1993-06-08

Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, Toward 2000, Eliminating Child Poverty relating the characteristics associated with poor households in Canada.
The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response within 150 days.
I have one or two brief comments I would like to make. Not only is this report in our two official languages but inasmuch as we are dealing with the livelihood of peoples who likely cannot read either language we have prepared the report in three other languages that are prevalent in aboriginal communities. These are Cree, Inuvialuit and Inuktitut.
We hope that through the translation, we are providing the essence of this report which was prepared and unanimously supported by the aboriginal affairs committee for submission to Parliament. We hope that our second effort at this will ensure a continued livelihood in the fur business for four of Canada's aboriginal peoples who so much depend on it for self-sufficiency.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-444, an act to provide for full employment in Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I am proud to have the opportunity to introduce my private member's bill entitled an act to provide for full employment in Canada.
This legislation recognizes that high unemployment is an unacceptable waste of both human potential and economic capital. It also recognizes that full employment must be the primary goal of all economic and fiscal policies of the federal government.
This is the surest way to finally end double digit unemployment and poverty and afford Canadian women and men the chance and the dignity of making a living in all regions of the country. Canada works when Canadians work.
This bill is not merely political porturing. It also contains an implementation clause. The bill provides that the Minister of Labour shall prepare a preliminary implementation plan for full employment in Canada and table it in Parliament. The plan will be subject to an annual review, in terms of the objectives to be set for achieving full employment, and a report on the adjustments required to meet the plan's objectives will be

June 8, 1993
Routine Proceedings
prepared within six months after the end of the year and tabled in Parliament.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Ms. McLaughlin 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.


BUS INCIDENTS STATISTICS ACT
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-445, an Act to provide for the collection of statistics respecting incidents investigated by police forces where those incidents manifest evidence of bias against certain identifiable groups.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to introduce this bill that would establish a national bias crime registry. The absence of such a registry has in my view hindered our effectiveness at combating hate and bias crime.
The establishment of a hate crimes registry will shine a spotlight on this issue and enable all officials to look at how various communities have been targeted, whether by individual or organized acts of bias crime.

It is a matter of physical and mental security. Canadians have the right to know whether their government will deal with the problem of hate crimes. I believe that without the information such a registry would provide, any efforts to fight hate crimes will not be very effective. Governments must have adequate annual statistics to be able to take vigorous action.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mrs. Maheu 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.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-446, an act to amend the Criminal Code (defamatory libel).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, this is my first attempt at a private member's bill that deals with something that arose in my life prior to politics.
It is a tendency of the media from time to time to be in such a hurry to be first with a story that they ignore the responsibility side of the freedom which our society provides them.
This bill would add to section 300 of the Criminal Code the provision that everyone who publishes defamatory libel that he knows is false or, and this is the addition, with a reckless disregard for its truth is guilty of an indictable offence.
All we are asking with this legislation is that reporters and journalists, those who publish, make an honest effort to determine whether what they are publishing is true.
We have a second section in this bill which states that if they have made a mistake and then make a very vigorous and sensible effort to correct it, not simply by putting the correction on the back page somewhere but by giving it prominence and making an effort to correct what they did to cause the damage in the first place, there can be a mitigation of sentence.
I draw this to the attention of the House. In particular I draw it to the attention of those who own and publish periodicals and other media. The time has come in society where a greater effort needs to be made to publish the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
June 8, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hawkes 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.


PETITIONS
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present petitions signed by people from southwestern Ontario, from Dutton, West Lome, Fingal, Rodney, Springfield, Samia, Chatham and my own constituency and the village of Wardsville.
The petition calls on the government to the ban a board game being introduced into Canada called serial killer board game, number one edition, and the importation of serial killer cards.
Parents and grandparents strongly object to this game being allowed into Canada. The board game comes complete with a body bag, 25 babies and four serial killer figures. The object of the game is to commit murder and the person with the highest body count is the winner.
This ghoulish game is not in the best interests of children or Canadians of any age. The cards glamorize individuals who have wounded, raped and killed many people.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House and Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to ban the sale of the serial killer board game and serial killer cards and any other such games, cards or materials made available in Canada in order to protect innocent children and Canadian citizens from violence.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, in this first instance I have petitioners who point out that in receipted day care there are deductions for those who use that type of child care while there is no comparable deduction for those parents who choose to
Routine Proceedings
stay at home to raise their children. They feel this is an unfair situation which they would like corrected.
They also point out that there are too many programs in the taxation system that lead to real confusion and they call on the government to simplify the rules and regulations and the programs.
This second group of petitioners ask that deductions for child care be deductible from income for those families with special needs children, and especially for single parent families with special needs children.
They point out that some children require special facilities and services which are extremely costly. They believe that the current laws are unfair, insensitive and discriminatory and that they must be reviewed.


Ron J. Duhamel: This third instance, Madam Speaker, we have petitioners who want a simplification of the language of taxation. They also believe that unemployed workers, workers who are receiving workers' compensation and others who require child care so that they can go to interviews, take training programs, et cetera, should be permitted to do so.
They ask for the elimination of the goods and services tax. They ask for the promotion of the $1,000 interest and investment income deduction to encourage Canadians to bring investment back to Canada. They want an allowance of tax deductions for individuals who work on commission who must purchase their uniforms and/or tools for their employment. They want a cessation of tax loopholes which benefit the wealthy and large corporations, notably deferrals for private family trusts, business and entertainment exemptions, et cetera.
Finally, they want implementation of tax credits which would assist individuals with no or low incomes for the purchase of pharmaceutical drugs for seniors and education expenses for students.


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present five petitions with 167 names from Gordon Grant, Gary Lohmeier, Roy George, Gordon Wright and Jack and Mary Cardiff on behalf of a group of constituents of mine who humbly call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will allow a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept

Routine Proceedings
or reject the two official languages, English and French, for the government and people of Canada.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. The first I wish to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 is one in which people throughout my riding, from Grand Forks to Westbridge to Beaverdell, have expressed concern over the proposed North American free trade agreement.
They suggest that the North American free trade agreement cannot be remedied through renegotiation and they call upon the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present this petition sent to me by Mr. Donald Deprose of Penticton, British Columbia in which the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege on behalf of my constituents to present two petitions under Standing Order 36.
The first petition requests that the minister responsible act immediately to correct the inequity of non-custodial parents in Canada who are allowed an income tax deduction for child support payments while custodial parents are not allowed a similar deduction for their financial contributions to child rearing.
The petitioners point out that custodial parents must pay income tax on child support payments received from non-custodial parents. Therefore they request that this inequity be treated by the minister responsible to ensure
that the child support contributions of both custodial and non-custodial parents be equal for tax purposes.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, my other petition is from persons who feel very strongly that the Canada Labour Code does not contain any limitations on the ability of employers to continue operating with replacement workers during a strike or lockout.
The petitioners cite the lockout of Nationair's 450 flight attendants which started in 1991 as an example of unnecessary picket line violence and confrontation taking place in the absence of such anti-scab legislation.
They therefore urge Parliament to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers by employers during a strike or lockout in the federal jurisdiction, as Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions.
A number of people in the riding of Okanagan-Shuswap as well as people throughout British Columbia are very concerned about the intention to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount, British Columbia and the sale of that water to San Diego and other California markets.
The petitioners ask the government to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh waters to be dammed and diverted to the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.
On behalf of residents throughout British Columbia I submit those petitions.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, this group of petitions concerns the proposed North American trade agreement.
It has resulted in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada. In particular, the new generic versions of brand name drugs will no longer be allowed
June 8, 1993

Routine Proceedings
on the market during the 20-year monopoly on the drug pricing for each.
The petitioners ask the House and this government to reject the proposed North American trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. trade agreement.


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my last petition is with respect to the actions of the government.
These citizens are concerned about and fear that the government has disenfranchised the people of Canada with respect to official languages.
They ask that a referendum of the people be held to accept or reject the two official languages policy that is currently in place for the Government of Canada.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a group of petitions from residents of Squilax, Salmon Arm, Celista, Anglemont, Chase, Vancouver, Seymour Arm, Little Fort, Heffley Creek, Kelowna, Forest Grove, Lac des Roches, Edmonton, Kamloops and a number of other smaller communities.
They like others earlier today have indicated their opposition to any possibility of the interbasin transfer of water for export.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to pass the bill recently introduced in the House that would prohibit interbasin transfer of water for export purposes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of residents of the Indo-Canadian community in Kamloops who point out that there have been changes to section 6 of the Immigration Act which includes the family class for immigration purposes.
They point out that this will set up barriers to family reunification, particularly for young women who traditionally remain dependent on their parents until they marry in India.
The petitioners are simply asking Parliament to re-examine that section of the Immigration Act to ensure that it does not prohibit the reunification of Indo-Canadian families, as well as others of course.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present two petitions including the names of hundreds of people from the riding of Elk Island and elsewhere.
The first petition asks Parliament to strengthen or replace the Young Offenders Act with legislation that would be a stronger deterrent to youth crime.
These petitioners are concerned mostly with repeat violent young offenders and they recommend that there be harsher penalties including work camps. In cases dealing with theft or property damage they suggest financial repayment to the victims of crime.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting today deals with child poverty.
A number of petitioners from Fort Saskatchewan and elsewhere ask Parliament to take the actions necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present over
100,000	signatures on petitions to add to the almost two million signatures that have already been presented in the House by various members and parties.
These petitioners feel that there are still serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system of Canada. They ask that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent in our society.
These petitioners ask the government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act 1972, and the Parole Act accordingly.

June 8, 1993
Government Orders OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that has been certified by the clerk pursuant to Standing Order 36.
This petition includes the signatures of some of my constituents in the riding of Medicine Hat. The petition calls on the Government of Canada to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 496 and 509 could be made Orders for Returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 496 and 509 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East): For each fiscal year since 1985 did the government retain the services of private law firms in Edmonton and, if so, in each case, (a) what was the name of the firm, (b) what amount was received?
Return tabled.

Question No. 509-Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):
For each year since 1985 did the government retain the services of private law firms in Calgary and, if so, in each case, (a) what was the name of the firm (b) what amount was received?
Return tabled.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order
78(3):
That, in relation to Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of report stage and one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

June 8, 1993
Bjornson	Blais
Blenkam	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Chadwick	Chart rand
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Cole
Corbeil	Corbett
Cote	Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	DeBlois
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dobbie
Domra	Dorin
Duplessis	Epp
Fee	Feltham
Ferland	Fontaine
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Guilbault	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Horning
Hughes	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Loiselle	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River)	MacKay
Malone	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McLean
Merrithew	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plourde
Pronovost	Redway
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Shields	Siddon
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thacker	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Himer (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Wilbee Wilson (Swift Current-Maple	Winegard
Creek-Assiniboia)	Worthy-118
	NAYS
	Members
Allmand	Althouse
Assad	Baker
Belair	Bellemare
Benjamin	Berger
Black	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boudria	Breaugh
Butland	Catterall
Clancy	Crawford
Duceppe	Duhamel
Ferguson	Finestone
Flis	Fontana
Foster	FUlton
Gauthier	Grey (Beaver River)
Harb	Harvard
Heap	Hovdebo
Government Orders
Jordan
Karpoff
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Lee
Manley
Mifflin
Nault
Nystrom
Peterson
Proud
Riis
Speller
Tremblay (Rosemont) Whittaker
Kaplan
Keyes
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Mac William
Marleau
Milliken
Now lan
Parker
Phinney
Rideout
Rompkey
Stewart
Wappel
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-60


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tbesday, June 1, consideration of Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, as reported (with amendments) from a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture; and Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When the debate on Bill C-62 was suspended we were considering Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, and the hon. member for Mount Royal had up to eight minutes left to speak. The hon. member for Mount Royal has the floor.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of looking at the amendments to clause 7 of this telecommunications bill. This clause is basically the heart of this government's concepts and design for the telecommunications industry across this land.
I think that the members of the Liberal Party who were sitting at that committee, as well as the other opposition party, were very effective in bringing about changes to the government's legislation. I outlined at the outset that the procedure was most unique.
Although I would like to pursue the changes that are being recommended to clause 7,1 find totally unacceptable the minister's lack of candour, his laying the blame elsewhere rather than on himself, on his ministry, and on

Government Orders
the front bench of this government. The cabinet obviously did not see the same importance in the telecommunications legislation as the minister seemed to and as the industry certainly indicated.
Rather than pushing on his own House leader and rather than being candid and forthright with this industry the minister decided to make some public statements indicating that this bill was being blocked by the opposition parties in filibustering his wonderful bill that he had not even created in the first place and in which he wimped out on some very significant matters within this bill.
He walked into this House after having given a press conference and I quote what he said according to the media:
The federal government will have to strong-arm the opposition to get the bill through the House. It's clear what we're dealing with here is a filibuster. The only way for this to go through is to call time allocation which limits debate on the bill.
That is what the Minister of Communications said to the media as quoted by Jill Vardy in The Financial Post.
The reality of the situation is that this government did not pay very much attention to this bill. It certainly was never on the front burner, although in the glorious rhetoric of the Prime Minister it was one of the things that he mentioned in the 1984 Speech from the Throne.
It was the first issue that came to attention in the document and budget of the now Minister for International Trade and the then Minister of Finance. It sat on the back burner until there was a memorandum of understanding in which the then minister, Flora MacDonald, issued defining type one and type two telecommunications structure. That was in July 1987 just prior to the free trade agreement.
On February 7, 1992 after having waited nine years for this government to act on telecommunications-


An hon. member:: A lot of years.


Sheila Finestone: That is right. Nine whole years for this government to act on telecommunications.
The government finally brought in this bill at the beginning of February 1992. Then this bill sat on the back burner for another year, never even getting to the House for second reading until April 19, 1993.
It finally got reported to this House on May 28 after it had been sent to committee. It had exactly two weeks in committee, one week of which was the Easter break. The government says we are responsible for this government's poor agenda in getting it in here at that time.
Clause by clause started on May 11 and we had two sessions on that day. As I say the House then closed on May 17. We came back, we had two and one-half sitting days to address this bill and it was reported after a late Thursday night session on Friday morning to this House. We started June 1 to debate it here.
This minister has not been able to get his House leader to put it on the debating agenda. He would have had to mix the pot, get in touch with the constituents and tell them to raise a big fuss. Well thank goodness they raised a fuss because otherwise this minister would not have the bill moved past square one.
I want to say to this minister:

You are to blame. I must say to him that he is to blame as well as his government if the industry does not welcome the bill as he would like. He must go to the Senate when the debate in the House is over.

They have called closure time and time again on everything else. I think this now comes to 23 times this government has called closure. Certainly I know I have counted up to 19 or 20 times.
How do we have a normal debate? How do we have constructive changes made? With co-operation on both sides of the House, which I had presumed there was. I was prepared to say to this minister: "You really allowed a better process in committee. You did not use the legislative committee format. You used a subcommittee of the standing committee and we were able to improve this bill most significantly".
June 8, 1993

But no, he had to become a mean person, mean and lily-livered in many ways. I feel very sorry for him for the way he has conducted himself in this particular instance.


An hon. member:: A shameful display.


Sheila Finestone: The delay has been on the government side, certainly not on this side of the debating chamber, this side of the two foils which I think would have been very apt at this time.
With respect to the changes that were brought about here, I just want to touch on an amendment brought in by my colleague from the NDP which relates to the changes under privacy.
Even to getting the privacy matter right, this minister did not get his act together to put a bill together that reflects convergence and how telephony will be linked to the whole cable network, to the whole cable system, to what was happening out there to the world yesterday, never mind today and tomorrow.
We are going to need a bill that is going to bridge the broadcast bill and this telecommunications bill. On the privacy side there is very little that has been done in this bill. The government had to bring another bill in first to tinker with and make this public relations undertaking that we care about privacy.
Therefore we brought in a bill on cellular telephones which are really not telephones but radios. They should have been incorporated as part of this bill, but because there seemed to be some ministerial thought that this would have better PR focus he put it somewhere else.
I think it is important for the bill to go through. I indicated that to the industry from square one. It is unconscionable and a sad moment that the minister and his staff, along with the government and its cabinet, do not know how to take full responsibility. They love to lay the blame somewhere else: "You made us do it". How sad. I think I will get them big boxes of Kleenex.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the hon. member for Mount Royal says that it is important the bill go through. We share that view, but we believe very strongly that the bill should only go through if it is markedly strengthened. That is
Government Orders
the thrust behind the amendments put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.
The hon. member for Mount Royal also talked about the press report that the minister would have to bring the big hammer into the House to ensure that the bill goes through because members of Parliament on this side were filibustering. It has been a long time since the House saw a filibuster. From the time this Parliament began in 1988 it has not been possible to have a filibuster in the House.
If it looks like the debate is getting a bit feisty, a bit meaningful and a bit interesting, the government moves closure yet again so it can ram through its legislation and ensure that meaningful discussion does not take place.
To have the minister reporting to the press that he will have to use the big hammer on the opposition because we are delaying this bill or any other bill in the House is insulting at its very best. The minister could at least have respect for the House by looking a bit embarrassed by those kinds of statements.
With regard to the amendments in Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 it is important to look at the five amendments to the clause as objectives for the telecommunications industry. The first amendment would ensure that the telecommunications infrastructure is used to improve and express Canada's cultural identity.
The government failed to define the imminent convergence between telecommunications carriers and broadcasters. It has produced a visionless entrenchment of the status quo.
Cultural groups across the country are outraged that culture has been expunged from the objectives of the bill. Keith Kelly, national director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, said: "We need to bring telecommunications into the cultural realm and to recognize its increasing importance in the production and delivery of cultural products".
There is no reference in the bill to any responsibility of the telecommunications industry to further the federal government's cultural objectives. The hon. minister is gazing at the ceiling. I might be boring him. These are important points. If the government were to take the opposition as seriously as it takes its friends in the telecommunications industry, we might end up with a good bill.

Government Orders
Multinational businesses are already exploiting telecommunications to circumvent Canadian rules intended to protect and promote culture. Sports Illustrated is publishing a Canadian edition that has little Canadian content, but because it is being beamed across the border and printed in Canada there is nothing the federal government can do or will do. Sports Illustrated is only one example in the print media.
We in Vancouver enjoy The Globe and Mail because it is beamed across the country. There is nothing to stop a whole flood of American publications being printed in Canada and claiming to be Canadian products with Canadian content.
With the bill we have rigid rules for broadcasters to promote and protect Canadian content but no rules for telecommunication industries. I wonder whether the next step will be a change in broadcast policy so they can compete with telecommunications. Pretty soon we will have no rules. We will have deregulation for the entire broadcast-telecommunications sector. Is that the slippery slope this minister is taking us on?
It is important that just around the comer is the convergence of the broadcasting and telecommunications industries. The bill is silent on the issue. If this bill were passed into law, telecommunications companies would be exempt from the rules which apply to broadcasters to promote culture, but they could well be offering the same products as broadcasters.
The small omission in the bill may have huge ramifications. Ottawa will have relinquished any ability to promote Canadian culture in the future. One might ask why there has been such an omission. Was it to satisfy the needs of Quebec nationalists who argue that the federal government should relinquish all control over culture? It is important to take a look at what that means.
The Alliance of Canada Cinemas says: "Accepting a recommendation to delete references to sovereignty, politics and culture would ignore the long-term implications of convergence. It would be bowing to a deregulation fever that may be premature. Many issues relating to the transport of information through telecommunications pipelines remain unanswered, such as access by programming services and compensation for rights contained in material distributed. Moreover, we submit that those advocating the deletion of social and cultural
clauses in this bill have a narrow view of the potential volume of information and business opportunities available. In short, they are not looking past their bottom line at the expense of the greater public interest".
We are here to be concerned about the greater public interest. We see deregulation in the industry again. The government has not learned from the deregulation of the airline industry, deregulation of the railroad industry, deregulation across the country.
Deregulation brings problems and the destruction of the Canadian milieu. It changes us into something other than what Canadians really believe we want to be, that is a united Canada, a Canada with an identity and a Canada we can all be proud of, not a 51st state.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, before I begin to speak on the amendments themselves I would like to draw the attention of the public to the fact that once again the government has used a form of closure or time allocation. It is something like the 47th time this has been used since 1988 when I was sent here by the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. It has been used in a manner that is totally shameless on the part of the government.
Eveiy time there is cause for reasonable debate on a bill, every time there is something the people of Canada are interested in, every time there is something the people of Canada should be told about and there is a debate that should take place, this government has immediately marched in and cut off all meaningful debate.
The government has given little opportunity in most cases for any discussion, whether it be on the GST, the free trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement or major changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I could go on and on. It became so ridiculous, I recall, that two years ago the government brought in a time allocation motion on a bill that was uncontested by the opposition. It would not even talk to the opposition to know the bill it was putting before Parliament was uncontested.
Similarly we have the situation with the telecommunications bill, a bill that could substantially change the way we look into the future. With the major changes taking place in telecommunications technology it seems that

this is a time when we should be looking very carefully at a bill to take us into the 21st century.
Such a bill has been on the books for over four years and the government at the last minute brings in approximately 75 amendments at report stage. The minister will say there are only 53, but if we analyse it we see something like 75 amendments were brought in at the last minute that need careful scrutiny.
This bill was brought in and then gutted and regutted. What we are trying to do here is to include some semblance of reasonableness in the legislation before Parliament.
This particular grouping deals with the telecommunications area and the cultural industry. A semblance of reasonableness was put forward by the various groups that appeared before the legislative committee. They were concerned we were going into the 21st century looking at a changing industry and looking at technological changes that could forever harm the culture of the country. That culture has been slowly building over the past three centuries. It has been slowly building over the last 125 years of the Canadian entity. Now we see major changes occurring because of the telecommunications industry and technological changes.
The crux has to be that we must look at where we are going in the future. We have to look at the legislation before us to ensure there are safeguards for the cultural industry of Canada. We need to listen to the cultural industry within Canada to ensure we are using what it sees as the areas we should be going into and putting them into legislative changes.
After all, these groups have been fighting for their existence for a good number of years. They have been studying and living day to day with the reality that unless we move to ensure the technological industry and the telecommunications industry are looked after as they expand, they could be swept away under a barrage of new technology beaming in from other areas.
As my friend from Mission-Coquitlam has said, we are looking at a number of items. Quoting the Canadian Conference of the Arts, Keith Kelly says that we need to bring telecommunications into the cultural realm and to
Government Orders
recognize its increasing importance in the production and delivery of cultural products.
That is a telling phrase. It is essential to the whole argument of where we are going in the future. We have to ensure that within the bill there is reference and provision made for a cultural entity within the telecommunications industry. We want to ensure the Canadian cultural identity is protected and promoted. Multinational businesses are already exploiting telecommunications to circumvent Canadian rules.
Let us look at Motion No. 7 which has been put forward by my friend from Okanagan-Shuswap. The motion ensures the primacy of affordable and reliable telecommunications. The objectives as currently set out in the legislation do not ensure that the provision of affordable telephone service is seen as a more important objective than the current objective to foster increased reliance on market forces. The amendment would ensure the provision of affordable and reliable service is first and foremost.
The government's dogmatic preference for competition for competition's sake has already cost my home province of British Columbia 820 jobs. That is a direct result of competition and deregulation.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre states:
PI AC continues to be concerned-by the apparent confusion between ends and means. Subsection 7(f) in particular, appears out of place, since it advocates a particular means of achieving the stated policy goals. If there is indeed a commitment to increase reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services, then it belongs in a different category from the goals that it is intended to achieve.
I will now move on to Motion No. 8 to amend clause 7. This amendment would include a specific provision for consultation between federal and provincial governments to ensure that the national telecommunications policy promotes regional industrial development within the industry. Without this amendment there is no provision in the objectives to ensure consultation between the federal and provincial governments.
A representative of the Government of New Brunswick while appearing before the legislative committee stated:
I suggest that section 7 be amended to include:

