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
On Tbesday, June 9, we will hopefully complete second reading of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to enact the children's special allowances act.
I will be in discussion with my colleague and the New Democratic Party's representative in terms of business for the rest of next week.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the business of the House. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the government House leader if he intends to revise the method for recording votes in this House, especially after the disgraceful incidents of last night, led by a small group of members who unduly held back all the support staff of the House of Commons for hours and hours.
June 4, 1992

I think it is obvious that today, in this modern era, the Parliament of Canada should have a much faster, more efficient voting system than the one we must use when some members engage in systematic obstruction as they did last night.
In closing, I will simply remind the government House leader of the McGrath committee's recommendations. All members of that committee-Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats-unanimously recommended changing the voting system in this House to make it more efficient. I trust that the parliamentary committee studying the reform of parliamentaiy procedure will deal urgently with this matter so that situations like yesterday's do not recur in future.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the incident last night reminded me of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker's description of this institution which he sometimes described as the only insane asylum in the country in control of the inmates.
Last night it seemed that particularly dangerous inmates were in control, hence the suggestion of the hon. member that we look at some way of constraining this exuberant waste of everybody's time. The basically childish performance we saw last night of unnecessarily prolonging the endurance of this House is something we could re-examine in terms of the rules of this place and find a way-electronic voting is certainly a component of that-in which people who watch either in the galleries or on television are not brought to shame and tears as they see this place function.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to House business and perhaps with not too much commentary on the exchange between the House leader and the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.
I must say before we get too far so we can get on to debate and not have a point of order all afternoon that there were members on all sides, some wearing hats that some people took exception to, that did not help the troubled waters that we all knew were here.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the government House leader for earlier today introducing Bill C-84. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, under whose name it is, is not here today. I must say it is an
Points of Order
interesting bill. I have not fully digested it. It is a heck of a lot more complicated than I thought, but I am hoping that in the consultations the government House leader has with the other parties in this coming week that there may be an agreement. I think there is a disposition on all sides to move this along almost in a single day so that this bill could be debated, concluded, and out of the way certainly by July 1.
If we are talking about 125 years, there would not be a more fitting tribute to people who really sacrificed for this country to make sure this omission was corrected.
I say that seriously and congratulate the minister very much.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I am always a little bit reluctant to rise in this House to chastise any of the members but perhaps Mr. Speaker can give me some direction as to whether what I am bringing up is a point of order or a point of privilege.
Today, if I understood correctly, we had one hon. member in this House calling another member a traitor. I think that this kind of language is completely unacceptable to this House. Notwithstanding that we had the Prime Minister saying that he did not mind this kind of language being addressed to him and he gave the reasons for it, I personally as a member of this House take umbrage at the fact that one hon. member can call another hon. member a traitor and not have any repercussions at all.
Mr. Speaker, as the spokesperson for us in this House, I call upon you to consider a decision that at the very least the member who used this word against another member be seriously reprimanded and that we demand that those words be withdrawn from the record of this House of Commons.
We are not going to be played as the buffoons because there are a few hon. members here who can step out at any time and call other members names which have never been acceptable in this House and which I hope will never become acceptable here, Mr. Speaker.

June 4, 1992
Points of Order


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I was rising earlier in the same vein, not so much to comment on the language itself, but to say that it is not up to any individual member, even if that member is the Prime Minister, to decide what language is acceptable or unacceptable to the House. The Prime Minister, and it may have been gracious of him to do so, said that he was not bothered by the language that was used. I hate to see the precedent set by which individual members decide what is acceptable.
It is up to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to decide what is acceptable. I would hope that you would consider some way of establishing that to be the case. I understand the difficulty that we were all in at that particular moment, but I would hope that we would not let this become a precedent.
If members use unacceptable language, that is unacceptable language whether or not a particular member is prepared to accept it. I am not even sure whether in this case the language itself or the word itself should be debated but what I am looking at here is the procedural point of who is it, where is the locus of authority with respect to what is regarded as acceptable and not acceptable. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take that under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the House. I have listened very carefully to interventions from both colleagues who have been in this place a long time.
First of all, I have ruled that the comments that were made are unacceptable and they are unparliamentary and they are to be withdrawn.
Second, if they are not withdrawn, then I shall find my own way to discipline that particular member.
They are absolutely unacceptable. The hon. member knows they are unacceptable. If the hon. member wants to rise in his place and address this Chamber again, the hon. member is going to have to withdraw.


VOTING PROCEDURE
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order, the same as the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.
My understanding is that Hansard is not printed yet because there were mistakes in recording the votes. Apparently some of the members who were twinned appear as having voted. This is why I support the idea that we should have a change in voting patterns and we should go into the 21st century and have electronic voting, as was suggested by the McGrath commission.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to look into it. I am sure that you will do it in your wisdom.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure I can share will all members of the House the particular recommendation of the McGrath commission to which the hon. member for Calgary Northeast refers which has been considered at length.
The hon. government House leader indicated perhaps with electronic voting things could be expeditiously carried out. As your Speaker, I am quite prepared to do that if, of course, there is sufficient disposition in that direction.
I would say to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast the proposition is not quite as simple as it may seem. He may want to discuss that with me and perhaps others in greater detail. Certainly the hon. member raises a matter of importance to the House which was dealt with in the sense that a recommendation was made by the McGrath commission.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, on the same point raised by the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, I would like to say that we were accused of using obstructive tactics last night when we asked for the votes. We did that to force people who hid behind their party to come out and show themselves. It was the purpose of the votes as it is always the case. When members ask for a roll call in the House, it is for this reason.
Last night, we unfortunately witnessed here an incredible circus. One would have really thought it was the far west with cowboys. It was awful to watch the circus which took place here. I do not know whether you watched it on television, but it was incredible. We saw people with no tie and no decorum, while, as far as we are concerned, we are repeatly told to respect this House.

Last night, I honestly admit that it was a good thing they did not give hon. members a breathalyzer test because I swear there were a few who would have registered more than .08.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members, as is their right, are expressing some dissatisfaction with the bench yesterday. I will take them into consideration and see if I can be of some assistance. I am sure the hon. member would not want to go too far in those remarks.


BILL C-78
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are still on House business. If we are, I have a question for the government House leader concerning Bill C-78. It is omnibus legislation dealing with a number of concerns to Canada's disabled population.
I understand the government wants to introduce the bill for second reading on Monday because there is some urgency to it and I accept that.
I would be willing on behalf of the New Democratic Party to assure the minister we would be prepared to pass that bill with one speaker per party and go through all stages at one time. Unfortunately, because of a prior commitment I cannot be here Monday but I and the NDP caucus would certainly be willing to do that on Tuesday.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the offer of the hon. member. I do know this particular piece of legislation emerged really from an all-party committee under the chairmanship of my friend and colleague, the member for Oxford.
I know there is wide support generally. We have not been able to get the unanimous support needed to treat the bill at all three stages. We will continue to try, but that remains an obstacle. I cannot commit to the hon. member that we will proceed in that way, but I will commit to try to seek that kind of procedure.
The hon. member has been one of the staunchest supporters and workers on this and I appreciate his desire to be here. I hope he will appreciate it is not to keep him out of the involvement that we scheduled it for Monday. The problem is the House adjourns on June 23 and there is so much legislation to go through. I need to
Points of Order
plan around ministerial schedules and hopefully around the schedules of critics in the opposition.
I will take his representation. We will see what we can do. I know the hon. member has contributed substantially to the development of this legislation and I would like him to be here to speak on its behalf.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear I do not view it being necessary that I be present on Monday, if that is the timetable that is established. My caucus would still be committed to passing the bill at all three stages with one speaker per party on Monday.


WESTRAY COAL MINE DOCUMENTS
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a point to the government House leader. The Minister for Small Businesses and Tourism stayed in the House for some time but had to leave because of other commitments.
This has to do with the tabling of documents regarding Westray this morning. There were a substantial number of items that we believe should have been included in those documents to be tabled this morning, particularly those arising from question No. 437 which was put on the Order Paper by my colleague, the member for Churchill, in December 1990 and answered in part on March 18, 1991.
At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that correspondence and calls received by the office of the Prime Minister regarding the Westray coal mine project are noted and forwarded to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology for his information and consideration.
The point to the government House leader is that in correspondence, the member for Churchill, the Official Opposition and I have asked that those documents be included among those that were tabled this morning, but they were not. I would ask the government House leader to indicate whether or not we might expect to have those tabled very soon.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has asked for is private correspondence between ministers.

June 4, 1992
Privilege
He will know the longstanding constitutional tradition that cabinet confidences cannot be released for good and valid reasons he will understand. Indeed, such is the strength of that position that Beauchesne's makes it very clear it is out of order to ask for the production of such documents. I refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 446, section 3:
Minister's correspondence of a personal nature, or dealing with constituency of general political matters, should not be identified with government papers and therefore should not be subject to production in the House.
Beauchesne's covers it quite well. I want also to make the point that the documents that were tabled, plus those that are available at Industry, Science and Technology, will enable anybody to examine the total history of this project. There really is no relevant information missing that would prevent detailed analysis in order for the hon. member or anybody else to reach whatever conclusion they might want to.


PRIVILEGE
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, both you and the majority of members of this House of Commons will know that since I was first elected three and a half years ago, one of the issues I have brought to the floor of this House and I raise at every opportunity, both within this House and in the Canadian community at large, is the issue of violence against women.
Earlier today, the member for Broadview-Greenwood told this House that I made statements that imputed his motives and impeded him in his work as a member of Parliament. The record will show that is simply not the case. At no point in my statement yesterday did I impute motives to the member or say that he acted out of any malicious intent.
What he did in publishing the addresses of shelters for battered women in the Toronto area was certainly wrong, but I never said or implied that he acted out of an intent to endanger lives. I want to quote from what I said: "Shelters for battered women give out their phone numbers but not their addresses because it would endanger the lives of women and children". The member published and distributed shelter addresses without consulting them. This is true. Abusive men have followed and killed their partners and have also killed shelter workers in transition homes. This is true. The member said that millions of dollars were being spent on shelters and that we are advocating that women go to places that are not secure.
The alternative is staying in an abusive situation. Shelters are not secure when abusive men find out where they are. The member said the addresses were already public information. But there is a difference between finding the addresses at the public library after research and circulating them to thousands of people.
Most organizations on the list do not publicly give out their addresses. They are trying to erase public records of their addresses and publish only their phone numbers.
The member has actually missed the point of my statement which was, as I clearly stated, to urge all members of Parliament to consult with women's groups in their ridings before sending out information on violence against women. The member's troubles over this matter could have been avoided had he contacted the groups he listed beforehand.
I maintain my recommendation to all members of this House to consult with groups in their ridings as to what is an appropriate tool for education on this matter and what to enclose with it in terms of support systems available in their communities for survivors of violence.
Not all members have the experience of working in a shelter for battered women. I understand they are therefore unaware of the effects some of their actions may have on those women and children. But a review of my statement will show no inaccuracies whatsoever.
I had hoped that my statement would be taken in a constructive manner by all members of Parliament. Instead, I find that the member seems to not have learned from that.
Violence against women is an extremely important issue to me and to many members in this House. It is my responsibility to urge members to avoid the situation the member for Broadview-Greenwood put himself into for the sake of abused women and children in all our ridings across Canada.
June 4, 1992

