1993-02-16

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table, in both official languages, on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
The first one is with regard to the CPA conference held in Nassau from October 7 to October 14. I would like to read into the record the titles of the debates which took place: democracy and the electoral process, democracy and the current trend to multi-party parliaments, the responsibility of democratically elected parliaments to ensure that governments practise sound financial management and promote stable economic development, the constant threat to democracy posed by poverty, environmental degradation and the population explosion, and removing the institutional, cultural and financial barriers to increase participation by women in the political process, and the final debate was on current political developments.
The second report was the CPA conference to mark the 40th anniversary of the Queen's accession to the throne held in London and Swansea from November 8 to November 14, 1992.
The topics dealt with were as follows: conservation of the environment in a world of interdependence, the management of resources with the GATT round, the CPA contribution to developing links with former and future CPA member countries, Commonwealth experience in combating threats to democracy, the relationship between Parliament and the civil service, and the CPA
contribution to the encouragement of democratic development including election monitoring.


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


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from members of my constituency of Welland-St. Catharines-'Thorold concerning the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty.
I would encourage this House to seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among our Canadian children by the year 2000. It is a known fact that poor children will cause ever increasing cost to the administration of health care, justice and social welfare. Even more important, it will inhibit children from learning and

February 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
in that way they will not be prepared for employment as useful productive citizens.
I would urge this House to turn its full attention to eliminating poverty among our Canadian children by the year 2000.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis, to present a large number of petitions again asking that we draw the attention of Parliament to the fact that young offenders, especially offenders convicted of serious crimes, should be treated very seriously, that they should not be granted any form of parole without having some treatment objectives followed, that this is a serious problem with the Young Offenders Act, and that the government should reconsider and bring forward amendments to that effect.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of people throughout Canada who state that Immigration Canada has applied changes to section 6 of the Immigration Act, part of which includes the family class, and that the above changes affect those persons who wish to sponsor their parents and their parents' dependants.
The changes are as follows: dependants must be, first, under age 19 and unmarried; second, if under 19 years of age, in full-time attendance in college or university; and, third, children with a disability.
They state that this legislation will set up barriers to family reunification. Many parents and their children over 19 years of age will be separated. This will apply particularly to young women in India who traditionally remain dependent on their parents until they marry.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition to present with respect to Multinational Water and Power Incorporated. A private company has indicated its intention to the B.C. government to divert the North Thompson River near Valemount in order to sell one million acre
feet of fresh water to California in the United States of America. This would amount to a 35 per cent reduction in the river flow at the point of diversion.
They are petitioning Parliament to urge the federal government to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that our fresh water rivers will not be diverted into the United States of America and to pass legislation declaring that no Canadian rivers are for sale.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 1989 the House of Commons unanimously passed the motion stating that this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. The elimination of child poverty in Canada requires just that, a commitment and an initiative among broad sectors of the Canadian public.
The petitioners from my riding and other parts of Nova Scotia want Parliament 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.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present petitions on behalf of a number of people who express concern about the effects of Bill C-91 and further ask for Bill C-22, which was passed in 1987, to be repealed.
They are concerned about the effect on the cost of drugs and on the cost of private plans, but more particularly provincial plans which might have to either increase premiums or reduce the benefits. They are asking that these actions be taken promptly.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 203 and 204 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.
February 16, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 203 and 204 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bellemare: 
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred Question No. 207?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed to starred Question No. 207?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, given the length of the reply, I ask that it be printed in Hansard without being read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

*


Mr. Duhamel: 1.	What is the total amount of revenue collected by the government from the goods and services tax since January 1, 1991 and what has been the total amount spent on (a) advertising (b) tax credits (c) GST rebates (d) set-up costs (e) other expenses associated with the implementation of this tax?
2.	What is the total of GST revenue placed in the debt service reduction Account and what is the current balance of the account?


Charles A. Langlois: I am informed as follows:
1. The total amount of net revenue collected by National Revenue, Customs and Excise from the goods and services tax since January 1, 1991 to November 30, 1991 is $12,176 billion.