Government Orders
1)	Consultations between the federal and provincial governments to guarantee that the national telecommunications policy promotes industrial development that will build on the strengths and potential
of each province;
2)	Requirements that the regulator be accessible and responsive to users and providers of telecommunications and services in the provinces.
The Government of New Brunswick wants and feels that there should be more consultation provincially and federally.
In wrapping up we have to look at the over-all protection, not just now but in the future, of our full cultural area within Canada and with each of the Canadian provinces and territories.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy that this bill has finally come to report stage. However there is a really very bizarre set of circumstances surrounding this.
This bill has been promised by every communications minister since 1984. In other words, we are looking at a nine-year delay from when this government came into office until now when this bill is actually on the verge of being passed.
Consequently I find it-the word amusing really pales in the circumstances-passing strange to read a quote from the Minister of Communications in today's The Financial Post. He states: "It is clear that what we are dealing with here is a filibuster", referring to the actions of the New Democratic Party. The article continues: "The only way for this to go through is by time allocation, said communications minister Perrin Beatty".
Really, for nine years the government has dawdled, hung around and done very little on this bill, even on the actual introduction of this bill. It was introduced in February 1992 and second reading did not take place until April 1993. This is hardly, if we are to follow the phrase of operatio sequitur esse, an example of a government with some kind of a plan that it set out to follow with any kind of alacrity, as I know my colleague from Kingston and the Islands would agree.
Now we are being told that the members of the New Democratic Party are filibustering. This is a situation in which if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck, and this duck is extremely tardy in arriving at the duck pond.
When we look at the various objectives of this bill we have to say that the government has again laboured and brought forth a mouse. While the hon. members to my left do not need me to defend them I think that in particular this group of amendments is one that the government could bear looking at and learning from, although it is difficult to know whether the government does indeed learn.
It is a tired government, full of tired policies and I think most of us are very pleased that we are at the very least winding down, as my hon. colleague from Bonavista would agree, to the proper denouement.
It is upsetting to see this action, to say the least, with regard to legislation that should be duly considered by the members of this House, the vast majority of whom have an interest in making their comments and speaking on behalf of their constituents, but in particular with regard to a bill that has allegedly been on the government's agenda for nine years.


Mr. Milliken:: They are slow thinkers over there.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Clearly they are extremely slow thinkers. This is a bill that has taken a year and four months to go from first reading to report stage. Now the government is hurling implications across the floor of the House of Commons and in the public press saying that the representatives of the people, whose right it is to want to debate these amendments fully and make some comment about the amendments this bill so desperately needs, are attempting to cause trouble and cause delay. There is really only one word to describe this kind of argument and obfuscation against the public. That word is silly.


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


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes, my hon. friend from the other side, the word is silly. Every communications minister since 1984 has promised this bill. Finally we were given this bill, a year and four months ago, and now we have this incredible haste, this incredible rush. Maybe I am suspicious, although I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House would disagree with that. Maybe I am seeing things that I should not see, although it would be a first.
It seems to me that what the government wants to do is push this through, along with other pieces of legislation. If by some chance in the limited time available to us before this House rises and before this government, led by whomever, is forced to call an election and allow the
June 8, 1993

democratic process to take its well-deserved course, then it will stand in the public and say that it promised us this sort of legislation and that sort of legislation.
The government will say that it tried its very best to see that sort of legislation would come through but those terrible members of the opposition did not care what was in the best interest of Canadians. The government will say that because the opposition members wanted to stand up and debate these questions, as their constituents elected them to do, it consequently lost the opportunity to get this through.
We on this side of the House want to make it extremely clear to the people of Canada that is not what is going on here. This is a government that had nine full years to do something about this issue. Yet here we are, in the dying days of this Parliament, being forced to rush this along with a number of other bills of great import to the Canadian people. We are being forced to do it in a slapdash and haphazard manner.
The people of Canada deserve better. Very soon the people of Canada will have better.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the procedural faux pas that I believe the government has committed in relation to this bill in applying time allocation at this stage on these proceedings. The minister will know that this was an entirely inappropriate move on the part of the government given the excellent co-operation that has occurred in this House for the last couple of weeks.
If he looks at the record, he will notice that yesterday four bills were passed in this House and Senate amendments to another were concurred in. The House finished its work on all those bills before the normal hour of adjournment. The minister and his cabinet colleagues received tremendous co-operation and they know it. We did so in spite of the fact that we could have spent at least a day debating every one of those bills and delaying and holding them up.
The minister has decided that more than two days of debats on this bill is too much and so the government has to silence the opposition. I know why the minister wants to silence the opposition. He does not like the arguments that are being made because we are pointing out too
Government Orders
many problems with this legislation. He and his colleagues decided the best thing to do in the circumstances, notwithstanding the co-operation on other bills, was to force this one through so they could shut the opposition up.
Really it is quite unnecessary, and the minister and his cabinet colleagues know it, unless the minister has some hidden agenda to try to shut the House down early and avoid embarrassment to the new leader of the Conservative Party who could easily be humiliated by having to answer questions in the House.
We have all seen their weaknesses as leaders and we are aware they may have that difficulty. It may take them months to get up to steam to answer questions as a Prime Minister might be expected to answer in this House. We realize that. Perhaps that is really the reason for this, but if so let us have an honest statement that the leaders are incompetent and would be incapable of dealing properly with the House and get on with it. Let us not cover it up by using time allocation at this stage of the proceedings to try to jam things through.
We know that if the minister were running for the leadership and was expected to win we would not have this problem because he is capable of answering questions in the House, unlike some of his colleagues who are in the race. I do not want to discuss that for too long. He might change his mind even at this late date.
The debate on this bill has been exceedingly short. There was considerable time left after the debate on committee stage the other day when we could have gone on to discuss various chunks of the amendments. They are grouped for debate. We could have dealt with them in a more orderly fashion. However, with time allocation it makes it difficult because if the debate on one goes on too long then the others will not get debated at all. At the end of today we may find we have to vote on a series of amendments that have never been discussed because of time allocation. That is regrettable.
Today is also an important anniversary and I thought hon. members might want to observe it. Today is the 30th time in this Parliament that time allocation has been applied to government legislation. I am not counting closure. I am only counting the times that time allocation has been applied under Standing Order 78. This is the 30th such occasion in this Parliament. That is a record.

Government Orders
No other Parliament has suffered from the abuse of the time allocation rule the way this Parliament has.
The government is fond of saying it likes to make Parliament more efficient. It forgets that Parliament is a place for public debate and discussion. It absents itself from the House in large measure, and I congratulate the minister on being here today as it is unusual. By absenting itself and refusing to participate in public debate the government generally ignores the expressed intention and wishes of members of Parliament and carries on with its own legislation.
The result of that has been a disastrously low standing for the government in public opinion polls in this country. It is so much so that it is terrified to call an election, which it is its constitutional duty to do, because it knows that certain defeat awaits it at the polls.
We have had this prolonged delay and procrastination while the government persists in introducing unpopular measures in this House and ramming them through even though its mandate to do so has effectively gone.
We have lots of statements by ministers of the Crown in previous incarnations which indicate that they share my view that a government in the fifth year of its mandate has lost its mandate to govern and introduce substantial legislation.
I said that time allocation had been used 30 times in the House but it is important to bear in mind that today time allocation is being applied to two stages of this bill's progress at one time. It is being applied to the report stage of the bill and also to third reading of the bill.
I went back in my records and counted the use of time allocation and the number of stages of bills that had been affected by time allocation. If we count the two that happened today we are up to 49 various stages of bills that have been subject to time allocation on the 30 occasions on which it has been used in this Parliament alone.
The 30 uses of time allocation is itself a record and the 49 stages of the bills that have been affected by the use of time allocation must also be something of a record. Frankly it is a disgraceful record.
I think the government has shown a great lack of judgment in deciding to use time allocation. It is a self-fulfilling thing. Once one embarks on a course of using time allocation as a means of limiting debate one increases the temptation for an opposition to continue to talk to bring the government to a position where it must use it. Instead of saying that it would not use time allocation and try to bring an orderly end to debate by acceding to some of the demands of an opposition by making amendments to the legislation and being reasonable, the government digs in its heels and says no, it will make no changes to the legislation and we can talk as long as it will allow us to talk because it will cut us off with time allocation when the time comes.
The unfortunate fact is that by the use of this rule we have changed the nature of parliamentary debate, have limited the role of opposition and of course of backbench government members whose views are not solicited and are seldom heard in this House as we witnessed in this debate today. Very few are participating and will participate. Ministers take no interest in what members of Parliament say in respect of their bill because they do not want to admit that there is a flaw or that there is anything wrong. The importance therefore of parliamentary debate diminishes.
The government then says that since parliamentary debate is so unimportant it might as well cut it off with time allocation and the whole vicious circle continues. Public respect for the institution is diminished and the effectiveness of the institution is diminished. The ability of the government to give some credence to its legislation so that it receives public respect and acceptability is diminished. The public does not believe that it has any real input in the legislative process because its representatives in Parliament are ignored.
The government has embarked on this course. It has pursued it with vigour all in the name of efficiency. Of course we know what Tory efficiency is: agree with us or shut up. That is the effective rule of Tory efficiency. I regret that the government has taken this pugnacious and very hard-nosed attitude not just today, but 30 times during this Parliament and throughout its mandate for the last nine years. This government has been a disaster
June 8, 1993

for Canada and most Canadians know that. One only need look at the opinion polls to see that it is so.
The extraordinary thing that I could not help but notice as I read through a little article this morning in Maclean's magazine about the Conservative leadership convention that we all know is coming up this weekend is how many of the Conservative members of the party, the card-carrying Tories in this country, think the government's record is good. Every other opinion poll in the country indicates that Canadians think their record is a total disaster. The Conservatives must have chosen all their delegates out of that tiny percentage of Canadians who think the government is good because something like 70 per cent of them thought that this government had a good record. What distorted thinking must go on at these conventions.
I can only thank the heavens that I am not obliged to go to such a convention and listen to the trash that clearly will be spouted by the members at this meeting when they talk about the kind of nonsense that is portrayed in these polls wherein these people think the government record is good. I know you do not, Mr. Speaker, you are wiser than the majority of the people who are going to that convention and I can only offer to you, Sir, my deepest sympathy if in fact you are a delegate to that meeting.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this series of resolutions to make some comments in support of the resolutions by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap.
These amendments are aimed at making this bill a little more consumer friendly and a little more Canadian friendly. What needs to be done with this bill is to strengthen the relationship between the consumer, the provinces and the industry. A good portion of this industry has been developed by the provinces and is part of the provincial structure. It therefore becomes very important that the provinces and the consumers be involved and that we make this industry as Canadian friendly as possible. Instead, this movement toward competitiveness makes it probably more American friendly.
This series of amendments gives some vision to the industry. It puts in place some kind of vision of what the industry should be doing. What is more logical than the
Government Orders
four or five amendments that have been placed here? For instance, what can be more logical than making one of the most important aims of the industry to be, as the motion states:
"(b) to enhance the expression and communication of Canada's cultural identity."
What would be more logical than making that the basic aim of the industry? What can be more logical than maintaining an affordable system?
One of the real concerns all across the country has been that the whole of the communications industry is gradually becoming the area of those people who can afford it. I have a daughter, for instance, who told me the other day: "I am just not going to be able to afford a telephone very much longer".
This is not an unrealistic approach for a lot of people. When you are having trouble putting food on the table then communications, if they become expensive, become extra. That again is one of the amendments which my colleague has put forward.
Third, what can be more logical than having consultation with the provinces? After all, the basic industry has been developed by the provinces. In fact, as far as telephones are concerned I was a member of a telephone company that was a co-operative in Saskatchewan 45 or 50 years ago. It became part of the Saskatchewan telephone system and is now being threatened to some extent in the direction it is going in being available to people in my community.
Again, what can be more logical than to be sure by putting it into legislation that the provinces, the industry and the government consult before they take directions that are harmful to Canada generally and to the consumer specifically?
What can be more logical than to support and to encourage innovation and to make that a central point as far as the development of the industry is concerned? All of these are very specific and very small directions which would strengthen the bill that, as my colleagues suggested, has been around for 90 years.
I am very surprised that the minister said we in this corner are filibustering it when for nine years it could have been passed. The filibustering must have gone on within his caucus. That is where it has been held up for the last nine years.

June 8, 1993
Government Orders
Now when it is brought forward and we get a little debate on it, he shuts it down. The positions that Canadians right across the country have held for many years and have presented to us as their representatives should be put in. We would not have any trouble supporting this bill if the minister had taken the time to strengthen it in the directions which are indicated even in these first five motions.
There are five motions in this group aimed at making the bill more consumer friendly, more Canadian friendly. That is the direction we should be looking. It is the direction that we thought the government was looking but obviously it did not take the time to make the kinds of changes which would have made it Canadian and consumer friendly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate this afternoon, although I am a little disappointed in the government deciding that it ought to impose a form of closure on the debate at this stage. I think it is fair to say that there has been a tremendous amount of work go into this legislation.
I notice with interest that the government, in spite of the best interest of the drafters and the people who assembled the original legislation, felt that there was a whole set of areas that needed improvement. If my calculations are accurate I think that the government itself, or members of the government to be more specific, suggested 74 corrections to the legislation. That is a lot of corrections. It obviously reflected a set of concerns that the original drafters had not prepared for.
I have read with interest much of the work that was done in the Senate, I think for weeks on end in terms of pre-study, again identifying a number of areas of concern.
I have had discussions with representatives of the TWU, a very proud collection of individual men and women who appreciate the fact that they and the companies that they work for, with their brothers and sisters, really represent a cutting edge of Canadian technology. Here is where Canada has led the way globally in technological innovations, showing the way in terms of the telecommunications sector. One of the areas of which we have all been exceedingly proud over the years is the role that Canada and this sector has played in the development of international initiatives in telecommunications.
When the people who are actually doing the work, the individual men and women involved, showed concern about their future in terms of employability, that led my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap to bring forward an amendment that would in a sense say that while we welcome changes-as a matter of fact Canada has always welcomed changes and has done very well with these changes-we have some obligation in terms of the future of these employed people as well. To simply abandon people, as we would in this case, as an old pair of tires or a used battery and say that as far as we are concerned with this industry we could not care less about you and your family seems to be kind of a crass and unnecessarily insensitive approach which one would expect from an unfeeling government.
We put forward amendments that would provide a certain element of security for those individuals. That was simply not accepted.
In other areas, naturally we are concerned about the long-term implications of the telecommunications sector and the recent legislation passed in this House, the enabling legislation for the Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade deal. I think it is very obvious what direction we are taking as a country when it comes to NAFTA. I think there is no industry where this is more obvious than in the telecommunications sector.
When my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap intro- * (1205) duced a set of amendments to improve the legislation, 34
to be specific, it was our effort to improve legislation that One is very hesitant to predict the future but look at we felt in certain areas was seriously flawed. To general- the way things are going with the Canada-U.S. trade ize what these areas are, I think it is fair to say that all of deal. Plant after plant in Canada is closing down to take those men and women who are employed in the telecom- advantage of the lower labour rates in Tennessee, Louisi-munications industry at a time of increasing deregulation ana, Texas and so on and to take advantage in many cases are concerned about the future of their positions. They of right to work legislation. There are lower standards are concerned about whether they will be employed in and regulations in terms of the environment and health the telecommunications industry in the years ahead. and safety in the work place and so on. Investors and
June 8, 1993

entrepreneurs have taken advantage of this flexibility by moving their operations southward to take advantage of these conditions. Rather than proceed with an expansion of their existing operation they may have decided to expand their operations in that jurisdiction.
Now under the North American free trade agreement we are going to add Mexico to this equation so now people can actually take advantage not only of wage rates of $6, $7 or $8 an hour that we find in Mississippi, Louisiana or South Carolina, but one can move across the Rio Grande and take advantage of labour rates of 58 cents an hour.
I listened with interest the other night on CNN when ex-presidential candidate Ross Perot was being interviewed as probably one of the more successful business persons in the United States. The question was put to him of how he and his colleagues would react to NAFTA. He said that it was perfectly clear that most of the investors that he knows and most of the industry and business leaders of the United States will be inclined to move more and more of their operations into Mexico to take advantage of hourly wage rates of 58 cents and virtually a total abandonment of environmental and work place regulations.
That is not saying they do not exist on paper but they are simply not enforced to take advantage of a situation where if there is a union in a plant the union is controlled by the management and supported by the government in that respect.
Mr. Perot, if nothing else, is a very straightforward individual. He sees the world as a business person. His decision was that he could maximize his profits considerably or certainly more by moving his existing American operations into Mexico. He was very straightforward. He said that everybody he knows will probably be doing the same thing.
If it is attractive to move his operations from Tennessee to Mexico one can imagine how attractive it is to move operations from Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Halifax or wherever into Mexico in order to compete in the North American market where one can send one's finished products or services virtually across the continent free of tariffs or other non-tariff barriers.
Government Orders
I am going to make a prediction. I would say that within a short period of time when you, Mr. Speaker, or others dial an operator to get information for a particular number the voice you will hear at the other end of the telephone will sound more like Buenos noches, senor. In other words, the telephone operator will be operating out of Guadalajara, or out of Ensenada or out of a community along the Rio Grande River.
I say to those people who might scoff at this notion that if they were running a telecommunications company and were responsible for maximizing profits and could pay an operator $18 an hour in Canada, $12 an hour in the northern part of the United States, $7 an hour in the southern United States or 58 cents an hour in Mexico, where would they locate their operation?