What he did was wrong, publishing the addresses of shelters for battered women. It was wrong. It did put women into increased danger. It was not intentionally wrong, I understand that, but it was wrong all the same.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, the member seems to persist. In her comments, she again states that the member for Broadview-Greenwood has put women at risk by doing what he did. I find that unacceptable.
I rise to support the point of privilege raised by my colleague, the member for Broadview-Greenwood. Let us put this matter into perspective. I believe that the member for Broadview-Greenwood put it into perspective this morning when he indicated the background to the dissemination of that particular information.
He was giving a speech in the House of Commons on the issue of violence against women and children. He was commenting about a publication entitled Women's Country which was given to him by a victim, a battered woman. He was subsequently called for information about women's shelters. In his opinion and in his judgment he felt that information was needed for women who are in that situation to provide information where these women might go to seek out help.
The member, as the member who just spoke, was trying to be helpful. Yet the member who is accusing him of putting women at risk, and I would submit for political reasons given the nature of my colleague's opposition that being a former NDP, chose to rise in the House of Commons-


An hon. member:: Order, order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Please. On a point of order the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I thought the debate was going on a fairly high level until the last person got up.
We try to not impute motives in this House. I have read the statement from the member for New Westminster-Burnaby and there is no mention of the party affiliation of the member for Broadview-Greenwood.
Privilege
There is a very important discussion about a very sensitive issue. I think the member who just spoke is going beyond any reasonable remarks in what he just said. I think he owes an apology not only to the hon. member but to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please.
I think the issue is an important one, but this is not the appropriate time for a debate on this question of privilege. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood stated his position this morning, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway gave his as well. I can recognize the hon. member for York South-Weston again, but I would ask him to be brief so that we can get back to the subject before the House today.
With this proviso, I recognize the hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the NDP member stated again today, just a few moments ago, that the actions of the member for Broadview-Greenwood have put women at risk.
He is accusing the member of actually putting these women at risk. But the member for New Westminster- Burnaby ought to grant the member the common courtesy of pointing out that a number of these shelters and hostels publish their addresses in the Toronto directory.
She knows that, yet she chose in her selective submissions not to point that information out. Perhaps she can take issue with hostels like Nellie's in Toronto and other hostels that publish that information. Rather than speaking to the member privately, the NDP member chose to rise in the House to give the issue a higher profile to score some cheap political NDP points by attacking the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would ask members to show a little restraint. This is a very delicate subject and could easily lead to an explosive debate.
I will again recognize the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby. I would ask her to be brief, and I hope this will conclude the debate.

Government Orders
[English]	GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify. I want to set the record straight.
I did contact the member in his constituency office in Toronto over a week ago when I began to get a number of calls from women's organizations that work to protect women and children who are in abusive and dangerous situations, sharing their concern with me.
The reason I have raised it in the House of Commons, as I have clearly stated, is I think all members of Parliament in this House should be aware of the implications of printing the addresses of shelters for battered women and abused children. That has very severe ramifications.
I would also hope all members of Parliament in this House, who have known me over the last three and a half years as I have raised these issues consistently with concern and compassion, know I would not in any way use this as a cheap political manoeuvre, as was stated.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Order, please, 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."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 4th day of June, 1992, at 5.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque,
Secretary to the Governor General.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-81, an act to provide for referen-dums on the Constitution of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There were four minutes left for questions and comments after the speech by the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise for the four minutes but for the 20 minutes I am allowed in this debate. I will let someone else take these four minutes and wait my turn for the 20-minute speech I am allowed.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member on the government side who spoke to Bill C-81, an act to provide for referen-dums on the Constitution of Canada. I have a two-part question, and I think the hon. member should be able to give a straight answer.
The hon. member said that a referendum was extremely important in order to consult the people today, that we should trust Canadians, and that we should not be afraid of what they may decide. If this government is not afraid of what Canadians decide in a referendum, will it conduct a referendum on the goods and services tax?
The second part of my question is as follows: If not, could the government explain why there was no referendum on the goods and services tax? This is a straight question, and I would appreciate a straight answer.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I guess this has some relevance to the debate and I will answer the question, since I think my friend asked it in sincerity.
June 4, 1992

The government is not prepared to put a measure which is already in place to a referendum.
Second, the act implementing the goods and services tax was not submitted to a referendum of the Canadian people because it was part of the election platform of this party in 1988. I can recall being asked numerous questions about it as we went door to door in 1988. It is my belief the Progressive Conservative Party and the government which had a mandate from 1984 to 1988 got a renewed mandate in part because of its commitment to repeal the manufacturers' sales tax and replace it with a consumer-based tax.
I will concede the precise nature of the tax was not defined at that point. An all-party committee subsequently recommended the form of tax which we now have. Representatives of the hon. member's own party participated in that. That has now been implemented and is behind us. If the people of Canada do not approve of the tax, that will be one of the issues on which they will judge the government in the next general election.
That is a matter suitable for adjudication in a general election. Constitutional matters may be open to referendum under certain circumstances, but I do not believe there is a demand, nor should there be a demand, in this country for submitting conventional pieces of legislation to the referendum process.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a singular privilege to speak on third reading of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, and reflect the sentiments and wishes of my constituents from the riding of Winnipeg North.
At the outset I would like to commend the government for recognizing at last the need for a national referendum, which was proposed by the Liberal Party a little over a year ago on April 21, 1991, when my leader formally announced our party's nine-point plan for Canada's new Constitution.
It is high time we referred Canada to all Canadians and not fragmented portions for their final say. A national referendum will give Canadians outside Quebec a chance to tell their fellow citizens in Quebec they are important and essential to the country we know and love. It will give Quebecers a chance to say yes to all other Canadians from sea to sea.
The Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a former
Government Orders
Liberal Prime Minister of our country, once said: "The foundation of a nation is will". I therefore say let the people express this foundation of Canada.
The referendum bill proposed by this government however has some remaining problems. While they call it a referendum, what the Conservatives are really proposing is more of a plebiscite.
A referendum and a plebiscite are not the same, although not infrequently mistakenly interchanged in usage. Allow me to cite a reference book entitled Lawmaking by the People: Referendums and Plebiscites in Canada, by one of our own colleagues, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I quote from page 13 of his book:
The main difference between the two voting devices is therefore that a plebiscite is essentially a public opinion poll, but a referendum automatically binds a government to enact a law (or to refrain from doing so) according to the voters' wishes.
Indeed, what the government is really proposing is more of a plebiscite. What the government has really proposed, if it were not to be bound by the results of the vote, is a plebiscite in the context of this definition. If it were so, it would be the most costly public opinion poll at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of some $100 million at a time of very high unemployment and intense suffering on the part of millions of Canadians without jobs.
But there will be greater suffering without a united Canada. There will be greater disappointment if every Canadian voter is not given the opportunity to express her or his will, her or his voice in a referendum.
I am therefore saddened that the Leader of the New Democratic Party said her party would not support this referendum bill. My sadness was joined by alarm and grave concern when I heard the separatists in this chamber applaud the New Democratic leader and call her courageous. It takes courage to insist that Canadians be given the opportunity to express their will on Canada's new Constitution.
As my leader has repeatedly said: "The Constitution belongs to the people and all Canadians should have the final say on any constitutional reform package". My leader had a vision and the courage to express that vision on this issue a little more than a year ago.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
It is true the bill as we have it today is not a perfect one. Our caucus however was pleased when the government accepted many amendments we introduced. I still have some concerns. The government has not made a commitment to not pass the constitutional reform package without the clear majority from each of the four regions of Canada: the Atlantic, Ontario, the west and Quebec.
The government must commit itself to respect not only a national majority but a clear majority from each of the four regions of our nation. The government should not use this bill as a tool to simply manipulate the provinces into agreement. The referendum should be an essential component of the decision-making on the future of Canada.
Let the people of our great democratic country express themselves and determine their future directly on a vital issue such as the issue facing the country today.
In the spirit of our federal country and our proud tradition of protecting minorities while respecting majorities, we should ensure real agreement across the country by demanding that the referendum vote pass in each region of the nation.
If we ask Quebecers with other Canadians if they want to journey further with us but provide no guarantee that we will not swallow their answers in the majority of the rest of the country, what kind of signal are we giving them?
Quebec, like the west and the other unique regions of Canada, must know that its distinctive perspective and separate importance to the country is cherished by the promise that its will will carry weight.
Each region must be able to affirm Canada and we must affirm the importance of that in any referendum we propose. Also, it is important that its mechanism be fair, and that the people of each region of Canada who must choose whether or not to vote and how to do so know that their opinions will be treated with all due respect.
Indeed, the referendum has to be fair not only to each of the regions but also with respect to each side of the question. Once again, the government refuses to provide a framework for fairness. Do we want money to decide the question of our country's future, or will we provide the essential structure of contribution limits to allow the real will of the people to be expressed?
As in any election in Canada, fairness must be ensured by keeping the battle ground level. Spending limits and, more important, contribution limits guard the right of Canadians to make their own decisions and express them unhindered by the absence of wealth or unduly purchased by it.
There should not be an illusion of support due to wealth alone.
I am glad that the government has listened to some opposition concerns, the concerns of the Liberal caucus at amendment time, accepting a number of our amendments.
Last, the government's bill does not ensure fairness in another dimension of administration of a referendum, the development of the question to be asked. The government proposes a few days of parliamentary debate on the wording of the question which would only allow for amendment, not participation, in the wording by opposition parties.
In an issue as important as the future of our country should not we, as members of Parliament, abandon our disagreements and allow the people of Canada instead to benefit from our differences by consulting together to present them with the most clear and helpful question possible?
The Prime Minister has assured reporters that his lack of popularity would not interfere with the determining of the future of this country through a referendum. He is willing to trust the people of Canada to put aside partisan political considerations to express truly their will for Canada. The people are to transcend partisanship in this essential issue but the elected members of this government, unwilling to let their control of events slip in the slightest, even for the sake of Canada, are not.
This is not consistent nor does it give Canada and Canadians their best chance before a referendum.
The moral force of popular will is the essence of a referendum. Whether it is legally or not legally binding is merely a debate on legal technicality. Moral force goes beyond the confines of technicalities. Moral force is at a higher level, on a higher pedestal. Moral force expresses, in the context of the national unity debate before the country, the will of the people, the will of all Canadians from sea to sea. In turn moral power or strength depends on the fairness of the process, how the referendum is conducted and its results interpreted and accepted.
June 4, 1992