Government Orders
(a) Advertising (Year 1991)
GST Consumer Information Office	$6,967,475
Department of Finance	$4,122,739
Revenue Canada, Taxation	$907,000
Customs and Excise	Minimal advertising after December 31,1990 as the last major campaign was immediately after Royal Assent on December 17, 1990.
For more information, see replies to Questions Nos. 203 and 204 tabled this day.	
(b) Thx credits	$2,370 billion
(c)	GST refunds and rebates (d)	Set-up costs	$7,090 billion
GST Consumer Information Office	Included in Part (e) below (Records cannot be separated)
Department of Finance	Nil
Revenue Canada, Taxation	Not applicable
Customs and Excise	$272.7 million (Tbtal planning and preparation costs since inception)
(e) Other implementation expenses	
GST Consumer Information Office 1991-92 (to Dec. 31, 1991)	$3,736,289 including set-up costs
Department of Finance Since 1991	$3,119,898
Revenue Canada, Taxation Since 1991	$60,598,000
Customs and Excise	included in (d) above
For more information, see replies to Questions Nos. 203 and 204 tabled this day.
2. As of November 30, 1991 the government has transferred $9.6 billion to the Debt Servicing and Reduction Fund. These moneys represent total revenues received from the GST since January 1, 1991 net of repayments and credits.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3):
That, in relation to Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25,1992 not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of second reading stage of this bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the second 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 second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992 be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter arising out of the debate on Friday, February 5,1993 on Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992.

On rereading Hansard, the Chair was made aware that in the debate on second reading, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin had moved that the question be now put, as reported on page 15483. Unfortunately, the Chair inadvertently overlooked this motion, which as a result was not formally put to the House.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders

Therefore I will now propose to the House the motion duly moved on Friday, February 5, 1993 by Mr. Worthy that the question be now put.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-93, wherein the government is saying it is going to do away with organizations it really does not feel have any further use.
I would like to say that is not the case. Of the organizations listed in Bill C-931 want to concentrate on the changes to ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
It was not very long ago when Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation was set up by this government. Set up can be used in any way you choose. You can say that it was formed or put into existence as a transient measure.
When this government took office in 1984 regional development in Cape Breton was through the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and through Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Cape Breton Development Corporation had two different parts. One was the coal division which looked after the coalmining industry and the other was the industrial development division. Funding was given to the industrial development division for industrial development on Cape Breton Island.
This government decided it wanted to shut down the industrial development division of Devco and would set up a corporation it would call ECBC, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. This was supposedly to take over the operations of the industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Already in existence at that particular time was Enterprise Cape Breton which was put into place when DRIE, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, was done away with. We had Enterprise Cape Breton and now the government was setting up Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
It was not veiy difficult to see that the idea was to try to merge the two, get rid of one or both of them. The
government got rid of Enterprise Cape Breton. Now it is getting rid of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The regional development initiative, except for ACOA on Cape Breton Island, is going to disappear.
The fact of the matter is the government's statement that there is no need for this organization is absolutely false. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I do not know how the government can say this when the rate of unemployment on Cape Breton Island is worse now than when the corporation was set up initially. How can it possibly be said there is no further use for it when it is obvious, as people, the statistics and the people in government will tell you, that the need is greater?
What we are getting here is a sleight of hand against and at the expense of the people of Cape Breton Island.
This does not seem to be the attention that the people of Cape Breton or indeed any part of Canada should be receiving from their own federal government. To say that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is going to be able to pick up the activities of this organization is absolutely false. There is going to be a reduction of activity in industrial development on Cape Breton Island at a time when it is tremendously important to the region.
One example which is of significant importance is that under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act the agency is not allowed to own land. Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is allowed to own land and it has two important facilities: one is Sydport Industrial Park in Point Edward just outside of Sydney; the other is the experimental farm on Cape Breton Island.
The industrial park is of tremendous importance. It is on tide water on Sydney Harbour offering rail siding and a particular access road. It also offers wharf space and a large area of land.
What in the name of Heaven is going to become of this park? Is it going to be turned over to the municipalities? We do not know for what use. We also have to recognize that the municipalities, being in the financial condition they are at the present time, are not in a very solid state to be able to take over this facility.
February 16, 1993