An hon. member:: Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Some weird entrepreneur over here said Canada. Obviously he does not make much money.
The point is that it is obvious where the trend line will take us. That is why we on this side of the House say: For goodness' sake let us not rush this important piece of legislation through. Let us acknowledge the fact that this government is slowly dismantling any possibility we might have to influence the future for our children and our children's children. It is in a sense selling out to the sacred cow of the marketplace. This means that people in this country will not have jobs.
I think this House is concerned about that. I know people on this side of the House are concerned and that is why we are begging the minister to for goodness' sake please reconsider this idea of having closure motions before the House that will limit the debate and ensure that this legislation is wrapped up, signed, sealed and delivered in the next 48 hours.
We think it is wrong and that is why we are speaking so forcefully against this legislation at this point.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few remarks today with reference to both the government's attempt to impose

Government Orders
time allocation and some remarks in relation to this bill at report stage.
A number of speakers have noted, and I want to reinforce those notations, that this bill sat on the Order Paper for over a year before it made it back into this House a short time ago. It was very regrettable.
The government has shown us now that this bill is important enough to it and to Parliament and to Canadians to warrant the imposition of time allocation but it was not important enough a few months ago in terms of the cabinet table and the order of priorities that cabinet was attaching to the many pieces of legislation before this House. I suggest that signals and manifests a problem at the cabinet table. We will not have to worry about that for too much longer because this Parliament is coming to a close.
The same problem that existed with this bill in terms of it apparently not being important enough to do anything with it over the last year existed in other areas at the cabinet table. I point out the very important sentencing bill that was in the hands of the justice minister that sat around similarly for a year. It was introduced and sat for 11 months until about a month ago at which point, almost simultaneously with the communications minister here, the justice minister decided that we must get this bill through and pushed it through with a flurry of other legislation.
Fortunately due to the good sense of members on this side and on that side of the House that particular bill is not proceeding. It was flawed. It was a very important bill but because we did not have enough time to deal with it well the members on both sides of the House consensually agreed that the bill would not proceed.
I gather we have been waiting around for 75 to 80 years for amendments to the old Railway Act. Finally we have a bill. I think there is a consensus that we must get a bill passed. The point I am making is that I really regret we all have been forced into an 11th hour scenario when we really had about 13 months to deal with this bill.
In any event we have it now. As much as I regret the need to impose time allocation, for whatever reasons, I cannot accept that the opposition is responsible for the need to impose time allocation because I detect a sense on both sides of the House that we need a bill.
However we have it and I am disappointed. This is the 30th time that this government has found the need to impose time allocation in this House. I hope it does not impair our ability to produce a good bill.
There are two items here at report stage that I think require attention. One of them is the recommendation for a five-year review. This concept of a five-year review has been used in other legislation and legislation with significant impact across the broad spectrum of Canadian society.
In these modem times I do not think there is anything that could have as broad an impact on Canadian society as this telecommunications bill. We are purporting to do things, we are planning to make changes to the law and procedures that will undoubtedly have a significant impact.
I have had calls from constituents about things that are dealt with in this bill. The five-year review gives this House representing all Canadians an opportunity to bring to bear a collective perspective on how the bill has fared over the five years.
It is a very useful vehicle. It was used recently in the justice area to review the child sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code. I gather that report should be coming back to Parliament within a day of so. It was used earlier in this Parliament in a five-year review of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act. I do not see why it should not be used for this bill.
Without the provision enabling a five-year review the act simply drifts on into the future without a specific opportunity for the House, for Parliament itself, to deal with the bill. Certainly officials in the department can deal with it. They can address concerns. They can make memoranda that are exchanged among bureaucrats but that will not provide an opportunity to the House to necessarily deal with these things. I do recommend that that amendment is made to the bill here at report stage.
There is another area of concern to many Canadians and I hope we can amend it here. Maybe the government will not support this but there is this vast area of what we call junk faxes or junk communications where individuals in business are making use of telephone communications or fax communications. They are even making use of the
June 8, 1993

services of the post offices in creative ways to communicate with prospective purchasers of goods or services. The problem with the fax machines, as everybody knows, is that it sits there passively and accepts whatever anyone sends to it. As long as it is turned on, and most owners of fax machines leave them on 24 hours a day, it must receive whatever commercial material is sent out. That is a bit of a problem.
We know that the CRTC has jurisdiction over this. This bill would authorize the CRTC to look at the problem but in our view it does not provide sufficient definition to the CRTC to enable it to act clearly, precisely and decisively in dealing with some of the problems that will undoubtedly crop up. We all know what happens when this House enacts imprecise legislation. What happens is that all the lobby groups and people out there who are able to afford lawyers jump in and begin litigating.
That costs the litigants lots of money. People do not think that it costs the government and the taxpayer much money but believe me it does. It uses up the resources of the justice ministry. It also from time to time causes the government to bring in outside expert counsel. With those types of initiatives we spend an awful lot of money-too much money-on outside lawyers. With all due respect to my colleague in the profession, we spend a lot of money on it.
By enacting an imprecise definition we simply create a field that is ripe for further litigation in front of the CRTC and in front of the courts when we do not really have to provide so much elbow room for our colleagues in the profession.
I would recommend to the House that we adopt a definition as proposed by the member for Mount Royal. It is a definition that is clear and more precise and narrow. It gives the CRTC a better ability to deal with this field of junk faxes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to say that for many days we have debated legislation in this House without the minister responsible for the legislation being present. I simply want to acknowledge the fact that in spite of our opposition and perhaps our different debating points we do appreciate the fact that the Minister of Communications has made time to be in the House when his legislation is being debated.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 6.
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 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. 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 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Government Orders
The next question is on Motion No. 8. 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 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
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 10. 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 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. 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 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We now proceed to another set of motions which I submit to the attention of the House.


Guy R. Williams: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 28 at page 5 the following:
"(2) The Minister, prior to publication of the order shall advise those provinces to which the order may affect, of the forthcoming order".
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 14 to 18 at page 6.
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 47 and 48 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"own motion, by order, refer the decision back to the Commission Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12
(a)	by striking out lines 9 and 10 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) On receipt of a petition, or where of its own motion, the Govemor-in-Council is considering making an order pursuant to subsection (1), the Minister shall publish in the Canada Gazette a notice either of"; and
(b)	by striking out line 14 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"obtained, or of the intentions of the Govemor-in-Council, as the case may be."

Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 29 to 37 at page 7.
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 38 and 39 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(8) In an order made under subsection 1, the Governor in Council shall set out the".
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 4 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"the order and shall provide a reasonable opportunity of not less than 30 days for".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 4 and 5 on page 8 and substituting the following:
"the order."


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 14 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Commission, affected carriers and other interested parties, establish standards in re-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the motions I have put forward on behalf of our caucus.
Before I start speaking to the specific amendments, I found public comments that have been made regarding the parliamentary process of the passage of this bill to be quite disconcerting, if not amusing in themselves.
As I have pointed out before, the government has been here for nine years. It has had nine years to bring in this legislation. It is important legislation. I want to say to the minister-I thank him for being present for these debates-that should the government be willing to endorse the amendments we have brought forward our caucus would have much less difficulty in approving this bill. We would support the bill if the government would support our amendments.
Government Orders
It is important legislation that has brought us from the horse and buggy days of the early 1900s to the high-tech wizardry of the 21st century. In that respect it is a bill that is long overdue. I speak on behalf of our caucus and I think our fellow opposition caucus, the Liberal Party, in saying that this bill is important legislation that all members have wanted to see come forward. At the same time we want to assure ourselves and the workers in the telecommunications industry as well as the consumers of telecommunications products that this is the best legislation we can put forward.
That is why we brought in this large series of amendments. We are concerned that without these changes to the legislation the bill remains seriously flawed.
I was very concerned about the process this bill took through the legislative committee. As was pointed out earlier today, we had only a few days of debate for a very extensive and technical bill. The bill contains 139 or 140 clauses. The government brought in over 50 amendments in its first draft. Then it brought in a second batch of amendments. In total the government brought in 75 amendments to a bill it had introduced only a short time earlier.
With the amendments that I and my Liberal colleagues who were also sitting on the legislative committee brought in we were dealing with well over 100 amendments. As a result of that the time constraints we were forced to work within defied the process of reasoned exchange of ideas, reasoned debate and the development of reasonable alternatives to the legislation.
Now we find that the government is saying the opposition parties are practising some sort of parliamentary subterfuge by filibustering the bill. We know that under the new rules of this House we can no longer filibuster a bill. It is simply impossible to delay the passage of a bill if the government sees fit to ram it through. The government has obviously served notice that it sees fit to ram this legislation through the House with the calling of time allocation earlier today by the minister.
We have had only an hour and a half actual debating time on report stage. Is the minister saying that we are filibustering the bill? Heavens. That is hardly adequate debate even for the few amendments that we did put forward. It is certainly not a filibuster.

June 8, 1993
Government Orders
We want to point out that it is absolutely essential we get sufficient time to deal with the healthy number of amendments put forward by myself and my colleague from the Liberal Party, the member for Mount Royal.
An hour and a half of debate was an inadequate time to discuss these amendments, yet the government decided to bring the hammer down, to call closure, or time allocation. It amounts to the same thing.
That is a shameful abuse of parliamentary privilege. I would suggest that this government is demonstrating once again the absolute arrogance it has for the democratic process and the people of Canada by abusing this parliamentary tool that it has at its disposal.
How many times have we seen closure and time allocation brought into these debates? More in this legislative sitting than all the history of previous Parliaments in Canada. It is absolutely shameful that this government is abusing that parliamentary privilege to ram through its corporate agenda, the free trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement, the GST legislation, changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, changes to just about every facet of social programs and policies in this country.
Now we see it again bringing in closure, bringing down the hammer, closing off parliamentary debate on an extremely important piece of legislation, one of the most important pieces of legislation that the telecommunications industry has seen come forward in almost 100 years.
It is shameful that this government uses this opportunity to shut off debate and to lock out the reasoned amendments that have been put forward on behalf of the industry, the workers, and the consumers of Canada.
The minister is simply jumping to the tune that has been called by the Canadian business telecommunications alliance. These are the guys that are calling the shots on this one and the minister is simply jumping to their tune. According to The Financial Post of this morning obviously they have been putting a lot of pressure on the minister to ensure that this bill gets through. They want to make sure it gets through. They have given the signal to the minister to jump and he has said "how high?" They say they want it by today and you see the results of that, Mr. Speaker.
It is the telecommunications industry that has been calling the shots all the way through. The minister has simply been dancing to that tune.
We would be quite willing to support this bill if we could see these strengthening provisions agreed to by the government. We would be the first to sit down and shut up and say if it agrees to these changes then we will agree to support the bill. I am afraid after seeing how the government dealt with the recommended amendments through the legislative committee and its arrogant disposal of those submissions. I retract my statement somewhat. The government did move on a few of them and I will give it credit for that.
Some amendments are very important. The ones dealing with culture, the ones we are dealing with in this group with the provisions for over-riding decisions of the CRTC and the provisions for opting out of regulatory control are extremely important in terms of an appropriate debate.
Let us look at Motion No. 12 to see why it is important and why it should be adequately debated. The amendment to clause 9 in the bill would delete the exemption power that the government has seen to provide the CRTC. That power to exempt can also be met through the commission's power to forbear as is in the regulations through the policy directives of section 8. We do not really need this particular clause in the bill.
Without this amendment the CRTC can virtually exempt any class of carriers from regulation. This is an extension of the kind of competition and deregulation mania that has been gripping this government and which is really the driving force behind this bill.
I know my time has run out. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I know my colleagues will be presenting specific recommendations with respect to the clauses that we would like to see brought forward in this legislation.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, so far today I have listened with a great deal of interest and fascination to hon. members opposite as they have poured out abuse on the government, to complain-


Sheila Finestone: Well deserved.


Henry Perrin Beatty: My friend rises again in mock indignation to say "well deserved" as they pour out their abuse, as they condemn the government for its arrogance and for its disregard of parliamentary democracy, as they insist that never could anything have been further from their minds than filibustering this piece of legislation. All of them get up to stress to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Canadian people the fact that they see this as an urgent piece of legislation and one which they would want to see moved through quickly. But they are shocked that the government would finally put an end to their filibuster.
When hon. members opposite take this position, I think they have an obligation to be a little bit serious with the people of Canada. I listened with great interest to my friend from Mount Royal as she spoke and as she heaped abuse on me and on the government. She claims that the Liberals see the importance of this bill. She came back to this theme many times in her remarks and said it is the government's fault for any delay and not that of the opposition which continued to talk and talk and talk. She said time allocation is not justified. She claims it was wrong to say there was a filibuster on the part of the Liberals.
Let us take a look at the record because the hon. member is on record and so indeed are her colleagues. The hon. member will remember this policy paper: "Canadian Telecommunications Policy Discussion Paper for the National Liberal Caucus, Sheila Finestone, MP, Liberal Communications Critic, February 1992". What does it say in this particular document? It says:
Liberals share the scepticism of the telecommunications industry over recent suggestions that Communications Minister Perrin Beatty remains committed to introducing the long awaited update to the century old Railway Act which governs the regulation of telecommunications in this country.
They were sceptical it was not going to be done.
In the covering communique released with the press release, the critic said this:

"Upon releasing this new document, one of a series of working papers prepared by the Official Opposition, the Liberal communications critic castigated the federal government for failing to keep the promise it made in 1984 to proceed with a bold reform of the regulatory framework for this industry. It was clear that the govem-
Government Orders
ment's failure to act had restricted the contribution of the telecommunications industry and undermined Canada's competitive position".

How interesting. What happened after my Liberal critic opposite said on February 21 that no way, under no circumstances was the government going to act on this promise which was so long overdue. What happened was that six days later on February 27 Bill C-62 was introduced in the House of Commons.
If one looked at the report on business in the Globe and Mail the next day, one would see an interesting reaction from my friend opposite. The Globe and Mail said:
However, at least one opposition critic believes the federal government may be acting prematurely-
This was the critic who had called upon the government to act six days earlier and who had said that she doubted that the government would ever move on this commitment who now said: "The government might be acting prematurely by introducing the legislation before an advisory committee on the convergence of the cable television and telecommunications industries presents its report to Mr. Beatty. The committee's report was due at the end of February but has had its deadline extended to late spring".
Listen to this quote:
This country has waited this long for the legislation, so what's the rush now, said Matthew Behan, an assistant to Liberal communications critic Sheila Finestone.
One week before they were saying: What is the delay, why is the government stalling, will it ever make good on this promise? Six days later the government tables the bill and immediately the critic's assistant rushes to press to say they are going too quickly on this, they should be slowing down, they should be waiting longer instead of acting now.
The government then sent the bill for pre-study in the Senate to try to ensure that we would not see the sort of partisan gamesmanship that we have been seeing here in the House of Commons. The Senate subcommittee made a number of very serious and very significant recommendations, the vast majority of which were accepted by the government, but only to find that my friends from the NDP then said: Because the government responded to suggested improvements, this proves

Government Orders
that the bill is terribly flawed and should be delayed longer.
They cannot have it both ways. They then accused us of being undemocratic. One of the tools they used in accusing us of being so is the fact that we accepted recommendations that were made as a result of public debate and discussion and that this proved how terribly grievously flawed the bill was and how it had to be delayed even more.
What happened when the bill came forward for second reading in the House of Commons? Again my friends opposite will protest that they had no interest in delaying, and yet the record is very clear. Hansard of April 19 indicates that the Liberal Party decided to put up speaker after speaker after speaker, including one speaker simply re-reading the speech that had been given by the official critic.
The only way that second reading was achieved was by virtue of the fact that the government was able to move a motion to extend hours at the end of the day. When members of the opposition opposed the extension of hours there were not enough of them to succeed under the rules.
The bill then went to committee, where again the government was flexible, where again the government invited members of the opposition to make suggestions to improve the bill, and where again the government responded in a positive way.
The bill came back to the House and what did we find at report stage? The members of the opposition, at the same time as they were saying how desperate they were to see this bill move ahead, moved more amendments to it than they did to NAFTA. Why? Because it would give them the opportunity to speak, to delay, to filibuster. Yet they say it is unfair of me to say there was a filibuster under way.
What happened in the House of Commons? I listened to the NDP House leader a few minutes ago talking about how concerned he was about time allocation. He will recall that he asked when this was last debated at report stage that the House wrap up its proceedings for lunch early as opposed to debating these motions which
were proposed by the Liberals and the NDE I asked if there was a disposition on the part of the House to have a reasonable debate on this bill. We would be agreeable to that. What was the response from the NDP House leader? He said: "If the minister is not prepared to proceed in a more orderly fashion to permit people to participate, we have no intention of entering into any agreement to wrap this up quickly".
Now their critic says "but we really didn't mean that". I am sure that the critic for the Liberal Party will assure the House as well that she was just joking when she promised a filibuster in committee. She was just joking when she said in committee on the public record that she was going to require that the government use closure to get the bill through.
What did she say on the record in the committee? She said: "If you pull culture out I forewarn you that you will have a filibuster in this House that you will not believe and you will not get this bill through without calling closure again and demonstrating again what an undemocratic government you are".
How remarkable it is that today we heard from her that there was no intention to filibuster, notwithstanding what she said on the record in committee. Perhaps she was just joking. They were not serious. They did not mean any of this when they threatened filibuster or when they put up speaker after speaker, or when the last time this bill was being debated twice I called for an extension of hours to allow the House to sit longer to debate this bill and all of the motions, and twice the members of the opposition came in to refuse any extension of hours because they simply wanted to bum up time.
Let us be a little bit serious with the people of Canada. When my friend from Mount Royal wraps herself in righteous indignation and says how shocked she is by this, she forgets her own words where she promised a filibuster. Today she says there is no such thing.
The people of Canada deserve better than that. My friend from Okanagan-Shuswap talked earlier about the fact that I was simply doing the bidding of the Canadian business telecommunications alliance and of all of the other elements of industry and the Consumers Association of Canada, which yesterday urged Parliament to act on this bill instead of stalling any longer. But the response of members opposite has been to say that
June 8, 1993

because the bill has been promised for several years, because the bill is so long overdue, they should be-


An hon. member:: Nine years.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Exactly. They shout nine years. So they want to stall it more. Their response is that because it has taken longer than we would have liked, we want to bum up more time. Where is the logic of this? Canadians listening to this debate have a right to some element of logic on the part of members opposite. The words are clear. Their intention was filibuster. The government had no choice but to act to ensure that this piece of legislation that both the Liberals and the NDP said was so urgent could finally get through. What we were witnessing was the tyranny of the minority. It is time now for Parliament to act.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The minister has suggested that the only interest the opposition has is to filibuster.
I would just like to go on record as saying if the minister is agreeable to extending debate we are quite willing to sit over-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is great when you have a selective memory like the minister does. It is quite amusing to hear the government becoming so ultra-democratic when in fact it is a word it does not even know. The government members are saying: "Let's pretend. We'll be nice people and show the world how we were thwarted in the goal we presented to them and the opportunities that were there to be really effective legislators".
The record shall speak for itself. I do not think I will dignify the minister's intervention with any further comment because it is quite a sad display.
The questions on the amendments are before us. Fortunately for the process the amendments that were made came through very careful input from the CRTC which was at the table along with the minister's staff, the
Government Orders
staff from Stentor and the staff from Bell Canada. We heard from B.C. Tel in camera and then around the table.
I would not suggest for a moment that the invitation for all these interveners to be around that table came from the government. I was there and it was not a government initiative. I even invited one of the legal counsels to sit and represent the resellers, not that the resellers made any effort themselves.
We are looking right now at a series of motions brought forward by my colleagues from the NDP and one which I have put forward. The amendments to clause 9 that are being recommended relate to the exemption section. I am quite pleased that rather than removing the exemption section, as suggested by my colleague from the NDP, that section was changed from another minister's right to interfere and be subject to pressure unnecessarily from interveners or interested parties in the field of telecommunications and it is moved to the commission. It is a far more open process and it is fair to all players in this field. We will not be supporting Motion No. 12 that is up for debate which refers to clause 9.
There is nothing wrong with Motion No. 13 which touches clause 10. I have no discomfort in supporting it but it could be perceived to be redundant.
Clause 12 is very complex legislation. If the industry would care to look at the number of underlined phrases it might realize the number of changes the minister could have made. If he had put a new bill together after 1987 and had reacted to the Senate's comments earlier in 1992 we would not need such an incredible number of changes and amendments made to the bill now.
I was addressing Motion No. 16 which deals with clause 12 which is the rescind and referral clause. From my perspective there is no reason to support Motion No. 16 because I do believe it would be better to have the three options before us: the option to vary, the option to rescind and the option to refer back. Notwithstanding the fact that my preference would be to refer back as the first option, all three options have their value and place under certain circumstances.
There is the question of transparency, of the right of parties involved who might perceive themselves to be injured as well as those who might perceive themselves

Government Orders
to be the winners. That should always be open so government, not like this government, is perceived to be open and fair and always interested in the public interest first, not self-serving to their friends. This is a better bill because we have managed to improve that aspect of the bill.
I particularly want to talk to my Motion No. 22 which is somewhat related to Motion No. 21 from my colleague from the NDP. For those people who have the bill in front of them and are dealing with it as many of the legal counsels are doing, on page 8 at line 4 of the present bill, which has been redrafted, clause 13 under provincial consultation, the suggestion is that we put a period on line 4, after the word order. It would indicate that the government has the obligation to inform the provincial ministers concerned with communications. This is an interest area of all the provinces as well as the federal government, although it is entirely a federal jurisdiction.
It is important to hear from the ministers and all the provinces if they have concerns about the direction the government might be going. The power of direction is a new power in this bill. This government gave itself the power to direct the CRTC in its particular interests. I think that is a good idea because government should set the standard and the vision for the future. Then it also gave itself the power to interfere with whatever the CRTC might decide, even during hearings.
We have changed some of that and made it much more open. The government gave itself the power to consult with the provinces which is important and also allowed the potential for a veto by these various provincial ministers of communications. While we will notify the ministers in these provinces about the importance of the undertaking by the Minister of Communications, they should be able to get back to the minister and notify him about any concerns they might have. We should not have to have to wait for them to get back to talk to us.
The obligation is on the provinces to give feedback and respond to the direction the minister may decide to take. Before making a recommendation to the Governor in Council for the purpose of making a power of direction of any order, under sections 8 and 10, or before making an order under another section the minister should really be heard and have the opportunity to hear from the various provinces. It is not a technical thing but a more efficient way of ensuring it is done.
The last of these amendments has to do with technical standards by all parties. I think the recommended amendment is in good order and certainly will be supported by our party.
Within this section in which a whole melange of different issues has been grouped together such as clauses 9, 10, 12 and 14, we are for the most part in favour of them. We are against others and shall let our voices be heard when the proper moment comes through the formal vote procedure.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member's comments, particularly her rather inadequate response to the minister's comments about her filibustering. It is perhaps useful that she dealt with the more technical aspects of the bill as I would also like to do in the few minutes that are left.
The exemptions in Motion No. 12, of which Motion No. 14 is consequential, put forward by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, would have the government delete the power of exemption from the bill.
In deleting the power of exemption we would be taking away from the CRTC an important means of reducing regulatory burden. That is a goal which everyone, and certainly everyone on this side of the House with the apparent exception of the hon. member and his party, would agree.
On the issue of publication of proposed orders, the hon. member's proposed Motion No. 13 would amend clause 10 by requiring the minister when issuing an order under this bill to advise the affected provinces prior to the publication of the order. While this is certainly laudable it is redundant since it is already required under clause 13 of the bill.
On the issue of variation, rescission and referral back, the hon. member would have the government delete from clause 12 the powers of variation and rescission in his Motion No. 16. As the minister painstakingly outlined in his opening testimony before the subcommittee studying this bill, variation and rescission have been sparingly used by the government in the past and always in a responsible manner. These powers are based on the premise that decisions of fundamental public policy should be made not by regulators but by the government.