At this juncture I would like to mention the efforts of two Canadian scientists, Dr. Jon Gerrard, a professor of paediatrics at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine, and Dr. Jean-Pierre Despres, a professor at the University of Laval in Quebec City. These two scientists, along with 2,200 others from coast to coast, have signed petitions for a unified country. These scientists come from different cultures and speak different languages and yet they see the need for Canadian unity to ensure the future of science and education in Canada and thereby ensure the future of Canada itself.
Let me quote from the resolution our Canadian scientists have asked me to table in this House:
Be it resolved that we as Canadians rededicate ourselves to a'
renewed spirit of co-operation, to build a nation where tolerance,
diversity and caring for others are hallmarks.
Let this spirit of co-operation to build a renewed nation begin in this House today. Let us have the courage to consult with all Canadians. Let us, the elected representatives of the people, irrespective of political stripes, listen to their will and understand their hearts and minds. It has been said salus populi suprema lex est, the will of the people is the supreme law. Indeed the foundation of a nation is will as I said in the beginning.
I believe Canadians have the will to hold their country tight, to keep it from breaking. Do we have the will in Parliament to let them show their love for this land? I pray to God we do, Mr. Speaker.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I know there are many members who would like to make questions and comments on that excellent speech of my hon. friend from Winnipeg who truly demonstrates a patriotism that many of us could well emulate.
I want to ask him one question and make one comment. I will do the comment first.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Short.
Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Very short. I know my friend from Saint-Denis is anxious and I will be quick.
The comment that I have is concerning the government's participation in the referendum campaign. I just want to put on the record that if the government chooses to contribute to a registered referendum committee, that contribution will be reported by that committee. This is something of an elaboration on the comments of the Minister of Labour earlier today.
The bill does not affect the government's ability to carry on its business during a referendum campaign. Any government spending on the referendum would of course be subject to the usual scrutiny of all government spending. Governments of course are accountable. Finally, this bill of course does not authorize any expenditures other than those necessary on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer. There are no other expenditures authorized such as advertising or promotion expenditures. Anything like that would have to be voted on of course by Parliament.
My question for the hon. member has this point. The hon. member may have heard earlier today in Question Period our colleague from Kitchener put a question to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs having to do with the proposed preamble to the Constitution which the joint committee recommended. I know that my friend has just demonstrated that he has a great love for fine language. I am wondering whether he himself is in support of the proposed preamble and whether he would do his share to see that it is incorporated in our final constitutional document.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is consent for the following motion:
That four members and two staff of the Subcommittee on Acid
Raid of the Standing Committee on Environment be permitted to
travel to Washington, D.C., June 16 to 18, 1992, in relation to its
study on Canada-United States acid raid reduction programs


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It is not in the rules to table motions between comments and questions. I would prefer that that period expire before putting such a motion. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to wait.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
fTranslation]
The hon. member asks if there is unanimous consent to allow him to present a motion.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, because I hope that those or two or three minutes, since time is running out, will not be substracted from the 10 minutes allowed for questions.
I know that the hon. member took the floor at 3.52 p.m., which means that he talked for three minutes. I respectfully submit that there are seven minutes left for an answer from my colleague and for a comment that I would like to make, unless you recognize someone else.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and comments. Certainly I support in essence any preamble that fully describes the spirit and the soul of the country that we together, irrespective of cultures, irrespective of differences, not only tolerate but respect each other. In that spirit I support the principle of the preamble.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker,
I know that the debate is coming to an end. At this point,
I would like, for obvious and very political motives, to be on the record today.
I want to make something clear, and I do this partly because of the speech made by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg who said "the will of the people is supreme". I, Marcel Prud'homme, member for Montreal-Saint-Denis, member representing Quebec in Ottawa, want to be clearly understood.
Regardless of the.past, if there had been a referendum in years gone by, my attitude would have been the same.
I do not know, at this point, if I will abstain from voting or if I will support this legislation, but one thing is certain: I want to be clearly understood. My position is unequivocal: Never, and I mean never, will I recognize a referendum through which a majority from outside Quebec would impose its views on that province. This
means that I would have hoped to see in the bill this issue of regional veto.
I am speaking on behalf of my province. I know that Quebec is a region. I leave it up to Canadians to define their regions. I remember an hon. member who wished that Canada would be divided into five regions. This reminds me of our history class in school when we were taught that there were five regions in Canada. Today, others see four regions. I do not have to get involved in this debate. I will talk on behalf of my region.
I want the record to state clearly that, personally, I will never accept that the rest of Canada dictate its views to Quebec. I will go even farther by saying that I would fight anybody from any political party, including mine, who would believe or who would want people to believe that we can, through a Canadian majority, impose something on my province that it does not want.
Mr. Speaker, there is no point in making a long speech. This is a well-thought comment that I wanted to make in the House.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks made by the member for Saint-Denis. He knows all the admiration I have for him. I agree with what he said. I feel that, as a confederation, we should not, by a pan-Canadian vote, impose a pan-Canadian decision on any province.
I go even further than the member for Saint-Denis. I feel that Alberta surely has the right to be heard. It presently has before its legislature a referendum bill. I really feel that, while we form a confederation, an over-all view should not be imposed on any region or province.
That was by way of a comment.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I suspect there is not that much time left for questions and comments.
The member who recently got up and to whom we are supposed to be directing our questions and comments through the Chair, of course, said that he was going to support this legislation. Then he went on to list a number of the major areas that the Liberals had said must be in the bill.
June 4, 1992

They are important areas like the item that his Liberal colleague just mentioned, which is the whole idea of the double majority where each region's vote is looked at and considered by the government. That is a very important issue.
The issue of real spending limits is also very important. There is the whole issue of making sure that the question that is going to go out to the people of Canada is done in a non-partisan way. All those major areas were defeated by the government.
In addition, there were other suggestions to make sure that the poor, the native people, the ethnic communities of this country and the women who may not have funding can take part in a referendum campaign. That is if they have some means of participating. Unfortunately, under the rules that the government put forward, it is basically a big-buck campaign. If you are rich, you campaign and others are excluded.
The Liberal Party did not get any of these major amendments. One of the things I noticed as I was going through the votes last night was that there is very little time left. We want a referendum. We want a fair referendum in the New Democratic Party, but a lot of the amendments that the Liberals voted with the government on last night, time after time after time, ensure that there will not be a fair referendum.
I ask him: "Why did you vote with the government so many times last night on important amendments? Second, since you did not achieve any of your main goals, how can you support such unfair legislation?" We want the people to decide. Why support this legislation?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I had addressed all those concerns in my debate.
I would only say that there is an overriding concern which is that we should let the people decide irrespective of the imperfections in this bill. If the New Democratic Party agrees but will not give that opportunity for the people to express their will through a referendum, then it is the greatest hypocrisy that I have heard in this Chamber. The referendum will convey the message from Canadians. Let the will of Canadians prevail and not the
Government Orders
analysis that the New Democratic Party is trying to portray.


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jonquiere.
Mrs Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 62, I make the following motion:
That the member for Richelieu now be given the floor.
Mr. Speaker, you may have noted that more than two members rose at once. I therefore make the following motion pursuant to Standing Order 62.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I appreciate the hon. members' patience.
You will understand that my reluctance to proceed too quickly is due to my concern for ensuring full compliance with the Standing Orders of this House and that certain conditions are met before this kind of motion is approved. I wanted to check with the clerks to make sure that such is the case, and indeed it is.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the
nays have it.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Therefore the
motion is lost.
Motion negatived.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in the past few days some members have not acted so eloquently and in a way that befits Quebecers.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
We are at third reading of Bill C-81, the referendum bill. Why are we dealing with a referendum bill today? We must go back to Meech when a premier, by not respecting his signature, created a major constitutional deadlock and the five conditions for Quebec to return to the constitutional fold were not met. As a result, the whole country was in a major impasse.
A year later, the Prime Minister of Canada, decided to try to solve the constitutional problem again. To do so, despite the strong and bitter criticism from many opponents, he created the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee. This committee had a specific purpose: to see how the constitutional amending formula could be changed and also to look into the subject of referendums. We on this committee, chaired by two eminent colleagues, Senator Beaudoin and my fellow member, Mr. Edwards, made the following recommendation: We thought that the federal authorities-


An hon. member:: They have left.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Indeed, our colleagues have left. We thought that the federal authorities should table a referendum bill in the Canadian Parliament. This referendum would be optional. It would be up to the authorities to use it as required. Given the heterogeneous nature of the country, we thought that the bill should provide for a double majority, a national majority and a majority in each of the four regions.
This referendum would not change the Constitution of Canada. Its result would have a political, not a legal value. It would not bind the two levels of government, but it would send an eloquent message.
That was one of the recommendations of the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, because it was felt that in case of a deadlock, we would ultimately have to go to the people.
The Prime Minister subsequently appointed a second constitutional committee, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, to prepare an in-depth analysis of the changes that would have to be made in the Canadian Constitution to rally the provinces, the First Ministers and the people of Canada around the same set of constitutional proposals.
I had the privilege of working on this committee as well. This is what our committee had to say: "We recommend that a federal law be enacted, if deemed appropriate by the Government of Canada, to enable the federal government, at its discretion, to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal, either to confirm the existence of a national consensus or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions".
Both committees recommended that there should be a mechanism, in case of a deadlock, that would allow us to go to the people.
Where are we now? The First Ministers and their representatives met over a period of several weeks and are trying, on the basis of the Beaudoin-Dobbie report's recommendations, to formulate constitutional proposals that will respond to the expectations of all Canadians, not only Quebecers, and of all the provinces.
However, we must still deal with the, perhaps not very palatable but still very real, possibility that we may be faced with a deadlock. If that happens, what is our responsibility as parliamentarians? At the very least, we must ensure legislation is in place that would enable Canadians across the country to say how they see their country and what they want from their country. Under our democratic system, the right of First Ministers to let this country break up because there is a deadlock is superseded by the fundamental right of Canadians to say what they want from their country and whether they agree with the proposed changes.
The government has tabled legislation, Bill C-81, which provides for referendums on the Constitution of Canada. I have examined the bill, and there are many aspects I do not like. For instance, I felt it was very important, in a Canadian referendum, to be able to respect the differences that exist across the country, especially in Quebec, which since 1982 has not been a party to this constitutional agreement and which as a distinct society asked for certain specific powers and got no for an answer as a result of the demise of Meech.
I would have liked to see a double majority, in other words provision in the legislation that requires a majority both across Canada and in each of Canada's four major regions. The west must say yes, Ontario must say yes, the
June 4, 1992

maritimes must say yes and Quebec as well. This is not only a matter of vision but also a way to avoid the kind of situation that caused the demise of Meech Lake, when a single First Minister, because he refused to sign his name, prevented the Constitution from being amended and Quebec from turning to the constitutional fold.
We could have the same situation if a First Minister were to say: "I am committed to respecting the decision of my province in a referendum". In that case, we might get the same result as we did after Meech, which means Quebec would not be able to go after its veto, with all the consequences that would entail.
I had a second amendment I wanted the House of Commons to approve. It was about spending ceilings which would ensure that yes committees or no committees would never have an undue advantage over each other, based on the funds available to each side.
I would refer to it as an inequity situation in a referendum. That is the context in which I first tabled amendments for consideration before the legislative committee, amendments not unlike many that were considered at the time of the 1980 referendum in Quebec. Then I tabled the same amendments before this House so that they could be disposed of. Our Speaker ruled that the amendments-not just mine, but those of opposition members as well; there were five in all along that line-were out of order in that they went beyond the scope of the bill. And there is no going back on this ruling of the Speaker.
There is nothing stopping our Prime Minister or opposition leaders from giving the people of Canada the assurance that the Canadian majority will not decide for Quebec. Nothing is stopping our Prime Minister and opposition leaders from making such commitments.
On the other hand, votes were taken in this House yesterday on the amendments relating to the ceiling on expenditures as well as and the yes and no umbrellas and these were defeated. One hundred and eleven members voted against and 68 for the amendment I had tabled to ensure that, if a referendum were to be held in Canada, it would be the fairest possible. That being said, I suggest that democracy means allowing a member to put forward
Government Orders
proposals to amend a bill and letting his colleagues decide, based on their own knowledge and conscience.
In that context, what is in the best interest of Canada? Indeed, we may decide we would rather have no bill than to have one that is flawed. In that case, what would happen? The result would be that, in the event of a constitutional impasse, we would be stuck. I maintain that we are better off with a flawed piece of legislation than to have no way of consulting the people of Canada in the event of an impasse.


Louis Plamondon: That is no piece of legislation. It is a hold-up on democracy.