Even more important is the experimental farm. There is a provincial demonstration farm on the mainland in Kentville. This farm, operated by Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, deals with agriculture in its specific unique state in Cape Breton Island.
It has been proven that what is applicable in agriculture either through crops or animals is not necessarily applicable on Cape Breton Island. The climates are different, as well as the topography, the soils and the terrain.
The fact of the matter is there was no way of determining how to best attract agricultural activity to Cape Breton Island until this demonstration farm was put into effect. Now it has shown to be a tremendous success. It has increased the agricultural activity on Cape Breton Island tremendously and the government is saying it may have to close because ACOA cannot own land.
There has been discussion with the minister responsible for ACOA, who is also minister of fisheries. I think he is sympathetic to the continuation of this farm because of the success the farm has had. The fact of the matter is: Where is the initiative and the acceptance of Agriculture Canada to take over the operation of this farm? We have not seen it at all. The budget last year discussed the closure of ECBC and the fate of the farm, and the fact is we still do not have any initiative from Agriculture Canada.
It is not right that the people of Cape Breton Island should be treated in this cavalier fashion, particularly since the economic problems are so daunting. We have never had the fishery in a worse condition. Tourism is down because of the GST and gasoline prices and the very nature of tourism now in the United States. People are taking shorter vacations rather than the long family vacations they once were. The forestry industry has its difficulties. The steel industry is drastically reduced. The coal industry is reduced.
Now the government is saying it is going to take away the initiatives and the stimuli that Cape Breton should have in order to attract new industry. It is counterproductive to the best interests of the people of Cape Breton Island.
The government was told this when it did away with the industrial development division of Devco. It has been
Government Orders
told repeatedly of the consequences, yet it is steamrolling ahead with this conceived idea that the people do not matter.
The people do matter. If the government would recognize that the people matter and recognize what is good for Cape Breton Island, it would not do away with Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the opportunity of entering into this debate dealing with Bill C-93 and only regret that it had not gone to committee before Christmas. However, after a couple of days debate it is time now to move ahead and get it to committee so it can be dealt with in detail.
I rise to enlist the support of members of this House to ensure swift passage through second reading of the legislation which is before us. I am particularly interested in part (e) of the bill, the merger of the Procurement Review Board of Canada with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
This merger streamlines government administration through the creation of a new entity called the international trade and procurement tribunal, or ITPT, which will combine the strengths of the Cm and the PRB and report to Parliament through the Minister of Finance.
The merger also paves the way for an improved bid challenge mechanism that more suppliers of government procurement need that can be used to appeal contracts they feel have not been awarded fairly. In fact, the legislation positions the ITPT to meet all of the government's current and future bid challenge responsibilities.
For the short time that the free trade agreement has been in place and considering the limited scope imposed upon the PRB under the free trade agreement, the PRB has under the guidance of the former chairman, Gerry Berger, and the present chairman proved to be an inexpensive, speedy and even-handed alternative to the court system.
Indeed, they have set up an impressive set of laws, regulations and policies which ensure that suppliers will be dealt with fairly. Now suppliers seeking recourse when they feel they have been denied a fair opportunity to bid have found the PRB to be an extremely responsive vehicle.