For the foregoing reasons Motion No. 16 should be rejected as should related Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 20 which also relate to clause 12.
Motion No. 17 is especially dangerous. By requiring the minister to publish a notice in the Canada Gazette when the Governor in Council is considering making an order, it would have the effect of publishing advance notice of proposed cabinet decisions. Since this would unduly interfere in the cabinet process this motion is completely unacceptable.
Motion No. 18, and Motion No. 20 which is consequential, should be rejected since they would remove the Governor in Council's power to vary, rescind or refer back again a CRTC decision that is the result of a previous refer back. This may be necessary in cases where the CRTC has not complied with government policy subsequent to a refer back.
On the important matter of provincial consultations, on Motion No. 21 the hon. member seeks to unduly constrain the Governor in Council by specifying a time frame in which the minister must consult with his provincial counterparts on proposed orders. I would remind him that clause 13 as written does not prevent the specifying of a time limit for consultations. Indeed the concept of a specified time period is implicit in this clause as it has been drafted. An appropriate time period may be very short or very long depending on the subject matter of any particular order. Since it would not be appropriate to specify any particular time limit this motion should also be rejected.
Finally with respect to technical standards, just as in the case of Motion No. 13 referred to earlier, this motion is redundant in that there already is provision for full public consultation before technical standards are established. Reference to the required public consultations may be found in clause 15(3).
In conclusion I would say that all motions in the fourth group should be rejected.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, Quebec's agricultural sector strenuously objects to the plans of the federal Minister of Agriculture as expressed in the draft bill on the western grain transportation subsidy, also known as the Crow rate. Quebec is in favour of changes that would reduce transportation costs and restore parity between eastern and western ports.
According to Quebec agriculture minister Yvon Pi-cotte, it was unacceptable after years of study by committees to create a new committee without the appropriate mandate and outlook that would guarantee federal funds would be applied either to the transportation of grain outside the prairies or to a program fair to all Canadian producers. That is why Quebec's four party leaders have revived the Quebec coalition on the Crow rate. Picotte went on to say that their sole objective was to make Ottawa recognize the interests of Quebec agriculture.
Quebec's position is clear, and I want to say that I personally support that position today.


VIOLENCE IN THE MEDIA
Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, at a recent meeting of the Scarborough Board of Education educators expressed concern over increasingly violent student behaviour.
They noted that there is increasing evidence that exposure to television violence has a negative influence on children and the often excessively violent behaviour

demonstrated by some students appears to be modelled on the types of violent behaviour presented in the media.
The Scarborough Board of Education and Scarborough elementary and secondary principals and viceprincipals are calling upon the CRTC, producers and media distributors to voluntarily take steps to reduce the amount of television violence and to take further action to reduce the access of young viewers to such violence in the media.
We must take hold of violence in the media before it takes hold of our society.


TRIBUTE TO HUGUES MORIS SETTE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Hugues Moris-sette, Director General of the Secretariat a la mise en valeur du Saint-Laurent. Mr. Morissette, one of the founders of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes maritime forum, was recently declared 1993 celebrity of the year by the Great Lakes Commission on behalf of the States of Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
He received this award in recognition of his exceptional contribution to the greater maritime St. Lawrence-Great Lakes region. Furthermore, Mr. Morissette was directly associated with the St. Lawrence Maritime Chamber and the International Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Mayors Conference.
I join with them in congratulating him for his extraordinary commitment to the improvement of our environment.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, as the Ontario New Democrats stumble and plod along to the detriment of all Ontarians their rudderless cousins on the federal scene desperately struggle to distance themselves from Bob Rae's massive display of ineptitude and mismanagement.
Premier Rae said something recently with which all members of the House can agree. Commenting after a fund raising event at which the hon. member for Yukon was heckled by her own supporters the premier said that he does not think his split with union leaders will hurt her chances of becoming prime minister.
Since the NDP has absolutely no chance of forming the next federal government he is of course correct. One cannot weaken an impossibility.
In these uncertain times it is soothing to find at least one New Democrat who can recognize reality, who knows that his party does not have a hope of forming the next government and is willing to say so. When polling day arrives Canadians will ensure that all New Democrats have their eyes opened to reality.


OCEANS DAY
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, a year ago today, on June 8, at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development we acknowledged Oceans Day for the first time.
Since then there has been widespread support in both the national and international communities for the establishment of an annual global oceans day to raise public awareness and promote co-operative action for the health of the world's oceans.
The Oceans Institute of Canada in co-operation with citizens' groups, government and industry is co-ordinating Oceans Day '93 with public events and an international conference in Halifax. Activities are also planned for this day in other Atlantic provinces and British Columbia.
As all members know, the oceans play a vital role in sustaining life and livelihoods in this and all other countries. Over half the world's population lives within 60 kilometres of the oceans, which cover 70 per cent of this planet's surface.
Indeed, as we know now from our astronauts, when we look back at the earth it is not a green planet but a blue one. We should celebrate this blue planet on Oceans Day, June 8.
June 8, 1993


HARASSMENT
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, for the past 13 years Anne Uzoabo has been racially harassed at work as a nurse at the Kingston Prison for Women. The harassment escalated to the point where she received anonymous death threats in the mail directed against her children and herself, calling them niggers and telling them that if she did not quit her job they would die.
The letters all bear a swastika. Kleenex containing human faeces was found stuck to her car. The harassment seems to be originating from within the prison staff.
A privately conducted investigation claimed there was no basis for Ms. Uzoabo's concerns and blamed her for enduring racial slurs.
I call upon the minister to conduct an independent public inquiry into this matter immediately.


WAR CRIMES
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, today a coalition of Croatian and Bosnian women from Montreal, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Federation des femmes du Quebec and the Civil Liberties Union tabled a petition with 13,000 signatures, asking the Canadian government to continue its efforts to help rape victims in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.
The coalition asks Canada to ensure that the international tribunal established by the UN to judge war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia has an equal number of men and women and includes Canadian woman judges.
I fully support this admirable initiative and I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to do everything in her power to act on this request. We are talking about the lives of women and children who have suffered atrociously and we must do everything we can to stop further suffering.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, to corroborate the words of my colleague across the House, today in Montreal women's groups from across the country are joining together to stage a rally in protest of the systemic rape of women and children in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.
Reports from the European Community Commission and the United Nations Human Rights Commission confirm the rape of some 20,000 to 60,000 women and children in the former Yugoslavia. We are appalled to learn that such abuses occur on all sides of the conflict.
I urge the Government of Canada to press the United Nations to commit to the following recommendations: 1) the permanent entrenchment of sexual assault as a war crime under the Geneva convention; 2) the securing of appropriate medical, psychological and other forms of attention and care for the women and children raped and assaulted, and the provision of financial support to that end; 3) the expansion of the UN definition of a refugee to include women and children who are directly or indirectly victims of gender-based violence and that the UN member states offer them refuge; and 4) that the UN approved war crimes tribunal have equal representation from women.


L'ORDRE DU MERITE NORD-COTIER
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the North Shore has paid a well-deserved tribute to 11 men and women who, for many years, have worked with great dedication to help their community and promote their region.
Dedicating one's time and talents to helping others and promoting our communities is indeed a noble calling.
This tradition of community service is practiced daily by Father Charles Doyon, Imelda Dechamplain, Jeanne-Aime Levesque, Jean-Marie Martin, Jean L'Heureux,

June 8, 1993
Gilbert St-Gelais and Lyne Poirier, as it was by Father Alexis Jouveneau, Simon and Christian Proulx and Alain Potvin, who are no longer with us.
Last Sunday, they were given the highest awards of the Ordre du Merite Nord-Cotier.
I too wish to express my thanks and appreciation for what they have done.


CHIEF BIG BEAR
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to support Chief Blaine Favel, the council and the people of Poundmaker Cree Nation who are taking steps to properly honour one of the First Nations great chiefs, Big Bear.
On July 16 the people of Poundmaker will unveil a cairn dedicated to the memory of Chief Big Bear who devoted his life to peace and the well-being of his people.
Big Bear's intentions in negotiating treaty for his people and his leadership during and after the rebellion of 1885 were continually misunderstood by the government and the courts. He was a principled and dedicated man whose historical record must be corrected.
It is time, during the International Year for World Indigenous Peoples, that Big Bear's proper place in history be restored.
The cairn on the Poundmaker reserve where Big Bear's body is buried is the start of a fitting national tribute to this great leader.
I urge the federal government to support this worthwhile effort.


TIOXIDE CANADA
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, Tioxide Canada of Tracy was sentenced on May 31 to a fine of $4 million after it pleaded guilty to pollution charges.
In his ruling Mr. Justice Belanger ordered the company to pay $3 million of the $4 million within 30 days for wildlife habitat restoration projects. Since the Sorel-Tracy region was the first to suffer this pollution every day for 30 years I ask the Minister of the Environment to require that the Canadian Wildlife Service invest this money in the Lake Saint-Pierre archipelago and especially in the St. Anne islands and Lavalliere Bay.


DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, Canadians know that over all our corrections system works well. Most prisoners serve their time and successfully return to society. However Canadians are concerned about those few truly dangerous offenders who cannot or will not be rehabilitated.
Several weeks ago I encouraged the Solicitor General to consider possible means to keep these few dangerous offenders behind bars at all times, even after their sentence has expired. It does not make sense to release an individual from prison when everyone who knows that person expects him or her to commit another offence and hurt or kill another person.
Today I would like to congratulate the Solicitor General on his draft legislation which has safeguards and which proposes a means to protect Canadians from these dangerous few. Under this legislation, as a high risk offender nears the end of his or her sentence the Crown attorney may ask the courts to designate the person as a dangerous offender resulting in a continued and indefinite sentence.
This legislation is in draft form because the minister needs input from Canadians. I firmly support his initiative and encourage other Canadians to support it as well.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party recognizes that the Young Offenders Act is in need of change. It consequently has proposed changes which would strike a good balance between deterrence, justice and fairness.
June 8, 1993

First, sentence lengths for murder must be increased to ensure full treatment and rehabilitation and access to treatment and rehabilitation not available under the present act.
It would end the practice of automatically clearing the records at age 21 of offendus convicted of serious crimes. It would develop a category of dangerous youth offender for repeat youth offenders who commit serious crimes, enabling them to be tried and convicted in adult court.
Both parents and children alike are scared of the increasing violence in school yards. A 12-year old girl should not have to take medication for stress caused by being threatened with a knife. A Liberal government would work to ensure the safety of our youth and of all Canadians.


FUR INDUSTRY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River):: Madam Speaker, earlier today the chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs tabled a report entitled Canada Fur Watch: Aboriginal Livelihood at Risk.
May I thank the members of the committee for their excellent work on this report. Twenty-three recommendations have been sent to the government. Groups such as the Fur Institute of Canada, Ontario Trappers Association, North American Fur Action, Indigenous Survival International, Fur Council of Canada, the Wild Fur Council and the Aboriginal Trappers Federation of Canada all came forward in a united stand for the industry.
One hundred thousand Canadians are involved in this industry. Meeting the standards set out for 1995 is very important for the future of our industry.
I thank the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of the Environment for their support. As I will be leaving the House of Commons later this year I hope that future governments will continue to support this industry, as we have for many years.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, since December my New Democrat col-
5. ft 31
leagues and I have written letters, made statements in the House and public speeches to pressure the Canadian government to take the international leadership needed to close the rape-death camps of Bosnia and help the victims.
We were successful earlier this year in having the definition of a refugee expanded to include violence against women. The government has taken some positive steps, but the horror of the mass rape and killings continues.
Today in Montreal human rights and women's groups are releasing a petition signed by over 13,000 people calling for freedom and help for the women and children from these rape camps. The petition also asks for equal representation of women on the UN war crimes tribunal and protection of civilian populations.
I support this petition and insist that the government not relegate Bosnia to the back burner. Action is needed and it is needed now.


PENSIONS
Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, the seniors who built this country and now give generously of their time to others will receive their quarterly OAS cheque with a $1.91 minimum increase. It is better than the 37 cents or the 75 cents received in the past, but this increase will scarcely purchase tea and toast.
The last time seniors got consideration and a real increase for those in need was in a 1984 Liberal budget giving a $50 increase per month for those on GIS.
In my riding of Mount Royal 25 per cent of the citizens are seniors. Cutbacks in transfer payments and the impact on health care services are of real concern. The increases they receive on their OAS are subject to income tax and are held to a 3 per cent inflationary factor. They do not reflect the increases they face in daily living, medication, transportation, utility bills and rent, all of which surpassed the rate of inflation.
Presently people receive $10,056 per year as seniors if they are receiving the full GIS. Let us also-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The member's time has long expired.

June 8, 1993
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, but before doing so I would like to say that we are sorry to see him leaving. He has been a colleague of all of us for 25 years. He has done a very good job for his constituents. I had the privilege of being in his riding a few times because my mother's family is from that riding. He is a man of judgment and I understand him very well. He does not want to come back to this side of the House.
I have a question for him about the financial problems of the nation. Some nine years ago his Prime Minister promised to "inflict prosperity on Atlantic Canada". Today the Conservative poverty critic said that conditions in Atlantic Canada were so bad that "Canadians will want to be sending food to the maritimes. It is Third World conditions there".
Does the Minister of Finance agree with the member for Don Valley North on this point, that the maritimes endure Third World conditions after nine years of Conservative government?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his warm and generous comments. He has visited my riding on one or two occasions. As he found out at those times, and it is still the case, all his relatives still vote for me.
As a matter of fact when he campaigned in 1968 against me I think his campaign visit to my riding lasted about a half an hour. He walked into a coffee party and they made it very clear that Liberals and others were going to vote for Maz.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: That was 20 years ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is the same today, Lloyd.
Concerning the point the hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised, he knows very well there are some difficult problems affecting the Atlantic region, particularly those relating to the depletion of the fish stocks.
This government has responded in a massive way in support of the fishermen and the processors, as well as the communities affected by the depletion of stocks. In addition the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which brought about a new form of regional development assistance to broaden the economic base of the Atlantic region has worked very well. In addition also we have had a massive infrastructure program to improve the highway system, the Atlantic Expressway, as well as support for the Hibernia project.
There has been an untold number of initiatives and an untold amount of federal government support for the Atlantic region. Quite clearly the effect will be renewed prosperity and job creation that will serve not only this generation but future generations.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have to say that in those days my relatives did not know he was going to be the Minister of Finance.
Now that he is Minister of Finance they have the good common sense to realize they made a mistake if they voted for him in those days. One of my cousins is a candidate for the Liberal Party in the riding of Elk Island and he will win.
Is it not time to stop the nonsense to create an impression? The people in eastern Canada and elsewhere in Canada who do not have work are not waiting for government handouts. What is needed in Canada at this time is not a new definition of poverty but jobs for these people so they can come home every night with pride and put bread and butter on the table for their families.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, at one point in time in my 25-year career I can say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition there was a sense that some of his relatives had become supportive. However he became the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance and did a lousy job. Then he became the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and he lost them for good.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition says they do not want handouts; they want jobs. I just came back from the OECD meeting. Sometimes good news does not travel veiy fast but in this case it really did. Here is one headline: "Canada poised to top G-7 growth". "Canadian recovery has taken a firm hold, says economic
June 8, 1993

agencies". "Canada's economy will beat other G-7 countries, says the OECD". "Canada's economy leader in growth". "Growth spurt for Canada". "Canada's the most popular country for U.S. investment".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the question is very simple. We want to know if a new definition of poverty will solve the problem of poverty in Canada. All these headlines do nothing for the 1.6 million people in Canada who have no jobs today.

When will the Minister of Finance stop imitating the Prime Minister by congratulating himself, and start looking after Canada's real problems by giving work to Canadians who are more than willing to work so that they can go back home with pride every night of the week?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I was not congratulating myself. I was reading some newspaper headlines which came not from me but from the OECD. What is wrong with that? The hon. member has a tendency to quote bad news. Once in a while I have the opportunity to quote some good news.
He asks about Atlantic Canada. Just to give him and the country some specific examples, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was created and has committed $800 million to some 9,100 projects through its action program. ACOA has also committed $1.1 billion to 77 co-operation initiatives. The government launched the Hibernia program, a $5.2 billion frontier oil production facility.
The Minister of Public Works and other ministers are working very carefully and very closely with the province of New Brunswick and the province of Prince Edward Island to ensure that the fixed link goes ahead. It will be a major public works program.
There are many initiatives in addition to the solid foundation for growth we have put in place through our policies.
Oral Questions POVERTY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
According to the latest Tory report the homeless are not really homeless; they are just people who have chosen open air accommodation. The million children lined up at food banks, according to the government, are simply using community-based fast food outlets. The jobless are not really jobless; they are just less than partially employed. This Tory report is patronizing, pandering and dangerous.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance a direct question. Will he repudiate the report by one of his colleagues which puts the poor people of Canada on the defensive instead of having a government on the offensive on the issue?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Madam Speaker, before making any assessment about the report, we would like to have the time to read it. We will do that and comment afterward.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, now we see the Conservatives for what they really are. Only days before the Conservative leadership convention and after nine years in office they are brazenly announcing that poverty is a figment of our imagination. According to them the United Nations is wrong, Statistics Canada is wrong and the experts are wrong.
Now that a big party is being organized for the Prime Minister, is the minister proud of the fact that his government has failed to help millions of Canadians who are living in poverty? Why does he want to make victims of the poor instead of having a proactive government policy? I expect a reply from the Prime Minister, since he is stepping down.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton East persists in not getting her facts straight. Every day during the past nine years that I have been in the House she has shown a total lack of concern for the

June 8, 1993
Oral Questions
facts. Thank goodness Canadians are starting to realize this.
My answer is simply that if we consider how the government helped children last year, and I am talking about last year, not the entire nine-year period, we invested more than $2.6 billion in direct assistance to families and helping children in need. The hon. member may be partisan but she should at least recognize the government's record, which has no connection with the nasty remarks she made in her preamble about the Conservative Party's leadership campaign.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Two weeks ago the United Nations produced a report condemning Canada for its high levels of poverty. Yet today the subcommittee on poverty released a report denying that the problem even exists.
I might add that members of this party refused to sit on the subcommittee because we knew that all it was going to do was try to provide statistics instead of address the issue of poverty. A report that tells the majority of Canadians who are poor that they are not really poor does nothing to address poverty.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare had the courage to speak up on behalf of all of us who feel very strongly about medicare that user fees would be wrong for medicare. Will the minister stand up against this report and say that the way to address poverty is not to attack the poor but in fact to put in place a plan for full employment? That will really address the poor in the country.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I would hope the Leader of the New Democratic Party will have the decency to allow me the time to read the report tabled this morning. I will read the report and make comments afterward.
Second, the member says we have done nothing about poverty. Day after day in the House of Commons I have said that it remains, it was and is still, one of the most outstanding problems all countries in the world, particularly ours, are facing now. For all those reasons I fully
support what has been done by the Minister of Finance in trying to find jobs. Day after day the member has said she would like to find jobs.
I am pleased the Minister of Finance has worked in such a way that we are moving toward a better economy which will give jobs to Canadians and decrease poverty. That is the way we work. I prefer that to what all NDP governments have done so far which has not been very successful.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that this outgoing government which leaves the most unemployed ever in the history of Canada can comment on other governments.
I would like to say that today I put forward a private member's bill on a full employment strategy. I hope the minister will support it.