An hon. member:: There are two peoples in Canada.


An hon. member:: It is not worth it. It is a waste of money.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Moreover, if we do not have a referendum act, the people of Canada could well be the first to criticize us the most sharply for having failed, as members of Parliament, to afford them protection in the event of an impasse. And that is our duty as parliamentarians.
I could rise in this House tonight-as a matter of fact it would look good if Jean-Pierre Blackburn rose and voted no-and vote against this bill because it does not provide for a ceiling on expenditures as I hoped it would. It would look good-
Our hon. friend will get a chance to speak in a moment, if he would just wait his turn. It would look good indeed. But would it be the responsible thing to do?
I sat on the Beaudoin-Edwards committee where members of this House did recommend that there be a referendum act. Later, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee recommended the same thing. In that context, we do need a referendum act. We do because of the threat of an impasse. That is also why I intend to support the principle of this referendum bill, as imperfect as it may be, as I did by the way in second reading. Unlike the members from the Bloc Quebecois, however, I suited my action to my words. I tabled amendments and attended the legislative committee for that purpose. Yesterday evening, my hon. colleagues had the opportunity-

Government Orders


Louis Plamondon: Not one single of them was passed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Out of respect for the people watching us, I would call upon all hon. members to make an effort in terms of self-restraint so that democracy can prevail in this House, in the greatest freedom and respect for individuals.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, it is in this
context that-


Benoît Tremblay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The member for
Rosemont has the floor.


Benoît Tremblay: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you want to maintain some order. Could you ask our colleague opposite to be a little more professional when
he speaks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This was not a point of order. The member for Jonquiere has the floor.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Well, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to these members who would not stop talking but who did not put their words into actions and did not present any amendments to try to improve this bill, to try to really protect the interests of Quebec, they really could care less.
This being said, I would point out again that section 3 of the bill as it now stands could imply that there will be a referendum either in some provinces or across Canada. I also want to tell this House that, a few days ago, I had the privilege of talking to the Quebec Premier, Mr. Bourassa. For the time being, nothing can let us presume that, during the referendum, Quebec will or will not follow the rules it has set out and that we are all aware of concerning an umbrella committee for the yes vote and another one for the nos. That will be up to the Quebec government to decide when the time comes.
This being said, I would like to get back to the remarks made by the member for Saint-Denis who said earlier that he did not know if he would abstain tonight when the bill is put to the vote. I too could abstain. I could do
the same.


An hon. member:: How brave of him.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: I could take the same action.


An hon. member:: What a brave man.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: What do Canadians need-


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to the hon. member's speech with a great deal of interest. I hope he makes his speech.
Then he should wait for the vote to see what I will do. I do not want him to get all worked up about what he could do. He should stick to his speech and not get me involved in his comments. He will see what I will do when we vote.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my comments deal with abstaining from voting. We need a referendum law.


An hon. member:: Why?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: This piece of legislation is not perfect but there could be a deadlock and we do not have the right, as parliamentarians, not to provide Canadians with the tool that they would need in such a case. It is in that context that we must make a decision and take our responsibilities.
We have the right and the privilege to make amendments. Members of Parliament have the right and the privilege to vote on these amendments.
I will end my speech with a last comment. During this debate over the last few days, I have seen the members of the Bloc Quebecois rise in this House on numerous occasions. There was little substance in their comments, very little substance.
These people want to be recognized and then they abuse the system because they do not have anything of substance to say. Then again, they criticize us because we use a gag order. Instead, they should show us that they deserve getting additional time. Then we will be pleased to consider their request.
June 4, 1992


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I will not have the opportunity to participate in this debate because there is not enough time. I would have liked to express my views on this bill, but since there is not enough time, I will ask a question of the member for Jonquiere.
If there is a referendum, does the hon. member think that the Prime Minister, or the federal or provincial authorities, must first give Canadians a clear and precise idea of how the result of that exercise will be interpreted? Let me explain.
I want the member to tell me what he thinks of the double majority. I want him to tell me what he thinks of the proposal made by the Liberal Party, which was rejected by the parliamentary committee-he was there-because I know that he was an active member of that committee. He made a great contribution to the work of the committee. The resolution calling for a double majority was rejected because it was beyond the legislative framework proposed by the government. But I am still of the opinion that the Prime Minister of the country must make a statement before the referendum to the effect that if a region of the country, whether it is the Atlantic region, Quebec, Ontario, or the west, has a majority opposing this project, the Prime Minister will not in any way implement it.
Does he agree that the importance of the regions in this country is fundamentally what makes Canada? In my opinion, there are two elements that shape this country and that are fundamental: First and foremost, the linguistic duality, because it is there and it must be recognized and, second, regionalism because it is a fact and a Canadian reality.
Does the member agree that regionalism must in this referendum process be the paramount consideration for the Prime Minister of the country when he will interpret the result of the referendum?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my colleague that what he says was part of the
Government Orders
amendments I tabled both before the legislative committee and in this House. Here is what I proposed:
If a referendum is held in all the provinces of Canada, the Senate or the House of Commons shall not adopt any resolution authorizing the Governor General to issue a proclamation in order to amend the Constitution of Canada where the amendment would directly or indirectly be contrary to the opinion expressed, in a referendum, by a majority of voters in Canada and in each of the four main regions.
Then they are described in detail.
This was part of the amendments other opposition members proposed in various terms at different moments. I dearly wish, you can understand, that party leaders in this House would commit themselves to this. It is presently their prerogative to decide. That is why I wanted the bill amended.
Moreover, and I felt this was important, an amendment of this kind would prevent any premier from declaring: "The decision taken by the people of my province will be binding upon me". Let us take Newfoundland as an example. If this commitment was made in a referendum where there is no regional majority, and the people of Newfoundland said no, our goose would be cooked There can no longer be a veto for Quebec because unanimity is required.
This is why I was referring to a regional majority in order to protect not only the province of Quebec but the three other regions also, and avoid situations of the kind I just described.


Louis Plamondon: I would like to make a comment directed at the hon. member for Jonquiere. I would like to draw his attention to what was said on January 31,1979, by one of his former colleagues, the hon. Roch La Salle. The subject was the referendum proposed by the Liberal Party, which was in power at the time.
Never has such a large Quebec group been so weak in the Liberal caucus. Never has a 60-member group from Quebec betrayed so often the vital interests of the province of Quebec. This needs to be said, Mr. Speaker, and a bill is not going to solve those problems.
He was talking about a possible referendum bill. Ironic, is it not? Mr. Roch La Salle, that same January 31, 1979, said also:
The Prime Minister, in the wake of his fiasco and monumental failure on the political and economic fronts, has designed this tool to enhance his image as the great savior of confederation. Actually he is responsible for and the originator of our present problems with his team riding his coattails and not daring to speak up.
It seems to me this is almost prophetic as far as you are concerned, the hon. member for Jonquiere. Note that, as a Conservative member of Parliament, Mr. La Salle had guts when he was on the opposition side. That time is over. He was not ashamed of standing up and talking.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
"Never, he said, would I accept to be afraid of the good judgement of Quebecers in their own referendum." Let us trust the people of Quebec, he said in that speech. Here is the truth. This is my first question and I would appreciate your comments.
The second one concerns the fact that you said that an unworthy law was better that no law at all. This is terrible. Here is a repugnant, immoral bill, without spending limits, something intolerable in a western democratic society. Something never seen before. You do not want a referendum, you want to be able to buy the conscience of citizens and block Quebec's aspirations.
This is why I am asking you and all Conservative members from Quebec-on behalf of our growing children, on behalf of senior citizens who fought for years to get what we have in Quebec, on behalf of unemployed workers who dream of sovereignty to find a job at last, on behalf of all those who long for leading this Quebec we have been seeking for generations-I beseech you, please, show courage rather than cowardice and vote against this bill.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: I did not talk about an unworthy bill, but about a flawed bill, which is quite different.
Second, once again I will show the hon. member that when you talk and work hard for changes, changes do sometimes happen.
At first, there was absolutely no spending limit in the bill. With our interventions, it was established at 56.4 cents. That is a step forward. I would have liked to get more. That is only one umbrella committee for the yes side and only one for the side no, because there are two opposing sides. But pursuant to clause 1 of the Constitution: "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 as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
It is on the basis of that clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of the Constitution of 1982 that I argued that we could have one yes committee and one no committee and that we could set a spending limit. But other people told us that pursuant to
clause 2, the Supreme Court of Canada could say that that is unacceptable and contrary to constitutional rules. The future will tell us.
I repeat, I did what I had to do, I moved amendments so that we could have a good bill and my colleagues voted in keeping with democracy. I will not sulk because I did not get what I specifically wanted. We need a referendum bill because, if we face a deadlock without having such a bill at our disposal, the consequences would be serious. So, we have to take our responsibilities.


Philip Edmonston: In the little bit of time we have left, I would like to just mention one figure, and I hope people are listening and watching us on television from coast to coast, from west to east and north to south. The figure I want to mention is 37 cents. It is less than 50 cents. This 37 cents I am talking about is what pensioners received this year from the Canada Pension Plan for an increase in the cost of living; 37 cents. I do not know if you can buy anything at McDonald's for 37 cents. People in the gallery are saying no. I know very few things you can buy for 37 cents.


Mr. Belsher:: It is for a quarter of the year.


Philip Edmonston: That is correct. The member from the government side said the figure is right but it is only for the quarter. That means maybe if our pensioners in this country, French, English and other languages are lucky, they will get more than 37 cents in other quarters of this year. Well that is fine. Perhaps that is the way the government reasons.


An hon. member:: How does this get into the referendum?


Philip Edmonston: It is easy. It is 37 cents to all of our millions of pensioners versus $108 million for a referendum which is not binding.


An hon. member:: Before government advertising.


Philip Edmonston: It is a referendum where there is no control on the expenses. We do not know what the question will be, but generally this referendum is nothing more than some kind of super survey. That is it.
June 4, 1992

We know referendum is not even a proper term. People have said referendum means it is binding and when the people vote the government has to respect their wishes.
This government is not saying that. You know the government is not saying that. This government says it wants to hear from the people, but we have no guarantee whatsoever this government will actually listen and act as the people want.
This government is scornful of popular will. This government did not want a referendum, it wanted a plebiscite. You know the difference between plebiscite and referendum; it is not binding. This is not binding.
My party wants a referendum. We want a fair referendum. I was on the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. The government members know I was and I tried to participate in a positive way. I was fully aware of the fact that even a Liberal member said there had to be a control on the expenses and a double majority.
Then we had Beaudoin-Edwards which said the same thing. Then we had Beaudoin-Dobbie. I served proudly on that committee and tried to be positive. It said we should have control of these expenses and we should have a referendum which is binding, but it is not.
I am disappointed in this bill but I am really disappointed in this debate. This is not a debate at a level ordinary Canadians are going to find relevant. This is a debate we have heard for the past several days where each side of the House is calling the other side traitors, prostitutes, and selling out the country. I do not believe that.
I do not agree with the government but I do not believe this bill is illegitimate. I do not agree with the government but I do not believe certain members did not work as hard as they could, particularly members from Quebec. I know my friend, the hon. member from Jonquiere, has done a commendable job trying to change this bill. He has my admiration and he is a member of the government side.
Some people say if you are against the referendum you are against Canada and you do not want to put any faith in the people. I issue a challenge today to the government members. If you really believe in going to the people, I challenge you. Take the GST to a referendum.
Government Orders
Let us hear the people speak about the GST and bind yourselves to the GST, number one. Let me give you another example.