Government Orders
In fact about 5,000 Supply and Service Canada procurements out of almost 300,000-about 2 per cent of our procurements each year-fall within the scope of the FTA. These are all potentially subject to the PRB and the PRB has handled some 95 complaints since its inception in January 1989. The majority of these were raised by Canadian suppliers who felt they had been unfairly treated.
Indeed, as a result of the decisions, if read, you will find that about one-third of those have been sustained to the point that they felt the procurement had not followed the rules laid down by government legislation and regulation. This gives a good opportunity for the suppliers to bring their complaints and indeed for procurement officers in various federal government departments to be more aware of how they should handle their procurements in a level playing field.
Suppliers tell us they are pleased with the transparency of this quasi-judicial review authority. It brings a good bit of honesty to the federal procurement system. They have also appreciated the board's informal and expedient approach. Complainants have felt that the PRB dealt with them fairly and they have appreciated not having to incur the time and expense of court hearings.
The board has given short shrift to frivolous complainants. It has not been used as a delaying or leveraging tactic, nor has it been used to distort the competitive market.
Similar to the Procurement Review Board, the guiding principles of the ITPT will be to promote an open, fair, impartial and transparent procurement process. The new tribunal will function in a timely and effective manner with the powers to receive complaints, conduct inquiries and to make determinations.
Naturally the ITPT would first assume the PRB's former role so that the merger does not disrupt the service to suppliers and Canada will continue to fulfil its obligation under the FTA.
However, many companies in industry associations have suggested that a similar form for redress should be available to suppliers on a broader range of federal procurements, indeed federal procurements which we make just within the government and are open to only
Canadian suppliers. The legislation before us opens the way to such a forum.
If we are truly committed to ensuring the integrity of fairness of government procurement then we must also be committed to ensuring that it is capable of withstanding independent third party scrutiny.
At the federal level we have already taken a number of steps, for example through the open bidding policy to achieve greater access, fairness and openness for all potential suppliers. Open bidding was an important and welcome development for suppliers. Simply put, more businesses can now access the federal market. There was nowhere to go to complain if one of them thought there was something wrong with the way the contract had been awarded.
The only avenues were through the departments, first of all to the procurement officer who perhaps awarded a competitor the contract, then to the deputy minister and then to the minister. With this new system the people will be able to direct it to an arm's length, third party tribunal, which will give them a fair hearing.
As I mentioned earlier, the first obligation under the FTA will be continued and then the broadened bid challenge mechanism would be introduced, which would encompass purchases covered by Supply and Services Canada's open bidding policy.
That is all the contracts which Supply and Services Canada puts out to tender of over $25,000. Generally speaking, that is good and makes sure that the playing field will be level for all suppliers. That amounts now to more than $4 billion annually that we opened up for challenge under this new mechanism.
We will set up this broadened bid challenge mechanism by establishing regulations that will allow appeals of these contract awards to the ITPT.
The introduction of such an appeal mechanism will be a landmark event for Canadian companies that supply goods and services to the federal government. It would challenge the whole federal procurement system to be squeaky clean.
Suppliers of commodities covered by the open bidding policy would then have recourse to the type of indepen-
February 16, 1993