The poor do not want hand-outs. They just want jobs. Quebec's 750,000 welfare recipients want jobs. The poor want policies that will help them find jobs, they want day care for their children, and they want training. Why will the government not introduce a full employment policy? When will this government stop attacking the poor and start attacking poverty?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): First of all, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is totally wrong when she says that today we are faced with the highest jobless rate ever in Canada. That is absolutely false. Furthermore, the hon. member tabled a bill on full employment. I am astonished she did not first send her proposals to the Government of Ontario which has to cut 10,000 government jobs. It would have appreciated those proposals, more so than the unions which support her parity.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The question of poverty in this country is surely of serious concern to everyone in this House.
I want to say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that all of us in this House voted in November 1989 to work to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Yet we saw today in the government's own poverty subcommittee report that the solution to poverty was to
June 8, 1993

change, to reduce the poverty line. We should be addressing the fact that we are raising a generation of children of which one in six are living in poverty.
I want to ask the minister of health and welfare this: We are faced with a really serious problem. One of the solutions that the chair of the subcommittee on poverty mentioned is we could ship food to the maritimes. I want to ask the minister of health and welfare if he agrees that that is the solution to poverty or does he think there should be a real plan in place for the poor of Canada, not simply a change in the statistic line?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for a very important question.
Obviously the problem of income inequality and poverty distribution in Canada has been exacerbated here as it has elsewhere in the industrialized countries by some
2.5	to three years by a very difficult economic situation.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Tory government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from northern Ontario says Tory government. There is no Tory government in France. It had a socialist government and just underwent the most severe economic recession since the war. My hon. friend should be ready to recognize that. Whether it is a democratic government in the United States or a Conservative government in Canada, a socialist government in Ontario or Australia, this is world-wide. In light of this, how have we deployed quite limited resources in difficult times?


An hon. member:: Cutbacks.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says cutbacks. Perhaps she would like to listen to this.
In 1984 when we came in, the total amount of federal social expenditures-I can point them out from OAS, to child benefits, to job creation, to veterans, social housing and so on-was $56.1 billion a year. This year they are $103.3 billion a year.
In spite of our difficult economic times, we have increased federal social expenditures at a rate of 7 per cent a year every year, although government expenditures have been contained to 3 per cent. As a proportion of GDP-and I think this will interest my hon.
Oral Questions
friend-12.6 per cent of the total GDP expenditures in 1984 were devoted to social expenditures. Today they are
14.4	per cent, a significant improvement.
I want to point out to my hon. friend that while it is not perfect, Canada has made more progress in this area than any other industrialized country in the world.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Today's poverty committee report asks the minister to set a new renamed poverty line below which are only families who would have "serious difficulty in living healthy and physically acceptable lives". The report says a family of four living in Toronto, earning more than $25,000, has money to spare and should not be thought poor.
I want to ask the minister to explain how a worker can support a spouse and two children on $500 a week.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, the member refers to a report which I said twice I would like to read before making any comment on it. My answer to her will be the same answer I gave to her predecessor. I will read the report first and comment afterward.


Albina Guarnieri: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister should consult his conscience rather than his government's committee.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Liberal recommendations to deliver direct relief through school food programs to children living in poverty were dismissed by Conservative members of the poverty committee as being irrelevant to their statistical measurements. How can playing with statistics and fudging the numbers do any good for children living in poverty?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

June 8, 1993
Oral Questions
Children who are poor cannot eat line graphs. Yet that is what today's Tory subcommittee report on child poverty gives them.
The report condemns the nationally accepted low income cut-off, LICO, as a valid measure of poverty. Yet only last December the minister accepted LICO as the measure for Canada's efforts against poverty at the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development meeting in Europe.
Will the minister now reject the report that creates only pretty lines for the government and instead act to create real answers to the needs of the poor?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, once again I repeat what I have said.
We have had four reports recently, from the UN, from the National Council of Welfare, Caledon, and the subcommittee on poverty. I just ask the opportunity to be able to read the reports before commenting.
I have given the same answer 10 times.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that on the report on the HIV tainted blood tragedy he was able to adopt when questioned by this member, by this opposition, one recommendation of the committee on the same day the report was tabled. Why can he not answer today?
The National Council of Welfare regards LICOs as poverty lines. Its report released four days ago concludes "the only guarantee that welfare offers consistently is poverty".
Will the minister ignore the definition used by his own citizens' advisory body and further lower social assistance or will he ignore-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question? This is getting into a speech.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I missed the last part of the question, but I assume it was a corollary of the previous one. I said that I would give the same answer, if necessary I will read the report, and then I will be in a position to comment.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will remember that yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that poverty was on the increase in Canada.
He will remember too that in 1989 he voted with all other members of the House of Commons to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Today he knows three of his own members have issued a report which would reduce poverty by redefining it.
Is this what the Prime Minister had in mind when he voted in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, by changing the figures rather than finding solutions to resolve it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, why would my hon. friend ask a question of such importance in such a vexatious manner?
Everyone in this House has treated the question of child poverty with the greatest seriousness. I have just provided his leader with facts and figures indicating that the Government of Canada and the people of Canada have dramatically increased their assistance to social programs, including those for children.
One child living in poverty is one child too many. The object of the exercise of programs initiated by the minister of health, $2.6 billion for example in new money alone, indicates the enormous commitment and sensitivity of all Canadians to this problem of children living in poverty. That is the record. That is the record-


Dawn Black: Why are there more poor children?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my hon. friends in the NDP are asking questions. They apparently prefer not to have the answer.
All I can do is indicate-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, more children are living in poverty today than there were when this government came to power. Those are the facts no matter what the government has done.
June 8, 1993

I would like to ask the Prime Minister about his commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. He knows that he agreed to provide Canada's children with first call on the nation's resources in good and bad times.
Child poverty is on the increase. This government has spent $5.8 billion on helicopters while child poverty continues to rise. Is this what he means by fulfilling the commitment to Canada's children?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, this is exactly the way in which a serious problem is trivialized by members of the NDP.
I just indicated to his leader that this year we are spending $103.3 billion on social expenditures, a major portion of which is devoted quite properly to children.
My hon. friend points to an expenditure he disagrees with spread over 14 years which averages approximately $200 million a year-which he deplores for our national defence. Whereas $2.6 billion, 14 times that amount, was deployed in a new initiative last year by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to assist children.
Why does he not stop trivializing Canada and its achievements and work with people constructively to help children rather than engage in this kind of attack?


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Madam Speaker, last month the Minister of State for Finance told the House that housing starts were expected to increase throughout the year, but to the surprise of no one there has been a large drop in new housing construction so far this year from the abysmal level in 1992.
This is not just a short-term phenomenon. Figures released this morning indicate that housing starts fell 14 per cent in May. Contrary to everything this government has to say about the economy, new housing construction is still stuck in recession.
When will the Minister of Finance admit that Canadians have no confidence in an economic recovery and have no confidence in this government's policies?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is somewhat discouraging but the hon. member knows that month to month statistics tend to be very volatile.
If he were to look at the housing starts in the first two months of this quarter there were about 14,000 more units than in the first quarter of 1993. I think he has to look at a longer period of time in order to get a more accurate reflection of the reality of the situation.
I remind the hon. member that housing affordability is at an all-time high. Interest rates are the lowest in 20 years. There are lots of opportunities at the present time for people to become engaged in housing through the low down payment that was provided through the co-operation of the minister responsible for CMHC as well as by tapping into their RRSPs.
The conditions are right for a vibrant housing industry.
I have every expectation that we will see a continued increase in housing starts as we proceed throughout the year.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Madam Speaker, all that would be correct if a person had a job or could look forward to a job. That is the problem with this government's policies.
The minister should know because he said on a month to month basis the figures are volatile. The fact remains that for the first quarter of this year housing starts are down 13 per cent.
The point is this: His own officials keep quoting
182,000	units a year when in fact the entire industry, including the Canadian Bankers Association, Clayton Research and even the CMHC, says that the starts will be less than 20,000.
Thousands of construction workers are out of work. Hundreds of construction companies are waiting to work. When will the government put people back to work, give people a chance to work, and start up housing construction in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I just indicated that the fundamentals are in place, low inflation and low interest rates. A number of incentives for the construe-

June 8, 1993
Oral Questions
tion industry, in particular the home building industry, are in place. I ask the hon. member to once again look at it not in terms of the month to month volatility but indeed a longer period of time.
The hon. member states that the decline is continuing. I say that with the growth that has occurred in the economy in the first quarter of almost 4 per cent, backed up by the strong performance in the fourth quarter of 1992 of 3.5 per cent, the hon. member should be encouraged. Any other data that we see is very encouraging. That is exactly why the IMF and the OECD have proclaimed Canada to have the best growth rate in 1993 and in 1994 and indeed the best job creation rate.


PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The criteria for the Program for Older Worker Adjustment unfairly penalize older employees in small businesses in the Montreal area.
Does the minister think it is fair that a worker aged 55 or over and laid off by a company where there are 100 lay-offs, is eligible for POWA, but a worker laid off by a company with only 50 lay-offs is not?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the government made some changes to the former program put in place by the Liberals, adding POWA to help people aged 55 and over. I must admit that I would like to change the criteria if we had enough money to do that. For instance, last year, the federal govemmnent invested $70 million in POWA, and altogether we are paying more than $233 million in annuities for these workers. I think the federal government has done something worthwhile. Of course, if we had more money we would be able to do more, but considering the state of the economy I think we are doing a good job.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. He must be aware that in the Montreal area alone, 83 per cent of older workers laid off as a result of plant closures receive no assistance at all. When is he going to act to correct a situation that was created by his own government?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's statistics, and I am referring to the 83 per cent who receive no assistance at all, must be totally inaccurate. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, helps workers who lose their jobs by providing training programs.
As for POWA, I can inform the hon. member that last year in consultation with the Government of Quebec we changed the criteria. As the hon. member well knows, until last year workers had to be employed for 15 or 20 consecutive years to be eligible. Tb include more people under the program, especially women, we made it 13 years instead of 15, at the request of the Quebec Government.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
I think the Prime Minister would agree that this morning a lot of Canadians were encouraged when they read the press reports that in light of all the discussion about inclusive politics and after listening to Canadians the Minister of the Environment indicated that he was seriously considering, based on the advice of his colleague from Calgary North, scrapping the GST.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I wonder if the Prime Minister would do the right thing: While celebrating with his colleagues at his going away party on Friday night, which of course a lot of people will be cheering, if he wants to hear a cheer go up from coast to coast to coast, stand up and say that he is going to follow the minister's advice and scrap the GST.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend should really read very carefully what the Minister of the Environment said. I think there indeed will be cheers across the country on Sunday night. There will be a lot of tears at the thought that I will not be around.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
June 8, 1993


Martin Brian Mulroney: But you know, Madam Speaker, they are just going to have to get over it.
My hon. friend is quite right. There will be cheers for the election of a new Conservative leader who will become the 19th Prime Minister of Canada and lead this government, because of courageous policies like the GST, to a third consecutive majority government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I suspect there will be tears on Friday night but they will be tears of joy. Canadians will finally say: "After 10 years now our Prime Minister is leaving". Hopefully his follower will follow the suggestion he has indicated in the press today, that he is reconsidering the wisdom of preserving the GST.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: In the recent issue of the Canadian Tax Journal it indicates that because of the goods and services tax and in spite of what was promised, it has resulted in a tremendous shift into the underground economy that will cost in terms of revenue losses for this year $2.3 billion, in one year alone.
Add to that the fact that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that it costs small business in excess of $9 billion to collect this tax. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the GST is stifling the economy in terms of the job generating small business sector and is encouraging our economy to go more underground than ever?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I would think it would be the contrary.
My hon. friend's party for almost four years endorsed recommendations of various kinds, many times unanimously, of parliamentary committees saying to the federal government: "You must have the courage to abolish the manufacturers' sales tax and substitute therefor a consumption tax".
Moreover my hon. friend's party signed that report and said: "If you want to be fair and honest you must make that consumption tax visible so that the Canadian people will know what they are paying as opposed to having a hidden secret 13.5 per cent manufacturing sales tax that penalizes our manufacturing base".
We brought in, pursuant to a unanimous recommendation that my hon. friend's party signed as did the
Oral Questions
Liberals, a consumption tax. We made it visible. It now is working its way through the Canadian economy. Because it is momentarily unpopular, my hon. friend is running for the hills.
The next election campaign is going to be about those who had the courage to take unpopular actions and not run with their tails between their legs just because a Gallup poll turned bad on them.

[Translation}


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The minister announced recently that he intends to give directly to western farmers the $650 million subsidy paid to railways for grain transportation. The minister knows this would give western farmers an undue advantage compared to Quebec farmers. In fact, this $650 million in federal funds could be used to diversify western agriculture, so that it could compete unacceptably with Quebec farmers.
I ask the minister to tell the House if he really intends to continue on such a provocative course towards Quebec.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been in the House yesterday he would know because I explained the situation to those present. Farmers from all regions of Canada agree that the archaic Crow rate should be changed, and Quebecers agree with the principles of what we put forward and of the consultation paper tabled this week by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.
Yes, the Government of Quebec and other people we met with three or four times expressed some reservations about how the payment would be made to farmers so that these changes would not adversely affect the Maritimes, Ontario or Quebec. That is exactly why we tabled this consultation paper, so that it could be discussed widely and freely with all Canadians.

June 8, 1993
Oral Questions
I hope that the hon. member will be able to read the consultation paper, to talk about it, to express his own views and to show that what is being done is for the benefit of Canadian farmers.


Lucien Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I see that the government really intends to impose such discriminatory treatment on Quebec farmers and that the members of the Quebec caucus, as usual, will again simply put up with such an affront to their constituents.
As a result of these meetings which the minister mentions the Government of Quebec and its agricultural partners have created a coalition to fight this measure. I ask the minister, or rather the one who is answering for the responsible minister: Does he not know that if he continues on that course he will just be taken for a lobbyist for western farmers?


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has anything to teach me. I think that I spent more time with his own farmers in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean than he has over the years.
If ever a government has looked after Quebec farmers to assure them that there were really Quebecers who have their interests at heart here in this Parliament, it is this government. We have taken measures over the years to consult farmers in Quebec and Canada. I think that everyone has admitted that, even the people in the coalition who are still prepared to sit down with us. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I will look into it. Nothing is definite yet. It is not a bill or a measure that we will force or impose. We will discuss with people and I am sure that in the end people will agree with us. I invite the hon. member to read the document, which obviously he has not done. That is crystal clear.


CUMBERLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
For some months the Cumberland Development Corporation has been applying for an extension of funding for its operation and investment budgets so it can continue its good work in business development and through the SCA program and other programs.
Is that funding coming? If it is coming, when can we expect it?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, because of the good, dedicated, solid, hard work of the member it has been approved and it will be announced shortly.


CREDIT CARDS
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns credit cards.
According to a recent survey, 65 per cent of Canadians are in favour of stricter controls on credit card use. The survey would seem to indicate that consumers realize it is veiy easy to get into debt, especially with credit cards.
What does the Minister intend to do about the excessively high rate of consumer debt?


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the situation, and even if the opposition is not interested, I think it is a serious issue for Canadian consumers. Recently, a consumer organization in Shawi-nigan submitted a number of proposals to the department. I have sent some suggestions and comments to my provincial counterparts and I am waiting for a reply so that we may help Canadian consumers deal with this problem.


POVERTY
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Like my leader, I have great respect for the Minister of Finance, but I am somewhat insulted and appalled today
June 8, 1993

that the Minister of Finance would not avail himself of the opportunity to stand in his place and repudiate the comments made by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Poverty who said: "Conditions in Atlantic Canada are so bad that Canadians will want to be sending food to the maritimes. It is Third World conditions there".
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance if he agrees with this statement and if not will he repudiate that statement and that member now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I have not had an opportunity to read-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will know that maritimers are proud people, proud of their culture and proud of the contribution they have made to Canada. In some instances they are proud of the representatives they have sent to this Parliament to serve on behalf of Canada.
Does the Prime Minister agree that there are Third World conditions in Atlantic Canada and that we must send food to the maritimes to keep them afloat? Does the Prime Minister agree with such gobbledegook from the chairman of the Subcommittee on Poverty?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the statement to which my friend refers. I will be happy to read the complete transcript. I have heard from time to time in this House and elsewhere, for example in respect of my area of the country and Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario, many people saying that for example Third World conditions prevailed on native reserves. That in some cases turned out to be accurate. We have had to examine that and re-examine our own consciences to deal with the great problems of Indian reserves and native Canadians, aboriginal Canadians generally. I say that by way of illustration.
For decades, really since Confederation, in spite of every effort Atlantic Canada on a per capita income basis has found itself in a less privileged position than any
Government Orders
other area of Canada. There are pockets in Quebec that are worse off and there are pockets in some areas of the prairies that are worse off, but by and large Atlantic Canada has not benefited from Confederation on a per capita basis to the same extent as the rest of Canada. This is why equalization is so important. The federal government has acted through Hibernia and through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, through the unilateral allocation of a $5 billion contract to the Saint John shipyards, through the building of the fixed link From New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island, in order to provide what maritimers need: equality of opportunity and fairness of treatment.
Now let me tell my hon. friend this, and my hon. friend knows full well what the answer is. Any statement at variance with what I just said-and the greatest respect that we have for the contribution of maritimers and Atlantic Canadians generally to the success of Canada- would of course be unacceptable to me as Prime Minister and to my government. We believe that Atlantic Canada must receive the same degree of attention and concern and investment as anywhere else. Moreover, the government has multiplied its efforts to make sure this takes place, not for reasons of charity but for reasons of dignity and because Atlantic Canadians are entitled to it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Vytautas Landsbergis, leader of the opposition of the Lithuanian Seimas.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, as reported (with amendments) by a subcommittee of the Standing Com-
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
mittee on Communications and Culture; and Motions said: "The commission is also strongly of the view that is Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23.	with the case of policy directives: A matter before the
commission should not be subject of an exemption * (1505)	order".
John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to once again speak on this bill on telecommunications and communications with respect to Motions Nos. 12,13,14,16,17,18, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
Motion No. 12 would delete the exemption power afforded to the CRTC. The power to exempt can also be met through the commission's power to forbear the right-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could hon. members perhaps carry on their discussions behind the curtains? The Chair cannot hear members speaking on the far side.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: As I was saying, the power to exempt can also be met through the commission's power to forbear from regulation or through policy directives under clause 8. Without this amendment the CRTC can exempt an entire class of carriers from regulation. This is an extension of the competition mania gripping the CRTC and the government.
It is interesting to note in legislative committee the comments of the governments of Ontario and British Columbia. The province of Ontario said: "It is considered that the cabinet's power of exemption is excessive and unnecessary. The province of Ontario therefore recommends that clause 9 be deleted from the bill".
The province of British Columbia said: "This section providing the power to exempt should be deleted. The purpose of the provision can be met either through the commission's power to forbear from regulation, or if the intent is to serve broader policy aims the Governor in Council can issue policy directives under clause 8".
We can accomplish already what is set out. The suggestion is that this amendment is to delete the exemption power which is being afforded the CRTC because it is present in another area. The CRTC itself
Moving on to Motion No. 13, this amendment would ensure that any and all affected provinces have advance knowledge of any exemption of a class of carrier or other orders that would impact on their province and would ensure that the provinces would have an adequate opportunity to consult with the minister before any public announcement is made.
The government has been extremely reluctant to include any meaningful measure to ensure dialogue between the federal government and its provincial counterparts. This amendment combined with our Motion No. 8 respecting clause 7 would enhance federal-provincial consultations in an area sensitive for several provinces, specifically Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba.
In committee the B.C. government stated as follows in its submission: "Provinces should be advised of a forthcoming proposed order prior to its publication in The Gazette notice. Modifications should be referred back to the province under the provincial consultation provisions".
It went on to say that during the negotiation process between the provinces and the federal government to define a memorandum of understanding regarding telecommunications problems and regulations, a proposal was considered for the establishment and functioning of a council for ministers of telecommunications.
This council was (a) to review matters of interest to both orders of government; (b) to consult on major issues that concern both orders of government in the field of telecommunications and; (c) was to consider a policy objective for future telecommunications policy development. Lastly, (d) to exchange information to facilitate future planning for the development of telecommunications policy. Unfortunately these suggestions were not adopted by the government in this piece of legislation.
The next three motions, Nos. 16, 17 and 18, deal with the government's substantial power grab in this bill. The government has the power to issue policy directives to the CRTC as well as vary a CRTC decision, rescind a decision and refer it back to the CRTC. This amendment