Mr. McDermid:: What about capital punishment?


Philip Edmonston: We will get to capital punishment but let me get to my speech because I asked the question and I am sure you will respond.
Second, if you believe in the will of the people, the people are up there in the gallery, the people who are listening to us, and those watching on television, if you believe in referendums, if you believe in liberty and democracy, take the free trade deal and put it into a referendum.


John Horton McDermid: We did. It was called the 1988 election.


Philip Edmonston: A referendum. Listen to the people.
If you believe the people are equal and everyone has the same voice, why not control expenses?
Everyone has the same voice. Why not control expenses? What is this deal about 56 cents per person, $5 million or $8 million limit on as many committees as you want? Is that really the way to go? Even people in your own party say: "Come on, get smart, this is not want we need".
I can have admiration for members from any political party because I listen to what they say and I listen to the logic of what they say. I have listened to the Liberals and I have listened to the Conservatives. I disagree with the Conservatives. I disagree with the Liberals. I think the lack of this protection of a double majority and a lack of protection for the expenses are imperfect and are flaws that go to the heart of this bill.
That is really a difference between us and other members of the government and the Liberal Party. I know many Liberal Party members are very unhappy because they want it. I remember my good friend, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel saying: "We have to have this. This double majority is very important". That is one of the reasons we signed on Beaudoin-Dobbie, but you did not get it.
Is it enough not to have this particular tool? Is there an urgency right now for this referendum which is not binding? I do not think there is any urgency at all.

June 4, 1992
Government Orders
While we are talking about the people I do admire on this debate, I must tell you some of the interventions I have not admired because I do not think they were very appropriate.
My friends from the Bloc Quebecois are hon. colleagues. One has been elected here as a member of the Bloc, but I consider them to be more or less the Hari Krishnas of the independent movement. They come out and give very fatuous and not very intellectual arguments. It is almost like what we hear in Quebec. There is a fellow by the name of Charbonneau who sells Vitagro. He used to say: "Parole de Charbonneau, c'est Vitagro qu'il vous faut", or by the word of Charbonneau Vitagro, it is what you need for your plants.
It is like the independence movement in Quebec. If the Independantistes want to convince us, they have to give us more arguments than telling us: "Well, listen this referendum is no good. It is terrible. It is treasonous. It is against the rest of the country", because that is not true. There is nothing treasonous about this. A bad law is a bad law is a bad law. It is as simple as that and $108 million is something the Liberals understand because they are used to spending big bucks.
I have a letter here, dated May 26, 1992, issued by the Liberal Party and it is a fund-raising letter. It is about the referendum. You know what the Liberal Party says? It is signed by the Leader of the Opposition who says: "For many months, I have maintained that the so-called constitutional crisis was caused and fuelled by politicians". He is right. He is one of them. Do you know what he says at the end? "If you agree with me, please help us fight for your democratic rights. Please send us $100, $500, $200, $50-there is nothing less than $50 here-or a special gift". I guess this is the referendum lotto. I do not know but this is a special gift. He is saying: "Help us fight the referendum".
Members on the other side got these fund- raising letters. The point I am trying to make here is when the Liberals were sending off this fund-raising letter asking for $50 or more that would make Tammy Baker proud, they were at the same time getting tossed out by the government on every one of the amendments my good friend the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and others considered crucial to this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows:

the hon. member for St. Boniface-Youth employment; the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre-Job creation; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie-Trade; the hon. member for York West-Employment; the hon. member for Prince George-Buckley Valley-Softwood lumber industry.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of this House is desired:
Bill S-10, an act to incorporate the Green Shield Canada Prepaid Services Association.
Pursuant to Standing Order 135(2), the bill is deemed read the first time and is placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.


REFERENDUM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-81, an act to provide for referen-dums on the Constitution of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, June 3,1992 in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
June 4, 1992


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

Before the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: May I have the attention of the House, please?
There was a problem during Question Period concerning a statement made by the hon. member for Shefford. The hon. member has a long experience in the House of Commons. I have asked him to withdraw his remarks. I think I must ask the hon. member again to withdraw his remarks.

I would like to ask the hon. member, who, as I mentioned earlier, has seen many years of service in this place, if after some reflection he would be prepared to withdraw the remarks that were made. I would hope that the hon. member could find his way clear to do that. I will hear the hon. member.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You know, Mr. Speaker, in the heat of debate, one can say things that one should not. As I certainly would not want to displease you, I am happy to withdraw what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member very much. [English]


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Belair	Boyer
Champagne (Champlain)	Walker
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona) moved: that Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Parole Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak on my private member's bill, Bill C-311, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and Parole Act.
This bill came about as a result of a meeting the Edmonton caucus of Progressive Conservative members of Parliament had with six victims of Larry Takahashi last June. On Friday, June 14, 1991, our Edmonton caucus met with these six victims. We met in Edmonton and we listened to their concerns.
From that meeting we took their concerns here to Ottawa. We discussed them through our caucus system. From that process our Alberta caucus decided to ask the hon. member for St. Albert and me to present a private member's bill on the subject of parole. We did this. We worked diligently over the summer and introduced Bill C-311 on October 8, 1991.
This bill has been co-sponsored by 15 other members of Parliament, which is quite significant. I think this has been the greatest number of co-sponsors of any private
member's bill introduced in the House of Commons. It signifies a great deal of support for this initiative.
I want to say at the outset the bill deals with a number of provisions and I will go through those. The bill could not deal with counselling and treatment for victims of crime because of course a private member's bill cannot add an additional expense to the government.
This bill increases the amount of time that convicted inmates are required to serve before they are eligible for parole. I will not go into the technicalities of the schedules for that, but for violent and dangerous offenders generally, they would have to serve three-quarters of their sentence before being eligible for full parole or mandatory parole and one-half their sentence before they are allowed day parole.
Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), I would like to inform the House of the names of the members who co-sponsored this bill. First I would like to read the Standing Order:
86(3) Notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, not more than twenty Members may jointly second an item under Private Members' Business and may indicate their desire to second any motion in conjunction with the Member in whose name it first appeared on the Notice Paper, by so indicating, in writing to the Clerk of the House, at any time prior to the item being proposed.
All names received pursuant to Standing Order 86(3) shall be appended to the Notice Paper, and that they have. The Notice Paper reads:
Seconders pursuant to Standing Order 86(3):
October 8, 1991-Messrs. Porter, Hughes, Thacker, Dorin, Richardson, Shields, and Fee; Mrs. Sparrow and Feltham; Messrs. Johnson, Van De Walle, O'Kurley, Littlechild, Malone and Edwards
I want to thank my colleagues who co-sponsored this bill with me. It has been very, very important.
Mr. Speaker, as you and members of the House will recall, Larry Ihkahashi was convicted in 1985 of several sexual assaults and he was required to serve in the Mountain Institution in Agassiz, B.C. where he is today.
He was let out on escorted temporary passes to go golfing with unarmed guards. The Vancouver Sun found out about this because a guard in that institution notified the paper that this was happening. The paper ran a story on it. The citizens of Edmonton and across the country were outraged because this person, who was initially charged with sexually assaulting 138 people and sentenced to three life terms and well over 75 years in
June 4, 1992

prison, after a few short years was let out to go golfing with unarmed guards.
The area where he assaulted most of the victims was in south Edmonton in 1985. My riding covers roughly one-third of south Edmonton. This is the middle portion of Edmonton. In addition to the six victims we met with, others contacted me and asked that something be done about it.
The response was Bill C-311 which was introduced on October 8. This bill, as I said, increases the portion of the term of imprisonment that inmates are required to serve. The bill also requires that the National Parole Board be required to consider, at the parole hearing of an inmate, any statement of a victim or witness of an offence committed by that inmate. This is very, very important because up to now, victims have generally been left out of the process.
At the end of the trial the focus of society's attention shifts to the accused. We try to rehabilitate the inmate. We offer counselling and a host of things. We try to give them job skills in prison. We could do much more there.
What I am saying in this bill is that we should pay particular attention to the needs of victims. A lot of them have psychological needs, material needs and needs in the process of administration of justice. They should be given an option of knowing when a prisoner is out on day parole and when they are released and whether that person has made any progress as of that date.
Also at the parole hearing, this bill is saying that the Parole Board should consider the trauma the victims have gone through and their needs because justice is a balancing act.
The bill also requires the notification, which I just mentioned, of when a prisoner is let out on day parole and full parole. These were covered generally in the government Bill C-36 which was passed by the House and is now in the Senate.
There is one thing that has not been covered. This bill has put forward an item for public debate and discussion. That is that a violent and dangerous offender who has been accused more than once, a serial offender, would
Private Members' Business
have sentences which would have to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently. This would reflect society's outrage. We are not saying this should be for all sentences, but for a particular segment, the sentences should be served consecutively.
I am hoping to hear what my opposition colleagues and the government have to say about that aspect of the bill.
I would like to read a couple of letters which I received last June from constituents who are very, very concerned about this just to give an indication to the House of why we brought this bill forward in urging the government to move on the area of parole reform. It did eventually move on parole reform. After I introduced my bill the hon. Solicitor General introduced a bill. The justice committee has held hearings all year and has gone through clause-by-clause study. It is now in the Senate. I would like to quote from a constituent who says: "Balancing the victim's rights with those of the offender are important in considering reforms to the Parole Act. Day passes and other privileges provide opportunities to rehabilitate offenders under controlled situations. Let's not over-react and stop providing these privileges". He then goes on to say: "But let's also keep in mind the anguish of the victims. Our greatest concern should probably be for them". I would agree wholeheartedly with that.
Another constituent wrote me. He said: "I have been viewing with alarm the actions of federal officials administering Parole Board regulations. I would look to our lawmakers in the House of Commons to enact or amend legislation to protect my family and society at large from lax treatments of criminals after they have been convicted and sentenced by the courts." I agree with that, as I am sure most members in the House would also agree.
This constituent went on to say: "I would appreciate it if you would advise me if you are willing and able to indicate some action and when appropriate changes might take place. In this matter, it appears to me that the bureaucrats should not be given discretionary authority which can in effect defeat the punitive and corrective power of the courts and also obviously make possible further criminal acts during the time of a criminal's escorted temporary absence".