dent bid challenge mechanism that suppliers of federal government requirements covered under the FTA now enjoy.
Later if Canada, the U.S. and Mexico ratify the North American free trade agreement or when the GATT introduces perhaps a wider scope and insists on an independent third party mechanism, the ITPT will be in a position to serve as a required bid challenge mechanism for contracts covered under the FTA, GATT, or any other international agreement.
In the case of NAFTA that chapter covers virtually all government contracts for goods and services with a value of more than $50,000.
Eventually most federal procurements, not just the portion carried out by my department but also that portion carried out by other federal departments, will be subject to ITPT scrutiny.
The new tribunal will retain the PRB's rapid response and informal hearings. I envision that for all but the biggest cases decisions will be made by one member rather than a panel. The preference will be for file hearings consisting of tribunal members' review of the government files. In other cases hearings could be conducted by telephone or through an exchange of letters. In fact in-person hearings would only be held when necessary, not as a matter of course.
The PRB approach of minimizing the need for lawyers will also be retained. Sorry about that. There will be no prerequisite to have legal representation before filing or proceeding with a complaint.
The experience with the PRB under the free trade agreement was the first for a Canadian bid challenge mechanism. It has taught us a lot. For one thing we saw that we did not have to follow the U.S. model which was complicated and adversarial, more closely resembling a court proceeding.
Instead we came up with a uniquely Canadian solution. We set up an informal tribunal with the power to investigate, to obtain relevant facts from the government and to conduct hearings in a non-adversarial climate that featured a refreshing absence of red tape. Suppliers and buyers have both gained from the PRB experience.
This does not mean that we cannot make mistakes. I have 1,600 procurement officers in Supply and Services.
Government Orders
We do over 1,000 contracts every working day. We in the department are very encouraged by this new process of open bidding and by the openness of the appeal mechanism which this legislation is going to put in place.
I encourage all members of the House to give speedy passage to this so that we can get it into committee and out of committee and in place so that the suppliers of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, the industries in this country will have a way of making sure that there is a level playing field when they want to bid on federal government contracts.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, each day, each week, each year that passes the credibility of this government becomes more strained. Each budget the government brings before this House makes it more difficult for the people to believe that the government has any plan to get Canada out of the deficit-debt syndrome in which we find ourselves.
Each year for the last eight or nine years the government has told the people of Canada that it is raising taxes and cutting expenditures so that it can get rid of the deficit and start working on the debt. What has happened? Each year we have been promised that it would get the deficit under control but the level has stayed the same. We have had more taxes, we have had the GST, we have had a variety of taxes foisted on us. We have had cuts in every part of every department. It has had no impact on the deficit and the debt. In fact, the debt of Canada has increased to something over $400 billion from less than $200 billion eight years ago.
None of the policies, none of the cuts, none of the tax increases that the government has indicated as part of their policy, part of their planning, has made any difference to the level of debt. As economic predictors, as economic controllers, the government has been a total failure.
We come to Bill C-93. This bill is cited as budget implementation, as government organization. Among those changes are a number: Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, Agricultural Canada Opportunities Agency, the Canadian Council for the Arts has been changed to the Canadian Council for the Arts and for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. It also changes things like the Intellectual Properties Act.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
It is an omnibus bill which does a lot of little things but does nothing to improve the economy of Canada, nothing for the people of Canada and nothing to create more jobs. It does nothing to increase the agricultural funding that is necessary. Not one of the changes in this bill has anything to do with improving the economy of Canada; not one of these changes is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the economy of Canada.
This is a case, as a former speaker said when speaking to this bill, of Nero fiddling while Rome bums. It is wide-ranging legislation which makes changes in the structure of a number of organizations that have given this government and previous governments good advice and made the people of Canada knowledgeable about why changes were being made, why the government was doing certain things, and putting before the government good reasonable kinds of changes which would improve the structure of economic development.
The wide-ranging changes that are being suggested now are not being suggested to increase the quality of economic decisions made by this government. It is not being recognized for economic reasons. The organizations that are being cut, pressed together, eliminated in this bill are being messed around with to the point where their basic thrusts in advising the government cannot be focused on the area where they have the most control. In fact, the intention seems to be exactly the opposite, to give the organizations which are being kept and added to such a broad focus that they will not be effective in any of their advice. While the debt keeps growing, while the deficit remains the same and while the economy continues to decrease, the number of jobless increases.
This bill will change the Canada Council for the arts to the Canada Council for the Arts and for Research, Social Sciences and Humanities. None of the communities involved by the agencies being affected have been consulted on this change. None of them were consulted when these changes were suggested initially by the Minister of Finance. If they had been consulted, the action would probably have been quite different.
Approximately 14 years ago, these two organizations, arts and humanities and social sciences, were separated
because it was recognized that one organization representing about 250,000 artists did not fit within the same area as an organization representing social sciences and humanitarian research in 100 or so universities and colleges across the country. The change to split the two organizations was carried out 14 years ago in consultation with the people involved, with the universities and with the artists of Canada. It was supported by both communities.
What has the government done now? It will tell you it is making this change to save money. However, its record is not good. The quality of previous organizations could have been kept and the cost reduced with the focus of those organizations kept upon the areas most concerned about advice being given to the government. The record of the government is not good because as it has made these cuts across the board with organizations of this type. The effective results of those cuts has not reduced the deficit but has reduced the effectiveness of the organizations. These two communities will not be well served by this division and possibly by the dilution of funding.
I suspect and so do both the arts and humanities and social sciences communities that the real aim of this amalgamation is to reduce the funding for both groups. Research funding has already taken major cuts. It is likely that this action and this bill will further cut research funding to the social sciences and humanities.
If the government's past record on effectiveness in reducing the deficit stays the same, we cannot expect anything but reduction in the effectiveness of the organizations and less value for the money that we do spend. Fourteen years ago there was no clear link between these two organizations. There is no clear link now.
It is time to get down to job creation, to effective agricultural policy funding. Now is not the time for doubtful and thoughtless changes with no real aim in improving the life of Canadians.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to this debate and start with the general thrust of this bill.