would eliminate the vary and rescind power, only allowing cabinet to refer back a decision to the CRTC. The Broadcast Act only allows cabinet to refer back or set aside a decision of the commission, not the more substantial powers to vary or rescind a commission decision.
Once again, the CRTC stated as follows and I quote:
-	if a fence could be built around it -
That is the cabinet's power to vary CRTC decisions.
-	and it were just going to be applied to minor details, that's one thing but we haven't seen any evidence that that's likely to be the case.
The B.C. government in its submission stated and I quote:
The power to vary or rescind should be reduced to allow the Governor in Council to send a decision back to the CRTC for further review. This would be similar to the power allowed for in the Broadcasting Act.
As we look further at Motion No. 20, the amendment here expands the clause to bind the minister to publish Governor in Council considerations of previous decisions of the CRTC in the Canada Gazette. In other words, the cabinet would not be able to refer back, vary or rescind CRTC decisions without some public notice.
If we look at Motion No. 21, this amendment would ensure that the provincial governments are given adequate consultation time when cabinet either issues policy directives or varies or rescinds a CRTC decision.
The next motion is Motion No. 23. This is another power that the government has afforded itself. This would ensure that if the minister is to establish technical standards, he would do so only after consulting not only the CRTC but effective carriers and other interested parties. This amendment would ensure greater transparency of process and more public accountability.
Having looked at all of these amendments, it seems to me that it makes this a fuller bill. As the member for Okanagan-Shuswap has already stated in his remarks, without some of what the people in the legislative committees and some of the witnesses have said, without the incorporation of some of their ideas and some of their suggestions to the legislation, the legislation is not only imperfect but it is far from being adequate for what is necessaiy at the present time and going further into
Government Orders
the 21st century with the massive expansion of telecommunications services and the technology of today.
I close by suggesting very strongly that the minister and the government look at some of the amendments that have been put forward by the member for Okana-gan-Shuswap and the member for Mount Royal with respect to trying to make imperfect legislation somewhat more acceptable to all areas within the telecommunications and communications area.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, this series of amendments deals with power the government is taking unto itself and the transparency of the legislation or the ability of the people and the community to see what the government is doing with the power it is taking on. Not surprising, these two are closely related.
A government that is wielding unpopular power to impose unpopular decisions does not want the public to know about it. Quite often this power is wielded undemocratically and in order to further the interests of some particular group in the industry to which the government is beholden. This seems to be the basis of the present bill.
The amendments that are being suggested here are to open up the situation so that the government does not wield quite so much power or at least makes valuable use of the commission it has in place, which is the CRTC.
The provinces have been an important part of the development of the industry. They should be given some negotiating tools. That would mean that they should be allowed to make suggestions and have some tools by which they can force the government to take a look at those things.
One particular amendment to this act suggests that the provinces are not that important in this whole area. Yet if one looks into history the provinces are the most important area. The federal government is late in coming to the area of communications and intercommunications.
Parliament is supposed to be the final authority of government. In Motion No. 12 we are suggesting that the CRTC power be exempt from regulation as an entire class of the industry. This is what is being suggested in this. We are loath to give that kind of power because this

Government Orders
becomes the ultimate deregulation. The government can say: "We will exempt this whole class of the industry from any kind of regulation at all". This puts that particular class into a situation of new regulation and not necessarily doing things for the benefit of the country or of the consumer.
In Motion No. 13 my colleague from Okanagan-Shu-swap in an earlier amendment suggested that co-operation between the CRTC, the provinces and the industry should be one of the main aims of the legislation. It would appear that the government has been extremely reluctant to include meaningful measures to ensure dialogue between the federal and the provincial governments.
It would be more logical to put into the legislation a requirement for this kind of recognition of the need for consultation between these particular groups. One of the provinces suggested that a council might be an alternative to the suggestion made in this particular amendment.
Take Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 23. Motion No. 21 is approximately the same as Motion No. 14 which is the motion of exemption. Motion No. 22 would seem to delete the provincial governments as an effective part of the industry and should therefore not be included in the amendments that we would support.
It would appear that in Motion No. 20, which is relative to the power of the cabinet, my colleague has suggested that if cabinet does take power from the CRTC, which is what is being suggested by this particular act, then it should have to at least report what it is doing and make the processes of exemption, deregulation and overriding the wishes of provinces or the industry as transparent as possible.
Each time the CRTC makes a decision this particular motion would require that it be published so that the world could know what is being done in the name of the government to the communications industry.
This group of amendments, as I said earlier, tries to ameliorate the power that is being put upon cabinet and taken away to some extent from the CRTC. It makes the whole process-if it must stay the way it is and that seems likely under these kinds of circumstances-as
transparent as possible so that people of Canada within the industry will know that the Governor In Council is imposing upon them something which they do not want, which might be unpopular and might not be acceptable to them.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to participate in this debate this afternoon because I think this is an important occasion when we look at the communications industry in Canada and look at its special needs and look at the responses that have been brought forward in this legislation and the amendments that are currently grouped before the House.
How the CRTC works is always a great mystery to many Canadians. Even those within the industry struggle sometimes to sort out precisely how the process of regulations actually functions and where the powers lie. Part of what I thought was rather unique in the proposals before us this afternoon was to look at some of the things that governments do by simply not doing anything or by exempting.
I think the first element of these motions before us this afternoon that deserves some consideration is this power of exemption. It is what the government and the CRTC would do simply by exempting certain matters from regulation.
I think for many of us in looking on the surface what appears to be an attempt to bring forward competition does not always achieve its stated aim. There are some matters where realistically in the Canadian market one will get some level of competition but opening it up does not always accomplish that purpose. Very often an exemption or the use of regulations which at least on the surface appears to be some attempt to bring forward competition in the industry does not really do that.
There may be some change or some alteration in the conditions at the beginning of that process but in the long run it is inevitable that that is not really going to bring about competition. That is going to bring about injury to a certain sector of the industry itself.
I think some of the motions before us this afternoon that really deal with the power of exemption need to be examined. It may on the surface appear that the government and the CRTC are not attempting to do much more than make sure that there is competition in the field. These motions do examine and do look at some of the problems we have and deny the reality of this country
June 8, 1993

which is sometimes a little difficult to fathom because it is a very complicated piece of business.
I want to go through some of the other motions that are before us because I think they deal with what may be considered by many to be a pretty politically sensitive area. That is the way in which the federal government and its agency the CRTC deals with these matters which in many cases blend, sometimes fortunately and sometimes unfortunately, with the concerns that are brought forward by the provincial governments.
Part of what I like about the motions presented here is that an attempt is made to sort out that process. It should not necessarily be an adversarial process all the time. It ought to be a process where it is clear to the provincial governments what the intention is of the federal government and the CRTC. They should at least be given a reasonable amount of notice and provided with an opportunity before decisions are made to participate in that process. That is a power sharing concept which has been addressed in many ways over the years. Sometimes it is looked at in a constitutional sense of delegating powers almost starkly.
However the truth is that in many parts of Canada the powers will be shared. Whether anybody really wants to store these powers or not they are going to have to. The impact of a regulatory agency like the CRTC on the efforts of any of our provincial governments is sometimes very significant.
What these motions try to do is to lay out a process that is fair, reasonable and logical so that we bring together those interests of the federal government and each of our provinces to establish a process that is also fair and reasonable. This provides an opportunity for the provinces to participate in the process, share some of the obligations and at least be knowledgeable and understand this whole regulatory process at work along with, subsequently, the public at large.
Many of us are concerned-it is covered in some of these motions-about the new technology and how it changes the way the communications industry functions in Canada. Many of us have been concerned that there will always be, we hope, a publishing industry that is not uniquely Canadian in terms of the people hired who are
Government Orders
bom and raised in Canada but that looks on the needs of a country-Canada-as its primary function.
It needs to be published here. It needs to feature Canadian artists. It needs to have a Canadian perspective. It needs to address a Canadian audience. I do not want to say nasty things about American magazines or magazines that come from other parts of the world that serve their purposes quite nicely. Many of us would have an interest in them.
There is a need now to look at the technology which allows an American-made magazine to be published almost instantaneously in Canada. That technology is only one example of many where a technology of the industry is kind of leap-frogging over the regulatory nature of the government.
I think the motions in this group are attempts to try to recognize that this technology is moving very quickly. Even 10 years ago we would not have thought of all kinds of telecommunications as being a driving factor in the publications industry. However now it is. Now whole magazines and layouts can be distributed in Canada and in a technical sense printed in part in Canada and sometimes qualify as Canadian magazines. However, in fact they are about as Canadian as receiving something on a fax machine.
The motions that are before the House at the moment are an attempt to try to sort out the problems that we have encountered in those areas in a logical and rational way.
The last thing I want to try to touch on is the move, which some would say is unfair, by the federal government to change the nature of the CRTC and to establish very clearly the power of the Government of Canada.
This is a fairly substantive change. For years we have argued in this country that what we want with an agency like the CRTC is a regulatory agency which arbitrates disputes, makes regulations and comes to decisions when we need a decision-making body to arbitrate some argument in an industry.
In this bill and in some of the motions that are before us we are attempting to grapple with the relationship of a government with one of its regulatory bodies. I would argue that the changes in the bill go a bit too far for my taste. Rather than setting apart an agency to arbitrate a dispute and come forward with regulations, they allow

Government Orders
the Government of Canada to intervene too broadly to set aside and override those decisions.
That is something we have struggled with in a number of areas in this country over the years. It is sometimes difficult for a government to walk the line between setting policies, letting the policies run and allowing a third party to arbitrate disputes in that particular area. Sometimes governments will cross over the line and in my view this bill crosses over a bit too strongly. It removes some of the powers of the CRTC and changes the nature of the process substantively and not to anybody's particular benefit.
The last area I would mention in my comments on this grouping of motions is an amendment to expand the clause to bind the minister to publish Governor in Council consideration of previous decisions of the CRTC in the Canada Gazette. In other words, the cabinet would not be able to refer back or rescind CRTC decisions without some public notice.
It is absolutely amazing and quite contrary to my notion of how a democracy should function exactly how many times that kind of a process happens. Supposedly, public policy decisions are reached on matters the public has the right to be informed about, but they are not. These motions provide a process whereby the public would at least have an access point to that kind of decision-making process.
The motions which have been brought forward by my colleague are eminently supportable and this is an important bill. I regret that we have had a closure motion put on it, but the motions before us in my colleagues' names will help make this a better bill.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Madam Speaker, I too want to speak on Motion No. 22. It deals with clause 13 which is essentially about provincial consultation.
I think sections 8 to 15 of Bill C-62, the telecommunications bill, deal with the powers of Order in Council which essentially lay out the responsibility of the government to this bill and a number of ways the Order in Council should operate from directions, exemptions and so on.
My colleague from Mount Royal has put an amendment that would strike some of the words in clause 13 that speak to provincial consultation. Her amendment would have the federal minister notify his provincial counterparts but it would stop at notification as opposed to clause 13 in the bill in its present form which says: "and shall provide an opportunity for each of them to consult with the minister". In other words, it would build additional bureaucratic layers that might cause the federal Minister of Communications some problems. Those words could be construed as giving a silent veto of some sort to each and every provincial minister when dealing with a telecommunications issue. I think that would be counter-productive.
I applaud the minister for getting this bill to the floor of the House after nine years. It is a very good bill. Constructive amendments have been put forward that have improved it and will lead this country into the 21st century in a very dynamic way. But the whole purpose of this bill is to arrange competitive forces and talk about the roles of government, the CRTC and all the stakeholders in the telecommunications industry in this country.
If the whole spirit of the legislation is to make sure we have good order and good management in telecommunications, it would appear to me that the amendment of my colleague from Mount Royal to strike the words "and shall provide an opportunity for each of them to consult with the minister" is much more favourable and positive. Clause 13 would allow the federal Minister of Communications the assurance that having made those important decisions for the federal government for the good of the country notification of his provincial counterparts would be enough.
Notification also means there would have been a tremendous amount of consultation beforehand. It is not a Draconian phrase that says "will notify" and that is it. The federal minister knows there has to be a co-operative and co-ordinated approach with the provinces in areas of telecommunications. Therefore I think striking those words as my colleague from Mount Royal wants to do would help the federal government discharge its particular duties and responsibilities.
June 8, 1993

Government Orders
I would ask the House to support this very positive amendment. In my opinion it does not infer any veto or silent veto powers to the provincial ministers but essentially says that notification and consultation is proper. The present wording in clause 13 might infer additional powers or even a silent veto to the provincial ministers. That is not acceptable to us. That is why the amendment has been put forward by my colleague from Mount Royal.
We are very supportive of this amendment and encourage the government and the NDP to support it also.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I rise to spend a few moments defending the grouping of amendments before us.
I believe these amendments are trying to accomplish three things. There are a great many of them and it becomes very difficult to debate each one piece by piece. My colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap and the hon. member for Mount Royal, in one amendment in the grouping, are attempting to make three points that ought to be made when we are discussing telecommunications strategy in this country.
The government has been attempting to find methods of deregulating the industry. It is going to continue with the CRTC. The first clause we are dealing with provides for an exemption from regulation. That may sound like a good thing to some members of the government but from the point of view of the role of the House of Commons in establishing legislation and while it is a continuation of the last eight or nine years of practice in this Chamber, it is not a good practice.
The government has been drafting bills that are as broadly set out as possible and will essentially give the cabinet the right to do whatever it wants within very broad limits in a particular policy area.
The clause we are attempting to take from the legislation would give the cabinet or the CRTC the power to ignore all their rules in the case of a particular company or actor in the telecommunications field. This can be very dangerous for the existing entities in the business and for provincial governments that are already historically and in practice involved in some parts of the telecommunication industry, particularly telephones and the parts of the telecommunication technology attached to telephones that require a system of lines to provide service.
The government, consistent with its policies throughout its mandate has decided to turn over much of these powers and rights to transnational corporations. They can take the more profitable parts of the industry and make a profit from them. An attempt has been made to permit new players into the long distance telephone market which uses microwave technology. It does not require inter-linkages with telephone lines and all the infrastructure that the provincial telephone companies and the existing companies in the larger provinces where they are not government-owned have already established some very heavy investments.
I have seen problems that can arise in another aspect of telecommunications in my own riding. The CRTC appeared to give one company the right to broadcast in a rather small part of the vast territory of my constituency. It only extended to a few small villages. Then a decision was made several years later to introduce competition to this same small area. Probably 99.99 per cent of my territory does not have any of these services but in the .01 per cent that does, the CRTC decided there should be competition.
The existing broadcaster communicator was making no money at all. He was losing money but was hopeful that if he carried on for another couple of years he would be able to break even. Now he has competition and two companies are busily losing money as fast as they can. What a coup for political ideology. What a stupid kind of public policy.
The right to exempt the second company from the rules that were there for the first company seems to have been at the root of the problem. It can happen even in very small villages and out of the way communities such as the ones I represent. This kind of policy can wreak a great deal of harm.
It is further aggravated because the decision-making process is not documented and cannot be found nor traced. We simply get the decisions without the rationales for the decisions. That is something else these amendments are attempting to correct in this changed legislation.
These are important. The amendments themselves may not have the ideas set out as elegantly as would have been the case had my friend for Okanagan-Shuswap been able to draft the whole of the legislation. According to the rules, he must work with the existing somewhat

June 8, 1993
Government Orders
flawed legislation and try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear as it were.
Essentially these amendments will go some way toward achieving the kinds of things I spoke about. They are worthy of support and I recommend them to the House.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
June 8, 1993


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to point out that inadvertently the Speaker neglected to put Motion No. 22 standing in the name of my Liberal colleague from Mount Royal. It should be put to the House and voted upon accordingly.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I cannot put Motion No. 22 to the House until the House has decided on Motion No. 21. That will happen later today.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 obviates the question being put on Motion No. 22. As the House has decided to defer the vote on Motion No. 211 cannot put Motion No. 22 to the House.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 15 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"19.(1) The Commission may, on application,".
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 21 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"Commission considers are consistent with the".
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 31 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"Commission."
Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out line 32 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"20.(1) Commission may suspend or revoke".
Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-62 be amended in the English version, in Clause 20 by striking out line 34 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"whenever the Commission believes on reasonable".

June 8, 1993
Government Orders
Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-62 be amended in the English version, in Clause 20 by
striking out line 42 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"Commission."
Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out line 1 at
page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The Commission may suspend or revoke on".
He said: Madam Speaker, although the motions seem minor in the actual wording because they basically change a single term in each of the various motions, they have a fairly major ramification.
There was extensive debate during committee stage with regard to ministerial licensing power. The original bill had a fairly extensive series of clauses in it referring to ministerial licensing power with respect to domestic licensing.
After very extensive discussion in legislative committee with members of the CRTC, members of the industry, ministry staff and our legal counsel who was present, we were successful at striking these provisions from the bill. The ministry was in accordance with that direction. Obviously it must have been because these particular provisions were struck.
However clauses 19 and 20 remain, allowing for a ministerial licensing power with respect to the licensing of international submarine cable licences. The various subsections of clauses 19 and 20 refer repeatedly to the ministerial power or the granting of the power of licensing to the minister. To be consistent with the provisions that struck the ministerial licensing power with respect to domestic licensing it was felt at least by myself and my colleagues that rather than have the minister actually grant application for the issuance of international submarine cable licences to corporations eligible to hold licences, the provision should more adequately be within the powers of the commission.
The amendments would look at changing the delegation of power from that of the minister to that of the commission. We simply felt that the commission was a body struck through this Parliament, a body with responsibility for issuance of licences and the reviewing of licences with respect to the domestic situation.
We felt it would be most appropriate to utilize that body or that commission, which is at arm's length from cabinet and from the minister, as the appropriate vehicle to make the decisions as to whether international cable licences should or should not be given.
The change is very minor in the wording but fairly major in terms of the ramifications of where the power to make these decisions actually rests. We are simply saying that power should more adequately reside with the commission rather than with the minister. That would be within the spirit of the changes that have already been made, the changes respecting ministerial licensing with which the government has seen fit to agree.
That is the reason for the recommendations. I hope the government considers them. We think they are appropriate recommendations and amendments to make.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it would be sensible if all licensing powers are to be taken from the minister in sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 to do the same in this section also. That way our action will be more logically coherent. That is why I think that this motion presented by my colleague is worth considering seriously.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 24 and the vote applies to Motions Nos. 25 to 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly Motions Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 are negatived on division.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: 


Some hon. members:: Question.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division. Motion No. 24 negatived.

June 8, 1993

Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 27 by adding immediately after line 22 at page 15 the following:
"(5) Where the Commission has determined that unjust commercial practices have occurred, the Commission shall intervene to ensure the restoration of healthy rules of competition consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives."
He said: Madam Speaker, I must admit it is rather hard. With the number of amendments we have before us we sometimes get a little bit behind the game but I think we are caught up here.
This particular motion with respect to clause 27 arose with respect to a concern that some of the players, not major players in the industry but certainly significant players, have expressed with respect to the assurances of just commercial practices.
This amendment would provide a level of additional assurance that would grant the CRTC, as the commissioning body, the power to intervene in bona fide cases in which it feels unjust commercial practices have been entered into. The reason for granting that provision of assurance and the power for the CRTC would be to allow it to intervene in such situations to restore what could be considered healthy rules of competition.
This amendment was debated briefly in legislative committee but it was perhaps overlooked because of some of the more wide-sweeping amendments that were introduced both by the government and the opposition members in the legislative committee.
It was only afterward in reviewing some of the loose ends that remain within this legislation that I took a look at this section and realized that the arguments made by Fonorola in its brief of May 5 and its recommendation that this particular consideration be provided in this section of the legislation was a just one. It would simply act to ensure that in the future if any such abusive actions in terms of unjust commercial practices were entered into they would not be condoned or overlooked by our regulatory body.
In light of the fact that this bill is thrusting us into a new era of deregulation and is opening up the competitive aspect of the telecommunications marketplace I think that all the players in the industry would like to assure themselves that when that competition is opened
Government Orders
up it will be fair competition and there will not be predatory practices or unfair trade practices in any layer of that competition.
There is a particular concern about the difference in size of some of these competitive players. Some of these players in the industry are pretty big time. There is Bell Canada, B.C. Tel on the west coast, and some of the big telecoms. Some of the U.S. interests are coming in and joining with our Canadian interests, such as with Unitel and AT&T. These are very major players in the industry. There are some very minor players in the industry that want to assure themselves that they are not going to be simply swallowed up by possible unfair or unjust trade practices.
In light of those concerns and the fact that we have seen the impact of predatory pricing and policies in other industrial sectors and the impacts that those policies can have, I thought it was only appropriate to provide this level of assurance for our smaller players in the industry to make sure that when competition is entered into it is fair competition, just competition and balanced competition.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I recognize this amendment. It is the Fonorola amendment. I would suggest that at the time it was submitted it was an important consideration. Thanks to Fonorola a lot of the issues around an assurance for just and reasonable rates were looked into.
We deal with just and reasonable rates in section 27. Now it is referred to in section 27.3, something that was not previously referred to. We have to refer back to section 25 and section 29 with respect to how this bill is applied, and with any decisions now found under sections 24, 25 and 29 they have added section 34.
Section 34, which comes after integral activities, makes sure that all matters are taken into account and all business activities are taken into account. A lot of the predatory concerns that were legitimate have been answered.
In a sense one could say that it is a redundant amendment. On the other hand, one could say that it never hurts to assure that what is implicit is made explicit. I once said in committee that it could almost be seen as chicken soup, now that we are at this it cannot hurt.