June 4, 1992
Private Members' Business
We did follow through. We did listen to our constituents and the people of Edmonton and brought forward this bill. I am pleased to say that I believe it had an impact on the government because the government then brought forward its own bill.
At the meeting with the victims of Larry Takahashi they presented us with a list of nine demands which I would like to go over. I want to read into the record their letter that they gave to us that day. It is addressed to the Solicitor General of Canada, and to the Prime Minister of Canada. It reads as follows:
We as victims feel we have the right and privilege to contest the day passes awarded to Larry Takahashi.
Our first-hand experience is that he is dangerous and psychotic. We further believe that the judicial system is failing in its mandate to protect the public. We are also of the opinion that Larry Thkahashi has a dual, or split, personality. He fooled the public and his family before in believing him to be a "nice" guy and active in the community. He is now doing the same in the prison and they are "falling for it".
This is making a complete mockery of our judicial system. How can we put any kind of trust in a system where three life sentences plus 73 years mean absolutely nothing? There is no credibility; no effectuality deemed by this sentence. What are the repercussions in a society where punishment is not matched to the crime?
This is a letter from six victims of Larry Thkahashi who are very, very concerned and in fact scared that he might come back to get them and revisit the crimes.
The demands or requests are as follows:
1.	Three life sentences plus 73 years should indicate the amount of time an offender should serve.
I tried to indicate this in our bill. I am willing to accept other arguments about consecutive sentences, but I think we should go in the direction of saying that a sentence should be a sentence in indicating what three life sentences and 73 years really mean.
2.	There should be a stronger line of communication between the court system and the Parole Board.
We agree with that and I believe Bill C-36 has enacted, in regulation form, some stronger lines of communication.
3.	Dangerous serial rapists should not be awarded the same rights as other offenders. Their time served for eligibility for parole should not be on the same status as someone who commits a lesser offence.
4.	Due to financial considerations, 122 women were denied their rights to appear in court to tell their story about the violence committed against them.
One of the reasons for this is the cost of the time in the court system, but many of these victims, I believe, should have had a right to put their views forward. That is why we included the victim impact statement. For those victims where the charges are dropped, they still can have their say in court through the victim impact statement.
They said to me that, as a result, the Solicitor General and the public at large is led to believe that only seven women were raped. That is not true. Many, many more were raped, but due to time and the processes of court, this was not explored.
5.	The court should not have the right to dismiss a victim's charges without prior approval from the victim.
They wanted to give some control to those victims.
In Takahashi's case, 122 voices were not heard. The decision was made on behalf of these women solely on the basis of cost and the trauma that would be incurred. These actions make us feel invisible and discounted.
It is a travesty, I believe, not to listen to the voices of these women.
6.	The victims should have the right to be informed of any changes in status of the prison term of the offender, i.e., day passes or parole.
7.	Victims should have the resources and opportunity to be rehabilitated back into society, just as the offender is.
8.	We believe there should be a recognition of the violence committed against women. Value is attached to the destruction of material objects (such as a broken window) but no value is attached to the destruction of an emotionally sound and well being.
9.	It should be mandatory that the victim impact statement be read by the Parole Board prior to review of the offender's application for parole.
I believe I responded to the concerns of these victims. I believe the government has responded. We are well on our way to dealing with the problem of violence against women. The government has a number of initiatives in that respect and we are working on those. We could do much, much more.
On their point number one, they indicated that a concurrent sentence means nothing. I would like to quote from our meeting. They said that it was sickening that information about Larry Takahashi's recreational passes had to be leaked by a prison guard. They thought that the privacy rules were too strong in this case and that the weight given to the protection of the public should be paramount.
June 4, 1992

Their fourth point was about the more than 130 women who had been attacked. They indicated to us that plea bargaining reduced this to seven charges. This discounted the trauma of 122 women. Many of these women had psychological problems. They are still having psychological problems today.
Some of the marriages of these women broke up. Some of them had family problems. Some of them were not able to work very well and I believe that is a travesty.
They also indicated that our judicial system is eager to rehabilitate the offender but does nothing to offer psychological counselling for victims or to provide any of the material needs of the victims. The victims gave me an example where Larry Takahashi broke into a house and then there was compensation for the window that was broken. However, with this one particular woman, her marriage broke apart. She needed counselling and the government would only cover six sessions of this.
This is seven years after it happened and she is still experiencing that emotional trauma which is terrible.
The police treated her quite badly. I know the police are trying. They are trying their best to implement new rules. As an example, the police took sheets so they could take them to the lab and examine them for evidence. They cut big holes in these sheets.
Two years after they had taken them, the doorbell rang at one of the victim's homes. A delivery person said: "Here are your sheets back". I think that was appalling that they would bring these sheets back with large holes cut out of them without any forewarning or anything. We certainly can do an awful lot more for victims.
The parole legislation, Bill C-36, was introduced by the government. The justice committee, acting as a legislative committee, toured the country. It went to Vancouver where it heard a number of witnesses and then it came to Edmonton. The justice committee, of which I am a member, heard again the victims of Larry Takahashi. At that time we stated we would listen to them-in Bill C-36-and take some of their concerns forward. We did that.
I am very very pleased with the progress. It shows that private members can have an impact. We had 16 mem-
Royal Assent
bers from the Alberta Progressive Conservative caucus act on behalf of people in Edmonton, in Alberta, across Canada, and I am pleased the government has responded.
The official government response, Bill C-36, is not perfect but it goes a long long way in addressing some of these needs. I hope to hear from the government and other members of Parliament on this issue. This is such an important issue for Canadians.
People are losing faith in their justice system and we have to restore that faith. We have to balance the different interests of people acting within the judicial system. We have got to tip the balance back a little bit toward the victim which I believe we have done and that is very important.
I will close with those remarks. I want to thank my colleagues in the Alberta caucus and others who have supported this bill so much. I am looking forward to hearing the views of my colleagues.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I find it most interesting that we are now dealing with this particular matter of Bill C-311.
We have just gone through the process of considering Bill C-36 which went through a large number of the issues that are raised in this bill. I want to say from the outset that we on this side are supportive of some of the recommendations that were in Bill C-36. In fact, we went a long way to try improve Bill C-36 and we did not meet with the success we had hoped for because of the member opposite and by the party opposite.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
[Stage Direction]
June 4, 1992
Private Members' Business
["As no other hon. members wish to participate in the debate, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nPursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Extradition Act -Chapter 13.
Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Competition Act (multi-level
marketing plans and pyramid selling)-Chapter 14.
Bill C-328, An Act respecting National Public Service Week:
Serving Canadians Better-Chapter 15.
Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act -Chapter
16.
Bill C-53, An Act to provide for the imposition of special
economic measures -Chapter 17.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Thorkelson that Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Parole Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committed in the Departmental envelope.
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend Private Members' Hour by the time it has taken to do the Royal Assent and the vote. If we could extend it by that amount of time or until the debate collapses, I would appreciate it.
May I ask for unanimous consent for that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to extend the period of Private Members' Hour for five to 10 minutes, the time it took to go to the Senate? I suggest that the hour be extended to 6.10 p.m.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I will continue on with what I was saying before we had a message from the other place.
My colleague opposite has introduced a measure which in some respects is redundant now with what has
transpired by the government by a very hard-working and dedicated committee of this House dealing with Bill C-36.
That piece of legislation to my mind was an attempt to correct some of the problems. We on this side were supportive in the sense of trying to make the bill better. I believe that in some areas we did make it better and we did have some improvements. I am thinking particularly in the area of victims and their involvement in the parole process, the ability to be there and to have some input, and also to be notified should an inmate in the institution be out on a day parole or on a pass of any sort. You can think of the obvious upset that would occur if you were walking down the street and saw the perpetrator of an offence on you personally walking down the same side of the street.
We tried to get this government to strengthen those areas that would help victims. I have to say, in all candour, the member opposite being part of the government team, that as you peruse the committee records you will see that he and others in his party voted against strengthening the legislation which would help victims. We were really surprised because we thought, given this bill being introduced and the legion of co-sponsors of the bill, and the high regard that those co-sponsors have within his party, that he would have seen to it that his party was supportive of the amendments which were brought forward by this party in order to make the laws that relate to victims and as it relates to those inmates who are out on temporary absences of either escorted or unescorted nature. Instead, he and his colleagues voted nay to those positive amendments. Now he stands in his place and says to all: "Here is a bill that is going to remedy all of the problems" and of which we in this House should be supportive.
I say sure, we should be supportive of some of the recommendations that are here. But where was that support when it counted? Where was that support when it would have made a difference? We all know the process here. We know what is going to happen with this particular bill. When it could have had an effect, when it could have made an impact for victims across this country, his party was not there. In fact, not only was it
June 4, 1992

not there, but it voted against those positive recommendations that came from this party.
The member tells me that it is not true. We will let the Minutes and Proceedings of the committee verify what the situation is. All that I want to say from this side is that we are very, very supportive of legislation which keeps the victims as part of the process in a sense that they can feel the necessary protections of the law and that they have some input into the process. As my colleague opposite has said, the victim becomes a victim of the system as the process unfolds. We did not want to see that happen.
We heard very emotional testimony from the victims of Larry Takahashi. My colleague is more than correct when he says that the system failed those victims and failed them badly. We proposed a strengthening of the law so that the system would be more responsive.
We looked at temporary absences, and the government was very quick to point out to us that temporary absences have a very high success ratio. We drove home the point during the debates in committee on Legere and Gingras that when there is a failure, in most cases it is a tragic failure.
The government prepared a report, the Pepino report, and we on this side co-operated in seeing that those changes and amendments which would strengthen and protect society in the temporary absence situation were, in fact, adopted.
I would say that, as I think back over all of the evidence that we heard and the ways that we approached the problems of parole and temporary absences and all of those problems, we have been most supportive in many of the areas that the government has embarked upon. But I think that as you go through Bill C-311 that it does not really deal with som~ of the real root problems. Mr. Speaker, I knc that you would be concerned about this. We were advised by the Canadian Bar Association that Bill C-36, and therefore this bill, is putting the cart before the horse. It is dealing with parole and with temporary absences before we have dealt with sentencing.


An hon. member:: There are some sentencing provisions within the legislation.


George Saunders Rideout: My colleague tells me that there are some sentencing provisions within this legislation. I say to him that the Canadian Bar Association asked the
Private Members' Business
Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation on sentencing and not to proceed with all these other aspects of parole such as temporary absences.
Logic dictates. It does not take a whole lot of logic to realize the first thing that happens is not that the system deals with how we are going to let the person out of prison. It deals first with how long the person is going to be in prison.
Therefore, we should be dealing with sentencing so that we will know what is going to transpire, the length of sentence and then the type of system we have to put in to allow people to be re-established and reintroduced into society.
Instead it is the cart before the horse and that is wrong. When the Minister of Justice appeared before the committee, I asked her the following question: "When will we have sentencing legislation?" Her response to me was: "Soon". Soon is in the eyes of the beholder.
We were told months ago that the sentencing legislation would brought in. We know we have a summer break and some time in the fall and all other things that are ongoing. Therefore, the chances of sentencing legislation coming before this House and ultimately being dealt with and enacted are very remote. We probably will not see sentencing legislation until after the next election. That is wrong.
We on this side are saying: "Let us not play politics with victims. Let us not play politics with inmates. Let us not play politics with this attitude of law and order that the government has come forward with over the last number of months".
We hear all the business of law and order. They are going to keep society safe. They indicate how things are going to happen and tell the citizens of the country not to worry. Then, when we look at the legislation, at what it says and at what members do when they deal with that legislation, we find they were idle words and nothing really happens.
We on this side of the House say: "Look at the record of the positive things we have tried to put in as far as victims are concerned, the rights of inmates, the corrections to the sentencing system, and weigh them against what has been done by the party opposite and see that the government is very wanting".