Government Orders


Henry Perrin Beatty: Unless you're a chicken.


Sheila Finestone: That is true. It is a matter of the chicken and the egg, whether we have a full commitment or a partial one. Is that not so?
As for the question of the David and Goliath scenario that this bill has to address, where we have the smaller hybrid companies and/or smaller telecommunications services versus the giants in the field then just and reasonable rates are fundamental. Of course that is the responsibility of the CRTC.
However there are potential possibilities for change in this area. Section 27(1) says that:
Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications
service shall be just and reasonable.
This gives the industry that perceives damage another clause on which to hang its hat.
Therefore I do not think this could hurt and I do not think it would be offensive in any sense to the procedure in the bill. It just makes explicit what perhaps is perceived to be implicit in this bill.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, this is just a test on my part to verify whether the assumption I made is correct that up until now those motions on which I have intervened have tended to take longer and been more difficult when I have been dealing with my friends. When I did not intervene the last five or six motions rushed right through with no difficulty.
I will watch with great care to see what sort of reaction there is as I try to be helpful here. However I do want to indicate to my hon. friend that I certainly share his concern that in cases where deregulation takes place we have to ensure that there is full and fair competition. I can give him the assurance, however, that the CRTC already has the power to correct abuses by the carriers which it regulates through its present authority to approve or deny tariff applications and agreements between carriers.
The CRTC also has the authority to investigate abuses in those instances where it uses its forbearance or exemption powers. I would also note that the amendment is cast in very broad language that would appear to extend well into the area of responsibility given to the director of investigation and research under the Competition Act.
I can give my hon. friend the assurance that full power already exists in the act to achieve the goals that he is seeking to achieve here.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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 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 nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 31 negatived.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-62 be amended in clause 34 by striking out line 11 at
page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"tions policy objectives and in the public interest to do so.
(1.1) Before acting under subsection (1), the commission shall give notice of any proposed forbearance by publication in Canada Gazette of the power that it proposes not exercising or the duty that it proposes not performing and the reasons supporting the proposed forbearance and, no sooner than 30 days following publication of the notice, shall hold a public hearing to enable interested parties to intervene for purposes of demonstrating that the proposed forbearance is not in the public interest".
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-62 be amended in clause 34 by striking out line 17 at
page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"of users, the commission may make a deter-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of forbearance took up a fairly significant amount of time in the legislative committee given the time that we did have to take it up. There was quite a bit of debate on this. There
June 8, 1993

were some legitimate and outstanding concerns about the process of forbearance and where to forbear, or to choose not to regulate if we want to clarify the terms. The whole issue is still quite a problem.
The two amendments that I have suggested go somewhat toward making this a little more in the realm of a discretionary decision by the CRTC. This particular clause allows the regulatory commission to forbear, or to decide not to regulate, virtually any part of the telecommunications service or industry where it finds that to refrain would be consistent with Canadian telecommunication policy objectives. That is basically the essence of the amendment. It is to forbear where it is consistent with the policy objectives outlined in the objectives of the bill itself.
I think we want to ensure there is in fact a means test, not only with respect to whether or not there is sufficient competition taking place so that the CRTC could withdraw from its regulatory role, but it is just as important for there to be a means of deciding whether in fact it would be consistent and in the long-term interests of Canadians-meaning Canadian consumers and Canadian users-as well as the industry itself.
With the way the bill is currently worded I do not feel it provides the kinds of assurances that would be provided for with this amendment; that is to refrain when consistent with the policy objectives and not consistent with just one objective. That objective would obviously be whether there is sufficient competition in the industry. However, is it consistent with the other policy objectives? It should be in the interests of Canadian users of our telecommunications services and consistent with the social policy objectives of this piece of legislation.
The clause in the bill demands that the CRTC should forbear from regulation when competition is sufficient in the market. The way it is worded essentially forces the CRTC to do that. The decision of whether it might do it, may do it or shall do it is pretty clear in this particular clause.
In the clause as currently worded it shall do it and has no discretion. What I am saying is that perhaps we should provide the regulatory body the choice and to allow them to have that flexibility in choosing when to and when not to forbear or to decide to move away from
Government Orders
a regulatory structure. Give them the choice in doing so and therefore protect the public interest. Rather than being as restrictive as it is currently written vis-a-vis in saying that the commission shall forbear, it allows some flexibility.
I would like to put forward those amendments. I think it is certainly in the best interests of the industry and the Canadian public to allow that kind of flexibility for the commission to decide when and when not to exercise this particular option.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it would appear that the term or the idea of public interest is a forgotten concept, particularly with governments that are rushing untrammelled to be competitive or to appear to be competitive. Consequently these two amendments are an attempt to allow the CRTC to take public interest into consideration when it decides whether or not it is going to regulate the industry or portions of the industry.
The first amendment would add that the public interest is a crucial factor in the decision not to regulate sections of the industry. The second amendment would allow the CRTC flexibility in choosing when not to forbear from regulating therefore giving further protection to the public interest. In both cases the basis under which decisions to regulate are made will be whether or not it is in the public interest to do so.
We all recognize that a considerable number of situations arise where competition is detrimental to the best operation of the industry. I can give a very simple example. If there is no requirement or regulation to provide communications to certain areas which are not profitable then there is a tendency for a government to say: "Do not bother".
We have grown up in a large country with fairly costly communications problems believing that every area of the country should have the right to adequate communications. Competition would not provide this kind of communication. Therefore it is required to establish some sort of regulations which do put into place a structure which enforces to some extent regulations to say that the industry must provide this communication over the whole of the country rather than only in those areas that are profitable.

Government Orders
That is the kind of public interest that needs to be taken into consideration and that is what these two amendments are intended to do. They will give the CRTC the right to make a choice to say that in the public interest regulation should be put into place or regulation should not be put into place. That is the basis of these two which would strengthen the ability of the CRTC to rule in the public interest.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, this particular set of motions kind of goes to the crux of this bill. I know it is fashionable in many parts of the industry to talk about deregulation. I know that it is fashionable when this government in particular sets its mind to drafting legislation to come up with new terminology that somehow manages to obfuscate the issue and confuse people so that no one at the end of the day actually knows what is going on.
The motions that are before the House at the moment tend to do that. They talk about forbearance and we are all not terribly sure what that is.
The government is saying: "When in doubt confuse them and change the title". It is doing that. In this section of the bill and under these particular motions it is simply saying it wants to deregulate whether or not anybody needs it, wants it or it is in the public interest. It believes in deregulation and as the government it manages to force that on everybody else.
One ought to have these arguments in a political philosophy class at a university but here in the House of Commons we are supposed to deal with the problems of a nation and not a political philosophy. I urge those who advocate deregulation as a wonderful thing to visit an American airport these days and find their luggage. It is almost at that stage in Canadian airports.
Deregulation in my view may have some merit here and there. I would certainly give a good argument on that but it is not an all-encompassing solution for the world's problems. These two motions try to sort out when we would allow something to be totally deregulated. When would public interest dictate and not competition in the marketplace? That is something people in the private sector have to worry about every day.
People look to governments to decide whether to regulate when something needs to be done in the interest of the public at large. That is when it does its intervening. People are not really looking forward to one more occasion when a government can ignore what ought to be done simply by saying it believes in deregulation of the marketplace. This denies the practical reality in many parts of this country that without some kind of government intervention people in certain parts of Canada will not have access to a marketplace that is readily available to other Canadians.
The government is in love with words like deregulation and competition but the reality is that much of this country requires a little help from the government to exist. In the broadest possible sense the world's technology is here now. That explosion is already well under way in Canada as it is in every other country in the world. To say the government's role is to simply deregulate and get out of the road is nonsense and the government really ought to know that. It ought to really understand that if we want to maintain a viable communications industry in this country it needs to have some clear policy directives from the government at large and some sensible regulatory agencies put in place to ensure that there is fairness in the marketplace and not just competition.
Perhaps a little while ago Canadians would have been susceptible to the old argument that all we really need is some competition in the marketplace and we will be all right. I think Canadians all across this country are getting used to the idea that the buzz-words of competition and deregulation sometimes mean we do not have any choice a little further down the line.
They are realizing there is a legitimate role for government to play in this. It is not to stand back and watch the competition cut each another up until there is no provision for service. It is not to stand back and watch some multinational giant move in and wipe out all the jobs in any of our sectors. It is not to leave the scene of the crime when it comes to something as vital as communications.
These two motions are worthy of the consideration of the House and show the basic direction the government is trying to set with this bill. It wants to get out of the way and let people make a whole lot of money. That is not a sin in itself but it is a sin if Canadians are deprived of

services they deserve, the right to work for a living and the right to be part of this society.
That is what this government is trying to do with this bill. That is what these two motions try to deal with.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a couple of things on record that in trying to become familiar with this bill are of some concern to me-I have been involved in the committee set up a year and a half ago-with respect to the budget of 1992. That committee looked at three departments and the deregulation of those departments.
My friend from Oshawa has discussed the deregulation of the transportation industry and some of the difficulties we have had there. Just recently we have witnessed the involvement of Unitel in the area of telecommunications. It has moved into the telephone service area and is causing major problems.
In some areas of my home province of British Columbia telephone companies recently applied to the CRTC for an interim rate increase for domestic telephone services. That was refused. Late last week they made an application for a fairly substantial increase in domestic telephone service for private users as opposed to commercial users.
Over the last couple of years we have put petitions before the House of Commons and committees about the problems that have been seen in other areas where there has been deregulation of telephone services. It always seems to get to a level where there are major cost factors involved for the private user.
B.C. Tel has already asked for a substantial increase in rates because of the deregulation of the telephone industry within that province. I am sure the same thing will happen with Bell Telephone in the province of Ontario and the other telephone suppliers such as SaskTel of Saskatchewan and other suppliers across Canada. That seems to be the problem when we look at deregulation.
When I look at this bill I ask where we are going and in what direction. Are we looking at a people first policy or the almighty competition first policy? I think the people of Canada are looking for a policy that is fair to people as
Government Orders
opposed to a policy that adds dollars to the corporate coffers. I think that is something we have to look at.
We have to look at whether the public interest is properly represented in each of the amendments before us. Clause 34 throws the industry open to competition as opposed to looking at what is in the best interest of the Canadian people as a whole.
The member for Okanagan-Shuswap has put forward Motion No. 32 which would add the public interest as a crucial factor in a decision to deregulate sections of the industry. Public interest is so important that it is often overlooked by the government in legislation it puts forward. It seems to simply ignore the fact that there are people out there who do not want certain things to happen within the industries. The major pressure of 75 or 80 per cent of the people is often ignored or overlooked when we are making final decisions.
I would emphasize once again that public interest is a crucial factor in any piece of legislation and should be looked at. Therefore I think this amendment is crucial in looking at the over-all legislation.
Motion No. 34 is also an important motion because it allows flexibility for the CRTC to look at whether it should get in and regulate rather than simply, if there is a sufficient market and if the market forces seem to bear up, ignoring public interest and simply allowing things to go as they will.
This one allows some flexibility for the CRTC to choose whether it should regulate or not and whether it should protect the public interest. That also is an important factor and I would certainly commend it to the minister and the government. It must not and should not ever forget the public interest factor in looking at any of the legislation or the regulation of any industry.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few moments to discuss this matter because I showed great restraint as three or four separate members of the NDP stood up to give long-winded statements.
I say to my friend from Oshawa that his constituents who are watching him closely, the key constituents he knows well and who are trying to decide what to do in the next election will be gravely disappointed in the intervention that he made.

June 8, 1993
Government Orders
I do want to comment for a couple of minutes with regard to Motions Nos. 32 and 34 and particularly with regard to the principle of forbearance. I listened with great interest to my friends from the NDP talking about their concern for the public interest here and how once again this nefarious government was simply reacting to the corporate agenda and doing what was good for corporations without having concern for the people.
Why do we want to have forbearance? We want to give the CRTC the ability to decide that the public interest requires that it not regulate in a particular interest and that the marketplace can do the job more effectively.
A classic case of that is on many issues related to cellular telephones. We have found that as a result of competition consumers have been much better served. We have found a much higher degree of penetration than anybody had anticipated at this point. We have found that the extension of the cellular networks is much broader than anyone could have anticipated at this point. We have found that rates are better and the range of consumer services are much greater than they otherwise would have been as a direct result of the marketplace doing its job.
I must confess to my friends from the NDP that there is something that rings a little bit false when I hear them talking about protecting large corporations from the marketplace as being in the public interest. The position on this side is that it is not our goal to protect a particular corporation but it is our goal to ensure that the public interest is respected. It is our goal to ensure that consumers have choices.
The NDP takes the position that there should be no choice. My friend from Oshawa takes the position that it is all right for people to have any car they want as long as it is black but they cannot have variety. In the view of the NDP consumers should not be allowed to choose because this threatens the position of some of the established monopoly companies today.
Our approach is quite different from that. We say the consumer should be king. Consumers should be given the opportunity to make decisions about how they want their service provided to them. That freedom of choice in the marketplace is something that serves all Canadians.
The bizarre thing today is that it is against the law for the CRTC to forbear from regulating. It is against the law for the CRTC to say that because there is competition in the marketplace and because the marketplace is far more flexible than regulation would be then it should be allowed to not regulate and allow consumers to take their own decisions in the marketplace.
This is crazy. This is something that desperately needs to be changed and we should be moving much more to the marketplace to give consumers that choice, to ensure competition, to encourage new services to come on, to ensure that rates come down as quickly as possible and to ensure that technological innovations take place. That is the position of the CRTC, consumers across Canada and the Government of Canada. It is only the New Democratic Party that believes that Canadian consumers should be deprived of this choice which is so important to them.
Let us take a look at the motions themselves. Motion No. 32 does not change the basic elements of the forbearance process in the bill but it does elaborate on the commission's process. Essentially it is written in a very negative sense and requires the CRTC to hold a public hearing only for the purpose of holding objections to a proposed forbearance which hardly seems very democratic.
The proposed amendment should be rejected since it would tend to increase the cost of regulation for both the CRTC and for the companies that it regulates. These costs are passed on to the consumers.
We hear from the hon. crocodiles opposite as they shed their tears about their concerns for the taxpayers of Canada. We hear about their concerns for the consumers of Canada. Yet what do they propose? They propose to put in as cumbersome a procedure as possible to ensure that the costs to consumers are driven up and to ensure that the regulatory burden upon Canadian taxpayers continues to increase with Canadian taxpayers being asked to foot the bill. All of this is in the name allegedly of the public interest and the consumer.
How are consumers benefited by demanding that they carry these extra costs? Surely they are not. The forbearance powers in clause 34 are strongly supported by the
June 8, 1993

CRTC, the carriers and by business users. The Senate committee recommended that the forbearance clause be amended to create a presumption in favour of forbearance where effective competition exists. The amendments approved by the House of Commons committee adopt that recommendation.
The Ontario and British Columbia governments also supported the concept of forbearance provided that the commission has a public proceeding when considering forbearance. The CRTC's normal practice is to have a public proceeding particularly with respect to important issues. I have no doubt that it will continue to follow this practice when considering whether it should forebear in the future.
What would be achieved by the amendments that are proposed by my hon. friends? It would only be more bureaucracy, more cost for consumers and a more cumbersome system of regulation. It is one which is not desired by the CRTC, the companies who are the service providers, the consumers and the vast majority of members of Parliament who want to ensure that the public interest is fully protected here.
I implore my friends in the NDP to listen to reason just for one brief, fleeting moment in their parliamentary lives and to put the interests of consumers first. Do not impose this extra burden upon government and upon taxpayers and consumers. Allow the market place to do its job. They should say to their constituents that they trust the judgment of their constituents and that given a free choice they believe their constituents will make the right choice. This is instead of simply standing up once again to protect the position of protected monopolies and to say that competition should not be allowed to serve consumers.
With every opportunity they get my friends in the NDP simply defend the large, monopolistic corporations always at the expense of the consumers. The time has come when my friends in the NDP should put their constituents first and should roll back some of this burden on them and respect their freedom of choice. If they would do that they would see that these motions which they propose are destructive to the public interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 32. 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 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 34. 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 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Before calling the next motions, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment

Government Orders
are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North- AIDS; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Immigration; the hon. member for Cumberland- Colchester-Fisheries; the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception-Armed forces; and the hon. member for Mount Royal-Poverty.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 41
(a)	by striking out line 1 on page 22 and substituting the following: "41.(1) The Commission may, by order, prohib-"; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 8 on page 22 the following:
"(2) For purposes of subsection (1), "unsolicited telecommunications" means any unsolicited telecommunication that includes an offer to the recipient that is of a commercial nature."
She said: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at one aspect of the telecommunications bill to address the issue of unsolicited telecommunications, in particular telecommunications which can reach us through our fax machines as well as over our telephones. The government has used clause 41 to prohibit or to help through regulation the control of these unsolicited telecommunications. I am fully in accord with this move.
There are two aspects to this. In essence there is the legitimate use of the fax machine and the telephone which may seem to be unwarranted and an intrusion upon the household. They are the kinds of things we have been watching as the Progressive Conservative party in its selection of a new leader has polls and les sondages undertaken. We are asking a question, not in the interests of a purchase, but in the interest of soliciting or finding some kind of information that could be of importance. That is to be excluded from the regulations.
The other is the whole question of telemarketing. Many of the telemarketers have very good rules and regulations for themselves and they stay within the bounds of good behaviour. There are those who have abused this privilege, flooding our fax machines at great cost to individuals and to businesses, blocking access to this open line. They are also sending messages which are not what we would consider really receivable such as sex
messages, hate messages, pornographic pictures, et cetera.
The question before us in looking at this was how to find some wording which would help avoid confusion and the potential prohibition by the CRTC between these two competing interests which we are addressing in looking at unsolicited telecommunications.
When we are talking about unwanted commercial products which we find in telemarketing, that should find its place within this bill with much greater clarity. It is for this reason I have suggested an addition to clause 41 that would define this whole issue with far greater clarity, adding to the bill for the purposes of the goal of controlling through the CRTC or giving the commission the ability to handle unsolicited telecommunications. Unsolicited telecommunications means any unsolicited telecommunications, which includes an offer to the recipient that is of a commercial nature.
I know that a lot of people are not very pleased when polling experts call their homes. They find it an invasion of their privacy. It is a disruption sometimes at meal times and they are not particularly appreciative of that aspect of unsolicited telephone calls.
In the interest of democracy those are not invaluable services. I think they have a place at a certain time in the course of the history of the country, not all times, and I certainly think there are regulations that are required. In this instance I think it could be very helpful to be more clear about what we are talking about.
We had a great discussion in committee about the implications of unsolicited telephone calls. The issue was the sex lines or the hot sex lines on the 1-976 phone numbers. There is no one forcing anyone to use them but they are enticing in a sense to certain types of people, particularly young children who have been abusing the invitation to use this line and run up excessive telephone bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order adopted earlier today and in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
June 8, 1993

all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 35. 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 more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 37. 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.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 37 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 43. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Government Orders


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 more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 42. 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.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 42 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 44. 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.

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 121.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 122.
Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 123.
Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 124.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt these motions?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of these motions 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 more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motions stand deferred.

It seems the Chair has made a mistake. I should have put Motions Nos. 49 and 50 at the same time as Motion No. 44. The vote taken on Motion No. 44 has the effect of deferring the division on Motions Nos. 49 and 50 but they must nevertheless be put to the House.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 125 by striking out lines 10 to 12 on page 45 and substituting the following:
"125. Section 11, other than subsection 11(2), and section 12 to 14 of the said Act are repealed."


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 125.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.
The first vote will be on the amendment to Motion No.
2.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	Walker
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent to apply the result of the division just recorded on Motion No. 2 to Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11,13, 17, 35, 43, and 49.
I believe you will also find unanimous consent to apply the result of the division on the amendment to Motion No. 2 to Motions Nos. 10, 16, 21, 32, 34, and 44.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is consent given?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Venne:: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly like to give our consent, but we want to tell you right away that we will have to give you the exact motion numbers and the negative or positive division accordingly. Either I put
June 8, 1993

Government Orders
it on the table as we did previously or I mention it directly, as you wish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think the members will generally agree that we proceed as you did previously so that we speed things up. We take good note of that.
Is there unanimous consent to apply the result of the division?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Gaffney
Hudon
Layton
Walker
Bourgault
Hopkins
Karygiannis
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)

[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Gaffney
Hudon
Layton
Walker
Bourgault
Hopkins
Karygiannis
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Members
Althouse	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benjamin	Black
Breaugh	Butland
Heap	Hovdebo
Karpoff	Kindy
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
MacWilliam	Mitchell
Nystrom	Parker
Riis	Taylor
Whittaker	You ng (Beaches-Woodbine)-20
 NAYS Members
Allmand	Anderson
Andre	Arseneault
Atkinson	Attewell
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Baker
Beatty	Belair
Bellemare	Belsher
Berger	Bernier
Bertrand	Bevilacqua
Bjomson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blais	Blenkarn
Bosley	Bouchard (Roberval)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Boudria
Brightwell	Browes
Caccia	Cadieux
Casey	Chadwick
Chartrand	Clancy
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Cole
Comuzzi	Cooper
Corbeil	Corbett
Cotfc	Couture
Crawford	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dingwall	Dionne
Dobbie	Domm
Dorin	Duceppe
Duhamel	Duplessis
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferguson
Ferland	Finestone
Flis	Fontaine
Fontana	Foster
Fretz	Friesen
Gagliano	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Gray (Windsor West)	
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri	Guilbault
Halliday	Harb
Harvard	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hicks
Hockin	Hogue
Holtmann	Homer
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Horning	Hughes
James	Jelinek
Johnson	Joncas
Jordan	Jourdenais
Kempling	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Koury	Landry
Langlois	Lee
Lewis	Littlechild
MacAulay	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River) MacLaren	
Maheu	Malone
Manley	Marchi
Marin	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDermid
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Mifflin
Milliken	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nault	Nicholson
Oberle	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Paproski	Parent
Peterson	Phinney
Plamondon	Plourde
Porter	Pronovost
Proud	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Rideout	Rocheieau
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Sparrow	Speller
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tobin	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vankoughnet
Venne	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Wappel	Wenman
Wilbee	
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple	Winegard
Creek-Assiniboia)	Worthy-180
PAIRED MEMBERS	
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Walker	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
The House divided	on Motion No. 11, which was
negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 515)	
	YEAS
	Members
Allmand	Althouse
Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Baker
Belair	Bellemare
Benjamin	Berger
Bevilacqua	Black
Boudria	Breaugh
Butland	Caccia
Clancy	Comuzzi
Crawford	Dingwall
Dionne	Duhamel
Ferguson	Finestone
Flis	Fontana
Foster	Gagliano
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)	Guamieri
Harb	Harvard
Heap	Hovdebo
Jordan	Karpoff
Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Kindy
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Lee	MacAulay
MacLaren	Mac William
Maheu	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Mifflin
Milliken	Mitchell
Nault	Nowlan
Nystrom	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Parent
Parker	Peterson
Phinney	Proud
Rideout	Riis
Speller	Taylor
Tobin	Wappel
Whittaker	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-74
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Altewell
Beatty	Belsher
Bernier	Bertrand
Bjomson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blais	Blenkam
Bosley	Bouchard (Roberval)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Casey	Chadwick
Chart rand	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Cooper
Corbeil	Corbett
Cote	Couture
Danis	Darling
de Cot ret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dobbie
Do mm	Dorin
Duceppe	Duplessis
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Eretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Guilbault	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Homing
Hughes	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Lewis	Littlechild
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacDougall (Timiskaming-French!
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDermid	McKnight
McLean	Merrithew
Mitges	Monteith
Moore	Nicholson
Oberle	O'Kurley
Paproski	Plamondon
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
June 8, 1993
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Ricard	Richardson
Rocheleau	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Shields	Siddon
Sobeski	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Wenman
Wilbee	
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple)	Winegard
Creek-Assiniboia	Worthy-128
	PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Walker	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
The House divided	on Motion No. 12, which was
negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 516)	
Alt house	YEAS Members Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benjamin	Black
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Breaugh
Butland	Duceppe
Heap	Hovdebo
Karpoff	Kindy
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
MacWilliam	Mitchell
Nystrom	Parker
Plamondon	Riis
Rocheleau	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne	Whittaker
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-25 Allmand	NAYS Members Anderson
Andre	Arseneault
Atkinson	Attewell
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Baker
Beatty	Belair
Bellemare	Belsher
Berger	Bernier
Bertrand	Bevilacqua
Bjornson	Blackburn (Jonquifcre)
Blais	Blenkam
Bosley	Bouchard (Roberval)
Boudria	Brightwell
Browes	Caccia
Cadieux	Casey
Chadwick	Chartrand
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Comuzzi
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crawford
Danis	Darling
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dingwall
Dionne	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Duhamel	Duplessis
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferguson
Ferland	Finestone
Flis	Fontaine
Fontana	Foster
Fretz	Friesen
Gagliano	Gauthier
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gray (Windsor West)	Greene
Grey (Beaver River)	Guamieri
Guilbault	Halliday
Harb	Harvard
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Homing
Hughes	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Joncas	Jordan
Jourdenais	Kempling
Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Lee	Lewis
Littlechild	MacAulay
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River)
MacLaren	Maheu
Malone	Manley
Marleau	Martin (Lasalle-femard)
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mazankowski	McCreath
McLean	Merrithew
Mifflin	Milliken
Mitges	Monteith
Moore	Nault
Nicholson	Now lan
Oberle	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Peterson	Phinney
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Proud
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Rideout
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Sparrow	Speller
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tobin	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Wappel	Wenman
Wilbee	
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple	Winegard
Creek-Assiniboia)	Worthy-170
	PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Walker	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion negatived. Therefore I declare Motion No. 14 negatived.



[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Gaffney
Hudon
Layton
Walker
Bourgault
Hopkins
Karygiannis
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)

[Stage Direction]
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Walker	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
The House divided	on Motion No. 17,
negatived on the following division:
which was
(Division No. 519)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Benjamin
Bevilacqua
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Breaugh
Caccia
Comuzzi
Dingwall
Duceppe
Ferguson
Flis
Foster
Gauthier
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Heap
Jordan
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kristiansen
Lee
MacLaren
Maheu
Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-6mard)
Milliken
Nault
Nystrom
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Speller
Tobin
Venne
Whittaker
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Baker
Bellemare
Berger
Black
Boudria
Butland
Clancy
Crawford
Dionne
Duhamel
Finestone
Fontana
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
MacAulay
Mac William
Manley
Marleau
Mifflin
Mitchell
Nowlan
Ouellet
Parent
Peterson
Plamondon
Rideout
Rocheleau
Thy lor
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wappel
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-80
[Stage Direction]
June 8, 1993
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Walker	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 22.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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



[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Gaffney
Hudon
Layton
Walker
Bourgault
Hopkins
Karygiannis
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare
motion lost.	
The House	divided on Motion No. 32, which
negatived on	the following division:

June 8, 1993
Government Orders
(Division No. 524)
Althouse
Benjamin
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Butland
Heap
Karpoff
Kristiansen
MacWilliam
Nystrom
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rosemont) Whittaker
++YEAS
Members
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Black
Breaugh
Duceppe
Hovdebo
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Mitchell
Parker
Riis
Taylor
Venne
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-26
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Anderson
Andre	Arseneault
Atkinson	Attewell
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Baker
Beatty	Belair
Bellemare	Belsher
Berger	Bernier
Bertrand	Bevilacqua
Bjornson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blais	Blenkam
Bosley	Bouchard (Roberval)
Boudria	Brightwell
Browes	Caccia
Cadieux	Casey
Chadwick	Chartrand
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Co muzzi
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crawford
Danis	Darling
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dingwall
Dionne	Dobbie
Do mm	Dor in
Du ham el	Duplessis
Epp	Fee
Felt ham	Ferguson
Ferland	Finestone
Bis	Fontaine
Fontana	Foster
Fretz	Friesen
Gagliano	Gibeau
Gray (Bonavcnture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Gray (Windsor West)	
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Guamieri	Guilbault
Halliday	Harb
Harvard	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hicks
Hockin	Hogue
Holtmann	Horner
Horning	Hughes
James	Jelinek
Johnson	Joncas
Jordan	Jourdenais
Kempling	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Koury	Landry
Langlois	Lee
Lewis	Littlechild
MacAulay	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River)	MacLaren
Maheu	Malone
Manley	Marchi
Marin	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle - Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDermid
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Mifflin
Milliken	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nault	Nicholson
Oberle	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Paproski	Parent
Peterson	Phinney
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Proud
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Rideout
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Sparrow	Speller
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tobin	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Wappel	Wen man
Wilbee	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple
Winegard Worthy-174	Creek-Ass iniboia)
	PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Walker	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
The House	divided on Motion No. 34, which
negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 525)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Benjamin
Breaugh
Heap
Karpoff
Kristiansen
MacWilliam
Nystrom
Riis
Whittaker
Allmand
Andre
Atkinson
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Beatty
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Black
Butland
Hovdebo
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Mitchell
Parker
Taylor
You ng (Beaches-Woodbine)-20
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Attewell
Baker
Belair
Belsher
Bernier
Bevilacqua
June 8, 1993



[Stage Direction]
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Walker	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)

[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Gaffney
Hudon
Layton
Walker
Bourgault
Hopkins
Karygiannis
McDougaU (St. Paul's)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)

[Stage Direction]
Anawak	Bourgault
Gaffney	Hopkins
Hudon	Karygiannis
Layton	McDougaU (St. Paul's)
Walker	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
[Stage Direction]
June 8, 1993
Government Orders
Henry Perrin Beatty: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe that at this time we might have unanimous consent to apply the division for the vote on the amendment to Motion No. 2 in reverse to the motion for concurrence.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, since we are still at the report stage and we must vote on the motion for concurrence and thus on the whole report, members of
June 8, 1993

Government Orders
the Bloc Quebecois wish to vote against this motion because we oppose this bill.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to vote against this bill.


Miss Grey:: Mr. Speaker, I would like it on the record that I am voting yea at concurrence.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I suggest to hon. members that because there are only three minutes before six o'clock we declare it six o'clock p.m. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
['Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my question on April 20 the minister of health refused to initiate a national strategy to trace all victims of AIDS tainted blood until the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children had completed its investigation.
From the years 1980 to 1985 thousands and thousands of Canadians could have been infected with the HIV virus. The answer of the minister was not adequate for several reasons. The delay is inexcusable for those who are HIV positive but who do not have the symptoms. We know they may infect others.
The doctors may be slower to recognize the diagnosis in the presence of symptoms without knowing the actual positivity of the patients with respect to HIV.
Third, we know that preventive therapy could be available whereby infected Canadians without the symptoms could be treated early and thereby prevent the onset of the true AIDS disease.
I also submit that by tracing all the victims we will extinguish their anguish and that of their families who do not know their real status. We cannot afford to leave them in limbo. The piecemeal approach that the minister was suggesting allows each of the provinces to proceed on their own. It is unacceptable and reflects an absence of national leadership.
Moreover the minister did not reply at all to my other questions. Will he compensate the victims of HIV-tainted blood as soon as they are discovered? We know that Nova Scotia and now Quebec and Ontario have considered paying the victims additional amounts. Why is the federal government refusing to come forward with an additional compensation package, knowing the seriousness of the disease and the toll that this has imposed on families?
We know that people who went for health care between 1980 and 1985 were infected because of the failure of the national blood system. They ought not to be penalized financially for such a failure of the national blood system.
The minister resisted for six months. I requested that he initiate a full-scale public inquiry into HIV-tainted blood. Thanks to our persistence and the report of the committee he finally relented and agreed to it. I hope that he will not wait another six months to act on the unanimous recommendation of our committee that a national strategy be developed immediately. I therefore ask the minister to demonstrate national leadership, to help physicians in their diagnoses, to help prevent the Canadian public from being unwittingly exposed and finally to provide peace for people who might be infected. They deserve no less.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to my colleague that AIDS has affected Canadians in many ways over the past 10 to 15 years. For those who have received blood or blood products that have been contaminated with the HIV virus the issue has become one that is very difficult for many Canadians.
I want to thank each and every one who has come forth and spoken out with regard to their difficult circumstances. It has indeed been rewarding. Not only did it help us but it helped the committee make its decisions.
The problem with the HIV tainted-blood supply in the early 1980s has prompted other actions. My colleague responded to the subcommittee's report on tainted blood which was tabled in the House probably 10 days ago. Immediately the Minister of National Health and Welfare took action. He wrote to every provincial minister of health with regard to going into this public inquiry with all the provinces and with the other players such as the Red Cross and the Haemophilia Society. They will all
June 8, 1993

play a major part. The minister gave his word. He has written and he also stated that he hoped to have this public inquiry underway by September 1. This is a result of the good work that the committee did under the leadership of the member for Delta.
In the middle of last April the Hospital for Sick Children announced a plan to notify the families of children who received large volumes of blood or a blood transfusion between 1980 and 1985. They are tracing these because those infants were quite young then and they would probably be around the age of 13, 14 or 15 now. There might be a chance of sexual activity and we do not want any transmission from any youngster who might have had contaminated blood in those days.
With regard to the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry. Your time has expired.



Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on April 26 I asked the minister of immigration how Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was granted entry to Canada last fall. He attended certain meetings here. Sheikh Rahman is an Egyptian militant and the spiritual leader of the extremists who are charged with the recent bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York City.
I also asked the minister if he had conducted an investigation to determine how this individual got into the country. In his usual way the minister did not answer either question but insinuated that under the law in force last year Sheikh Rahman could not have been denied entry. In other words Bill C-86 was necessary in order to deny entry to a person of that kind.
That is completely false. This was confirmed by the minister's senior officials in committee on May 6. The minister should consult more often with his officials.
The law as it applied last fall said: "That the following persons are not admissible to Canada: persons who have engaged in or who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government institutions or processes".
Adjournment Debate
It also says: "Persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in acts of violence that might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada and so on".
Last fall we had in force provisions in the law to prevent the entry of these individuals and the individual in question. Those have been in the law for years. As a matter of fact those provisions have been used to deny entry to persons who have been much less dangerous than that individual who got into the country last fall. I have in mind a certain British member of Parliament from Northern Ireland who was denied entry on several occasions, and there are many other examples.
The minister's answer on April 26 was total bombast and a disgrace to this House of Commons. I put a serious question to the minister and deserved a serious answer. We do not want people in our country who might be involved in any way with such terrorist activity as the bombing of the World Trade Centre. This man was also charged a few years ago in the assassination of President Sadat of Egypt.
This evening I am asking once again: How did this man get into Canada? Was there any investigation into this matter?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, Immigration Canada has no information that Sheikh Rahman was granted legal entry into Canada.
Investigation into the matter confirms, mostly through anecdotal information, that Sheikh Rahman was in Canada in 1991. As was stated at the standing committee on May 6, 1993, Immigration Canada has as yet been unable to confirm if Sheikh Rahman entered Canada in
1992.
As was also stated at that committee meeting, had Sheikh Rahman come to the attention of any of the immigration authorities in 1991 he would most likely have been inadmissible. Today, thanks to Bill C-86 which the hon. member opposed, there is no doubt that Sheikh Rahman would be inadmissible.
It is not truly accurate to say, as the hon. member did on April 26, that thousands of others who are not as dangerous are denied entry every day. The hon. member knows perfectly well that, thanks to government legisla-

June 8, 1993
Adjournment Debate
tion we have put through, Canadians welcome millions of visitors and we will keep out those people who, as he says, are dangerous and inadmissible.
Over the past three or four years, with the changes to the Immigration Act, we have gone out of our way to protect Canadian society and to make sure that fair terms are legislated.


FISHERIES
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again ask a question with some more detail of the minister of fisheries or the parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries.
For decades the lobster fishermen along the coast of Northumberland Strait near Wallace, Pugwash and Mal-agash have been asking DFO to increase the minimum size of lobsters allowed to be caught in those waters. The purpose is simply for conservation, to protect the resource and make sure that the industry stays viable.
For years they have been denied that request. Aside from their request to DFO, about four years ago the lobster fishermen themselves agreed to accept the higher standard for lobsters and in effect today they are throwing lobsters back into the water which they could keep and sell under the law. They have established their own standards which are higher than the department of fisheries.
It seems strange to me that we cannot help these fishermen protect their industry and adopt these standards in the interest of conservation. The answer I always get from DFO is that we cannot divide an area of the fishery and in this case it is area 26. There cannot be one set of standards for lobsters on one side of the water and another set on the other side of the water. There are fishermen on the P.E.I. side who want the lower standard for lobsters.
In another case I have been dealing with oysters and have found there is a special regulation for oysters on Prince Edward Island. If we can have a special regulation for oysters on Prince Edward Island why can we not have a special regulation for lobsters on the Nova Scotia side of the Northumberland Strait?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to again thank the member for Cumberland-Colchester
for his vigilant watch over the lobster carapace size in his riding.
A program to increase the minimum lobster carapace size to two and three-quarter inches was introduced in several lobster fishing areas, better known as LFAs, in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1990 and 1991. The program which provided for four annual increases in minimum size was suspended in 1992, as the hon. member has said, after two increases in LFAs 23 and 25 and one increase in LFA 26-A.
The suspension was in response to concerns raised by some industry representatives and the province of P.E.I. that the full biological, market and economic implications of the changes were not well understood. To address these concerns, in April 1992 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and all Atlantic provincial fisheries ministers gave their unanimous commitment to undertake an independent study to assess the implications of increasing the minimum carapace size. This comprehensive study was intended to provide answers relevant to making a decision on carapace size before the 1993 season.
The study goes a long way toward answering questions relevant to making decisions regarding carapace size. However the minister announced in March of this year that there would be no changes in minimum legal carapace size for the 1993 season, given the depressed state of the Atlantic fishing industry, the current economic climate and the lack of time available for extensive consultation on the results of the consultant's study before the 1993 season opened.
Gulf Nova Scotia fishermen have now put forth another proposal, as the hon. member has said, to create a dividing line through LFA 26-A so the minimum legal carapace size could be frozen on the P.E.I. side of the line and scheduled carapace increases could continue on the Nova Scotia side.
There are presently four different carapace sizes throughout the southern gulf. The enforcement and management implications of the proposal to create a dividing line at LFA-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry but your time has expired.


POVERTY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue which I brought to the attention of this House in March and bring to its attention again today. The issue is poverty which was the subject of a
June 8, 1993

report tabled today by a House committee. This issue is so serious that the United Nations has condemned Canada's inaction in this matter.
Apparently Tories in this government believe the problem is one of defining poverty and not curing it. They seem to believe that poverty can be redefined out of existence; that it will go away and masquerade under some other name. All ten recommendations deal with defining statistics. It says the purpose is to better inform Canadians and the rest of the world about the true state of poverty in this country.
We know how bad it is. Apparently this committee is convinced we do not understand the data. How can the government define away the increase in single parent families seeking food in Montreal by 71 per cent? What would be a new definition for hunger? How could we redefine a hungry person? I do not know. Maybe the government can figure it out.
Maybe it forgot that these numbers represent people who need our help. They mean one million children. The number of children who are hungry has gone up by 180 per cent. They are Canada's future and we are giving them food banks when they need literacy skills. We are giving them a bleak future. A hungry child cannot concentrate and learn to read and write properly when his or her tummy is empty.
Apparently this government sees no need to reduce the 14 per cent Montreal jobless rate, according to the May 5 Statistics Canada report. Do my friends on the opposite side realize that 20 per cent of Montrealers live below the low income line? That amounts to one out of every five people in the Montreal region. To put it another way, 20 per cent of the greater Montreal region would fill the Olympic stadium ten times, and that would be somewhat representative of the hungry and poor in Montreal.
Do my friends opposite realize that 22 per cent of the people in the Montreal region live below the poverty level? This is the highest rate of any Canadian city.
The region needs measures to put our citizens back to work. Montreal needs action which takes people off the bread lines and puts them on the employment roles. Of all the North American cities with a population of over one million, and there are over 40 cities, Montreal places dead last in terms of unemployment, income per capita
Adjournment Debate
and participation in the labour force. This is a disgrace. It is an urgent problem for Montrealers.
I ask my question from March again in June: What is this government prepared to do? Where are the concrete proposals for putting the jobless back to work instead of government recommendations to hide the human face of suffering, hunger and poverty behind redefined statistics?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague, who is a very good member for her constituents in Montreal, that poverty is a very important issue for all of us in this House. When Canadians have to resort to food banks to feed their families and when children go to school hungry it affects all of us. It affects their health and education and the whole future of this country.
We do want to build a better future for all the children. It was a year ago May that the Minister of National Health and Welfare brought out Brighter Futures which directed $500 million specifically at those most in need, and a specific amount was allocated to the native community.
A year ago the Minister of Finance introduced the tax benefit package with regard to rolling in the refundable child tax credit, the child tax credit and the family allowance. We put an extra $2.1 billion into that. This is money going specifically to the homes of families and it is tax free.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration has set aside $3.8 billion to create jobs and train and retrain Canadians all across the country.
We work with our provincial counterparts. Welfare is a provincial jurisdiction but we are all in this together. We will do everything possible within the fiscal constraints that we have to assist all those people who are really in need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 9,1993