June 4, 1992
Private Members' Business


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to join in this discussion of Bill C-311, which was proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and supported by about 15 of his colleagues, which is rather unusual.
This private member's bill concerns sentencing, corrections and conditional release. I interpret the focus of these proposals as being the "early" release of offenders.
The bill raises the questions of when release should occur and indeed if release should ever be granted to some types of offenders.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and all members of the committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, who for over six months have been studying Bill C-36, which covered many points found in Bill C-311. Sometimes a complementary bill can lead to broader, more wide-ranging reforms. I must commend all members who took part in this work. As you no doubt know, this bill is now before the Senate.
Therefore, I would like to devote my allotted time to sharing with this House and Canadians some thoughts about public safety, the criminal justice system and conditional release as it now exists, before we proceed to consider other matters.
Nobody should think that the decision to release an offender to the community is made lightly. The decisionmaking process is careful and extensive. It is quite obvious that any release decisions are bound by court-imposed sentences. I see no merit in discussing the Criminal Code and sentencing processes at this juncture, because the undertaking has been given that the Minister of Justice will be announcing a major initiative in this regard.
I will reserve comment until the sentencing package has been tabled. However, I believe it may be helpful for members to know something of the conditional-release process and the roles and responsibilities of the principal agencies of the Ministry of the Solicitor General: the
Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.
Through these agencies, the Ministry of the Solicitor General as part of our criminal justice system deals with two fundamental issues which lie at the very heart of what defines the quality and the nature of the culture of this country.
The first of these is public safety, an issue which is of paramount importance in terms of the quality of life. The proposals recently considered by the House in Bill C-36 will enshrine in law the principle that the protection of society should be foremost in the minds of those entrusted with the administration of court-imposed sentences in the federal correctional system.
The second issue is human freedom in all its dimensions: the deprivation of human freedom, the respect for human freedom, and the quality and dignity of human freedom. This is an important consideration, given that the most extreme sanction the state is able to impose on its citizens is carried out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
The ministry, through the Parole Board and Correctional Service, is responsible for ensuring the safety of the public, its employees both in federal institutions and in the community, and more than 20,000 offenders under its charge each day of the year; it must carry out this responsibility in a society which places very great importance on the rights and freedoms of all its citizens. How the Correctional Service and Parole Board go about their business is a matter of concern not to just a small minority but to all Canadians.
As I said, on any given day the Correctional Service is responsible for close to 13,000 offenders in federal institutions and over 7,000 on parole or mandatory supervision, and it is recognized by correctional practitioners that the primary objective is to contribute to the protection of society. Through the recent legislation, this perception of their role has been formalized.
The common view might be that police protect the community through the enforcement of laws, while jails, prisons and penitentiaries protect society by keeping criminals locked up so that they cannot commit new crimes. Some might also argue that penitentiaries protect society by serving as a deterrent against crime.
June 4, 1992

These opinions are based on a number of myths about crime, corrections and parole.
It is a myth that all offenders incarcerated in federal prisons are serving sentences for violent crimes-in fact, violent crime constitutes about a tenth of all criminal offences known to police. Furthermore, only a portion of violent offenders receive sentences that entail incarceration in federal institutions.
Another negative perception is the myth that almost all offenders in our federal institutions are repeaters when, in fact, over 60 per cent of federal inmates are serving their first federal term.
There is the myth that most offences are committed by parolees or inmates on mandatory supervision. In fact, less than one per cent of crimes in Canada can be blamed on these individuals. About 12 per cent of those released on full parole are revoked for committing new offences; about 19 per cent of those released on mandatory supervision commit new offences while still under supervision and, of course, not all these offences are serious or violent.
The myth that most conditional releases end in failure continues. In fact, over 99 per cent of temporary absences are completed successfully; roughly 70 per cent of all full paroles are completed successfully and more than one-half of all releases under mandatory supervision are completed successfully.
A further note on this is that about one half of the cases statistically denoted as "failures" are instances where supervisors have returned offenders to penitentiary for non-criminal, technical violations of their release conditions.
Finally, most notably when the matter of capital punishment is the topic, there is the myth that the murder rate in Canada is on the increase. In fact, a number of recent years have seen the number of homicides at its lowest since 1973, before capital punishment was abolished.
These figures suggest that, in all but the most extreme cases, a "lock'em up and throw away the key" approach to corrections is unwarranted. A more constructive correctional philosophy-as is currently held by most correctional professionals-is that society is best protected in the long run through an approach based on the following reality: The vast majority of federal inmates
Private Members' Business
are serving definite sentences and they must, by law, be released at the end of their term.
The remainder, including those serving life sentences, will all, again by law, become eligible for release at some point in their sentence. This means that most offenders will eventually return to the same communities in which they committed the offences.
Within the context of this reality, the best way to contribute to the protection of society over the long term is to motivate all offenders as fully as possible to become law-abiding citizens upon their release. However, a released offender cannot be expected to become a law-abiding citizen if throughout the sentence period he or she has been denied the opportunity of acquiring basic social skills, deprived of any autonomy and stripped of self-respect and human dignity.
To be sure, I recognize that not all offenders will respond to this approach. There will likely always be a need for maximum security institutions which rely primarily on external controls to protect society. I also recognize that under the existing system-even without the punitive measures proposed in Bill C-311-there are individuals whose crimes are so numerous or horrendous that release at any point in their sentences is unthinkable.
However, even in our highest security institution, the Correctional Service believes there should be a strong emphasis on motivating offenders to accept increased responsibility. I might say that the imposition of interminable sentences without the slightest hope of eventual relief could be seen as the surest way to deprive correctional authorities of the most important mechanism for motivating offenders.
In conclusion, our prisons are just as much a part of our community as our hospitals, our schools, our geriatric centres and our psychiatric institutions. The men and women held in our prisons and penitentiaries are all members of our society. Apart from a handful of the incarcerated, all will return to and again become part of the community. The process to facilitate and to safely maintain this reintegration is comprehensive and taken very seriously by those administering it.
It has been my intention to demonstrate that the system now in place is capable of adequate responses to today's correctional problems. The will and the expertise are at hand to administer correctional legislation for the public good.

June 4, 1992
Adjournment Debate
I supported the measures put forward in Bill C-36 and have confidence in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that confirms current practice and imparts a firm sense of direction for correctional practitioners in the coming years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ferland):: As no other hon. members wish to participate in the debate, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word on the unemployment situation in Winnipeg in hope of getting an answer to the questions I asked in this House over the past few months.

The issue of job creation has been raised with this government several times.
In Winnipeg, we now face a situation of at least 43,000 people actively looking for work and about an equal number of people who are on social assistance, either from the provincial or municipal governments. This is a tremendous economic burden being carried by the city.
In the past, governments have sought strategies to include these people and to work through training programs and through, economic development projects to increase the opportunities for their own job.
When asked in the House directly, the minister has consistently refused to change the strategy of the government. When asked in committee, his colleague responsible for western diversification could not think of ways to help out Winnipeg beyond the present plans. It is an intolerable situation to have so many people unemployed in Winnipeg and so few opportunities for training available. In fact, it is becoming a crisis.
I would like to expand on one or two particular problems. First of all, within the aboriginal community in the inner city there are a large number of projects actively involved in training. They have particular needs to act as independent service organizations to reach out and to help these people they are training. In the last several months they have been caught in a battle, both a political battle in Ottawa and a political battle in Manitoba, as to who should control these programs.
I call upon the government to come out with a solution that protects the rights and responsibilities of inner-city training groups to operate independently from government, but at the same time, independent from anyone else's political agenda.
I have met several times with these groups. My colleague from St. Boniface who is here on this debate has also met with them. The member for Winnipeg South Centre has met with them. Several MPs from the Winnipeg area have met to discuss this issue and to insist that the government work together with the groups from the inner city to produce an effective pathfinder strategy.
We have recently come across an even more difficult situation where the department of employment is actually running out of money for dealing with trainees. One of the reasons is the high tuition fees being paid, without question, to some of these schools. The second reason is the improper allocation of moneys in the Manitoba region. The third reason is the cutback in the job creation funds in the last two years which has taken at least $8 million out of the system.
At the very time when the unemployment numbers are higher than ever, at the very time when our needs are tremendous, we find that the government has withdrawn services. I call upon the government today to explain exactly why it cannot help the people of Winnipeg to find training and to find jobs.
June 4, 1992


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I am pleased to remind the hon. member of this government's commitment to all Canadians, including native people.
In April 1989, this government announced the Labour Force Development Strategy.
An essential element of this strategy is the Pathways to Success program and the establishment of native management boards.
The native boards will approve projects for native employment and training, set local, regional and national priorities and ensure that native people's associations are aware of the policy and development of training programs.
The native boards are defining how to develop a greater ability to deliver employment and training services directly. This reflects the principles of the Pathways to Success program and the government's belief that developing the native people's human resources is a priority and is part of this department's commitment to self-sufficiency for aboriginal people.
Some $200 million a year is available for the next four years to help the Pathways to Sucess process.
In cooperation with the native boards, we are looking into the employment and training programs and services available to native poeple.
This is an ideal opportunity for the native community and the government to change its basic working relationship with the native people and adapt to changes in the native communities.
Employment and Immigration Canada and native organizations must co-operate to create a new climate of understanding needed to bring about significant changes in human resource development for all of Canada's aboriginal people, regardless of their background or the region where they live. In this spirit of partnership, many native boards have already been established.
In closing, we are working hard to help all the native groups in Manitoba develop and implement a regional structure for Pathways to Success in that province.
Adjournment Debate


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, it was on March 16 that I raised a couple of questions in the House and pointed out that we were experiencing the worst recession in the history of Canada. I asked what the response of this government was to this recession. I was focusing on youth on that particular day.
If we talk to young people today, they tell us there is so much uncertainty that the future is really very bleak.

There is no certainty at all.

We have an unemployment rate among youth that is almost 17 per cent across Canada. In some cases, it is hovering around the 25 per cent mark. There are over
400,000	young people out of work today as we speak.
Daily, in my constituency young men and women highly motivated and willing to undertake any kind of work activity see me for advice. But there are no jobs. This is a shameful situation.
In February of this year, Canada lost 32,000 full-time jobs and 22,000 of those affected young people. There are roughly 100,000 fewer young people working today than there were a year ago. This is totally unacceptable.
Where are those jobs, jobs, jobs that have been promised by the Prime Minister for this group and for any other age group? The response of the government is cutbacks, cutbacks, cutbacks and inaction or a duplication of what was before. This is simply unacceptable.
Since 1985, 41,000 student jobs have disappeared as a result of this government's budget slashing.
It is important to point out that there is both truth and some exaggeration of truth in what the government has said. I use this analogy: I hire someone for $10 an hour; I cut their salary by $2; I am now paying them $8. If I give them an increase of $1 an hour, I can then claim that I have given them a 12 per cent increase. That happens time and time again with these particular cuts.

June 4, 1992
Adjournment Debate

On four occasions the government decided to cut increases in federal transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education. I think that is the wrong approach, because if we consider the period between 1986 and 1995, there will be from $9 million to $10 million less to spend on our colleges and universities. And the result? Tuition fees have skyrocketed and student debt has increased by leaps and bounds. Today there are even waiting lists for young people, and where I am, in Winnipeg, it can be up to two years. I think that is entirely unacceptable.
The government may have overlooked the fact that by the year 2000, two-thirds of the new jobs that will be available will require 12 years of schooling, while the remaining one-third will require 16. This means we must invest in our colleges and universities as well as in jobs.
The government is destroying the prospects of our young people. As far as productivity is concerned, the future of our country is at risk. We have to look at education as an investment. It is an investment, and if we do not make that investment today, we will pay the price tomorrow.
I would like to repeat what I said not long ago, and if the hon. member wants to challenge that, I will listen to what he has to say. Young people need jobs, education and training. They must take an active part in preparing for their future, and they must believe in what they are doing. They have asked the government for help, but it seems to me the government has chosen to ignore them and refuses to recognize the fact that there is a tremendous need for this kind of help today because of the recession.
Our young people want to believe in their future and they want to make a major contribution to the prosperity of this country. That is what our young people want. If the situation does not change very drastically, these young people will be in a position to effect the changes required following the next federal election.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague from St.
Boniface. Following his question in the House last March 16, insofar as employment and immigration is concerned, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that this government is fully aware of its continued responsibility to assist Canadian students again this year in their search for summer employment.
The Minister of State for Youth, Fitness and Amateur Sport announced the funding for the Challenge '92 Program on March 18, 1992. The Challenge program, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is designed to help students find summer employment and to give them practical work experience that will ease their transition from school to work.
Challenge is focused on assisting those who are facing difficulties in the labour market. Therefore, emphasis is placed on helping high school students, who traditionally have the most difficulty in finding summer employment, and potential and recent high school dropouts who risk continued employment problems.
The Summer Employment/Experience Development (SEED) component of Challenge '92, which pays wage subsidies to employers for hiring students, will be strenghtened by $3 million. The SEED component will be increased from $80 million to $83 million.
It is hoped that SEED will encourage employers from all sectors to participate in the program and to create as. many job opportunities as possible this summer for Canadian students.
Last year the SEED component subsidized over 29,000 employers who created over 54,000 new jobs with a budget of $80 million.
In addition, the funding for the four remaining challenge components will be kept at last year's levels. They will receive the following allocations: student business loans $900,000, business drive for jobs $800,000, native internship program and the Canada Employment Centres for students $12 million.
The Challenge program promotes and encourages employers to create jobs and sponsor on-the-job learning experiences for young people. This program has been very successful since its inception in 1985. It is hoped that it will be even more successful this year in stimulating employers to create jobs for students and to actively participate in providing valuable summer work experience to Canada's future labour force.
June 4, 1992

Challenge '92 will continue to encourage the hiring of designated group members and the creation of activities designed for these groups.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I asked a question to the Prime Minister and the minister of science answered the question.
The question was very specific: What did the government anticipate Mexican workers would be able to purchase on $4.50 per day? The promise of the North American free trade agreement is that we will not only help ourselves, but we will also help the average Mexican worker who will be able to purchase goods from Canada.
I want to cite the minister's answer because it is a dandy. Excuse the poor vocabulary. He said: "At the moment, we have certainly in the automotive industry one-way trade with Mexico. For every car we can bring up here from Mexico, we have to send two and a half to offset this." What the Mexicans will be able to buy from us is two and a half cars. That was the answer. I am seeking perhaps a better response this afternoon.
I was in Mexico the week before last and found out that $4.50 a day is what hundreds of thousands of Mexicans earn. Just that week, they had signed an accord with labour, business and government. In Mexico, they tend to be one and the same. They signed a prosperity agenda to increase productivity in the industry in Mexico. Sound familiar?
The union had decided not to sign that agreement. It held out for two years.
It said it wanted a 25 per cent increase in wages for Mexican labour before it was going to sign. It relented and the accord is signed. Right now Mexicans earn $4.50 a day. Next year they will earn $4.50 a day and the year after they will earn $4.50 a day. So the question remains: What do you anticipate an average Mexican worker will buy from Canada?
Adjournment Debate
My Mexican interpreter suggested to me many many of these people smoke. If they smoke, it costs them $3 a day for a package of cigarettes. There is not a lot left over. I hope they are spending it on better things than cigarettes, nevertheless, it points out a real problem.
I was with a business group in Mexico and I guess I was working incognito. I asked the owner of a massive Maquiladora operation: "Do you have any labour problems down here?" He said: "Absolutely not. We know how to handle these people". They certainly do. They know how to handle them because they give them $4.50 a day and they are going to continue to give them $4.50 a day.
Some of my worst fears were realized. I have to admit one of the operations I went to was immaculate. The working environment was beautiful. The workers seemed quite content. The discussion between the manager and myself went very well until I asked who owned the company and if it was doing very well in profits. As soon as I said that he said: "It is time to move on".
When I got back I looked into the profile of this industry. This industry made 30 per cent more profit in 1990 than it did in 1989. It is doing exceedingly well. I would say it was making obscene profits. Yet it chooses to pay its workers $4.50 a day.
I will end by asking the question yet again. What does this government expect the average Mexican worker to buy from Canadian manufacturers on $4.50 a day?


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, considering the situation of the Mexican work force, the North American free trade agreement will reinforce economic growth throughout North America, including in Mexico.
The hon. member refers to Mexican wage levels and speaks of $4 to $5 per day. Mexican wages are lower than in Canada, although rates of $2 to $3 hourly are the norm in the manufacturing sector. Moreover, wage rates tend to be lower in those industries already more fully integrated into the North American economy. Trade brings growth and growth leads to higher wages for workers.

June 4, 1992
Adjournment Debate
The North American free trade agreement will eliminate most Mexican barriers to exports from Canada. It will also create export-led growth and jobs in Mexico. Mexican consumers, including workers, will also have greater access to and greater capacity to buy competitive Canadian goods such as grains, red meats, fishery products, wood and paper manufactures, and automotive products, including mass transit equipment. This will be good for Mexico and good for Canada.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to review a question I asked during the Question Period of April 20 of this year.
It had to do with the whole economic climate of metropolitan Toronto, a city that used to be an important piston in the economic engine of our country. It would seem to me, as a member of Parliament for York West as part of metropolitan Toronto, the government has either completely ignored the economic fabric of the city or it assumes that somehow metropolitan Toronto is the perceptional fat cat city of Confederation. I am not saying metro Toronto is completely down and out because it is not. At the same time, the government needs to recognize there is also a chronic under-belly to metropolitan Toronto on an economic basis that is in need of some kind of stimulus in order to get that piston operating again, so the engine can function in a much better capacity and put Canadians and their families back to work.
That is essentially the question I asked. The week before I asked that question, the metropolitan Toronto government put out a report suggesting last year alone almost 9,000 Toronto firms either moved out of the city or went bankrupt. As a result of the loss of 9,000 firms in Toronto alone, there was a direct net loss of 65,000 jobs. On top of that another 30,000 jobs were lost as a result of Toronto companies trying to survive by downsizing.
In my own vicinity, the government recently announced it was going to close the Downsview Military
Depot and transfer it to Montreal. An independent study concluded that on an economic basis Montreal was the worst location and the best was Kingston. That meant an automatic loss of 330 direct jobs and also a loss of $106 million in annual contracts that went largely to the metropolitan Toronto area. The number of indirect jobs are probably incalculable but very significant.
When you put the entire package together, it is not one that encourages confidence in the marketplace. It is not one that puts a vibrant Toronto city back to work, but allows it to fester. Confidence is not there and therefore consumer spending is not there.
My question on April 20 is the same one I have this evening. What measures does the government intend to implement immediately so metro Toronto, as an important facet of the economic situation in this country, can return to some degree of normalcy, and the spin-offs we have in metro Toronto as a direct benefit to citizens in Toronto can also be felt in other sectors across the country, and try to begin to put a recovery package in place? It needs some government stimulus or initiatives, rather than a laissez faire attitude, which means the recession will drag on much longer than need be.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I wish to respond in greater detail to the questions of April 29 by the member from York West.
The government shares the concerns of all Canadians with the effects the economic slowdown has had on jobs and unemployment, and is working to strengthen the economy and accelerate the recovery.
While the labour market situation deteriorated in Toronto during the downturn, between 1984 and 1990, a total of 296,000 jobs were created in Toronto and many new businesses were started.
The government's efforts are directed to improving the climate for investment through lower interest rates, lower inflation, lower deficits and greater economic confidence in order that more new businesses start and that existing businesses begin hiring more workers.
June 4, 1992

Successes in bringing down the inflation rate and interest rates to the lowest levels seen in almost 20 years are benefiting Canadians now.
The government's current strategy in the area of training will ensure better employment opportunities for Canadians. Under the labour force development strategy, actual spending for labour market programming is expected to increase 62 per cent over a four year period, from $2.1 billion in 1989-90 to $3.4 billion in 1992-93. This will assist more than 650,000 unemployed Canadians to acquire new skills. Furthermore, the Department of Employment and Immigration Canada will spend an estimated $741 million in 1992-93 in Ontario.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the member's riding, York West, the government spent $3.1 million on the Canadian Jobs Strategy and other programs in 1990-91.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a trade related question that I asked on March 27 of the Minister of Forestry. It is a question on a very important trade matter and that of course has to do with the softwood lumber tariff dispute that we currently have with the United States.
It was on a specific matter. It related to the then actions of the U.S. commerce department, where at the time of its early rulings on our softwood exports to the United States, the commerce department had ruled. It had applied the tariff to not just the actual wood that we exported to the U.S., but in essence the way the tariff was developed. It applied also to the packaging, the labour, and the transportation.
I led, as you know, a delegation of New Democrat MPs to Washington, D.C., where we raised this matter directly with the commerce department. I think our intervention at that time was timely because in fact the commerce department's verification teams as they called them had looked at the situation, determined in most cases they had erred on this point, and in fact they were going to change the policy in that regard.
That was a minor victory for Canada, but of course we are on the verge now of perhaps the biggest trading war
Adjournment Debate
we have had yet with our trading partners in the United States. By the end of this month the commerce department will rule next as to whether in fact we have injured the lumber market in the United States by our exports to the U.S.
My question that I hope the parliamentary secretary can respond to tonight is this. When the Prime Minister visited the President he certainly appeared to have come back empty-handed, given the most recent announcement, particularly raised today by my colleague for Sault Ste. Marie about steel, and the whole countervail actions that are starting to take place there.
I am most interested to hear from the parliamentary secretary as to the success so far of the government in terms of getting the U.S. commerce department to accept or agree to the use of-even weak as it is-the dispute settlement mechanism of the free trade agreement. We have yet to hear whether that is in fact the case.
Can he confirm that even if that is the case, under the free trade agreement really all the dispute settlement mechanism does is determine whether U.S. law was applied correctly.
Certainly an indication of the difficulty we are going to have there is that the U.S. lumber lobby when we met with them basically said well if that is the case, if our law is not tough enough to deal with you up there in Canada, we will just get the law changed.
I hope the parliamentary secretary can bring the House up to date on this. I hope he has some better news for us tonight than what the Prime Minister had to report after his meeting with President Bush because this issue is a critical one for all of Canada and in particular British Columbia and my part of B.C., where a great deal of our lumber exports go into the U.S. market.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to respond to a question raised by my hon. friend concerning the government's actions in response to the U.S. decision to impose a 14.48 per cent tariff on the entry value of lumber shipments to the United States and the effect this is having on reloaders and wholesalers.

June 4, 1992
Adjournment Debate
First, let me state that when the U.S. department of commerce made its preliminary determination of subsidy on March 6, instructions were issued to apply the bonding rate on the price at the border, rather than the price at the mill. The result was that in-Canada transportation costs were incorporated into the calculations and lumber remanufacturers had to post bond on the total value-added price of the lumber.
This problem has been resolved. After representations from the Canadian government, the department of commerce has issued new instructions to U.S. customs to assess the bonds against the value of the lumber at the mill rather than at the border. This change is retroactive to March 12.
Transportation costs will be excluded from the calculations and the remanufacturers will have to post bond only on the value of the timber, rather than the total value-added price. This will provide considerable relief
to the reloader yards, the remanufacturers, and the lumber wholesalers.
Discussions are continuing with the Department of Commerce regarding the U.S.-origin logs issue which is of particular concern to Quebec. As well, the department of commerce agreed to our request for a special blanket bonding. Canadian exporters will not have to post bond on each shipment to the United States, as is normally the case in this process. This will alleviate the administrative burden on Canadian exporters.
In conclusion, our position in this case is unchanged- that is to remain united and fight the case through to the end and win.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ferland):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 5,1992