February 16, 1993



I would like to borrow a parallel from the environment and reflect for a moment on how this government is beginning to act. Actually it has acted for some time like a dinosaur. This dinosaur is in a particular frame of mind, if it has any. The dinosaur is in the throes of death and is becoming dangerous to those it purports to govern, is in a demolition mood and in that mood is more and more voracious.
As you may recall, from when we debated Bill C-63, the dinosaur had already destroyed through that measure a number of very fine Canadian institutions. Among them was the Economic Council of Canada which was a very valuable tool to the government in providing policy alternatives in economic planning and development.
The dinosaur destroyed the Science Council of Canada. I do not need to describe its merits. I am sure everyone is well aware of what it did to inform Canadians about scientific thought and its development. It took some very valid initiatives.
At that time, and I am referring to November 30, 1992 when that bill was passed by the House of Commons, the Law Reform Commission was not spared by the dinosaur. Again I do not need to describe the merits of the Law Reform Commission, they were self-evident. It was providing the cutting edge of thought in penal reform.
The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security was also a victim of that particular misbehaviour. I might add that the Centre for Ocean Development did not escape the rage of this particular government.
It was not enough for the dinosaur. The bill we are discussing today is the expression of its desire to demolish more. Today we are debating a measure which among other things would remove or abolish the Canada Council for Arts. Actually it would compress into one council the existing but separate Canada Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. In other words, it would make one body out of two.
We have received a number of letters on the part of people who are in charge of universities, people of academic background, in fact the entire academic community who have reacted very strongly in opposition to
Government Orders
this measure. Unfortunately, the dinosaur does not have ears and its memory is very short as I will point out briefly.
Another measure being proposed in this bill is the elimination of Emergency Preparedness Canada which on the whole had the potential to become a very useful instrument for the protection of the public in case of emergency. One has only to think of what happened in Manitoba in the town of Oakville at Christmas. Imagine accidents of that kind, particularly those related to derailments of trains which are carrying dangerous goods, something that requires the existence and the active work of an agency that would be continuously ready for the protection of the population. Unfortunately part V of Bill C-93 proposes the elimination of Emergency Preparedness Canada.
I would also like to bring to your attention the proposed elimination of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency which had an important mandate to the Canadian consumer to provide the government and the public with comprehensive and objective information on the performance of the petroleum industry in Canada.
While this obsession on the part of this dinosaur, whose main political agenda seems to retreat from governments and do less and less in its role as the protector of the public interest goes on, we notice another phenomenon arising. This dinosaur in its death throes is also showing signs of amnesia. It is forgetting promises it made to Canadians through some highly publicized documents some two, three or four years ago. In the limited time available I will only be able to cover a couple of those promises.
Let me draw your attention to the promises made by the government in the field of water policy. Here we discover the promise of a drinking water safety act which was a component of the federal water strategy the government produced in 1987. It has been six years since that promise was made and nothing has happened. The drinking water safety act was mentioned again in the green plan in 1990 which the government promised it would introduce in 1991. Canadians are still waiting for that promise to be kept. Obviously amnesia is creeping and galloping in the brain of this enormous dinosaur called the present Government of Canada.

Government Orders
The other matter I would like to bring to your attention is the promised control of toxic chemicals. Here we find some very disturbing facts. When it comes to the priority list of substances to be assessed for the purposes of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act only 5 out of 33 chemicals have been studied as they ought to have been studied.
On the issue of toxins entering Lake Ontario and the Niagara River we find another very disturbing matter. Of the 18 toxins persistently entering the waters of the Niagara River, 8 are still being regulated. Yet the government has promised to reduce the flow of toxic chemicals into the Niagara River by 50 per cent by the year 1996. This amounts, among other things, to some
1,500	kilograms of toxic substances entering the river every day. I understand you are anxious to bring an end to this litany of unkept promises, but I have to abide by your rules and I hope to have another opportunity to continue.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have to go through closure and time limitation restraints on this because I think the time would be better spent in committee reviewing these changes in more detail. I would like to discuss aspects of Bill C-93 and will start with the Agricultural Products Board.
Bill C-93 provides for the winding up of the Agricultural Products Board. Over the years the board has provided the important service of stabilizing markets for agricultural commodities. We believe that function can be exercised more efficiently on the basis of an amended Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act with the support of the Department of Agriculture.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will now bring under its roof the ECBC which is Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The corporation will be dissolved and all of its rights, property and obligations will be assumed by ACOA. The ECBC programs will continue but there will be no duplication or overlap through the competing agency, ACOA. Those changes were tabled in the budget speech February 25, 1992.
Bill C-93 will also result in the creation of a new single cultural agency by combining the Canada Council and the Social Services and Humanities Research Council. I want to emphasize that despite fiscal pressures on our
government we have continued to provide significant levels of funding for the arts and humanities. We believe that Canadian culture has a vital role in fostering a vigorous and united nation, so those changes will be good.
The new council will deal with the full range of cultural matters including international cultural programs and international academic relations under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs. Under the provisions of the act the new council will be required to take Canada's foreign policy into account in fulfilling its mandate.
Also under Bill C-93 we propose to fold the Canadian Commercial Corporation, otherwise known as the CCC, into the Department of Supply and Services. The minister has just spoken on that so there is not much more to be said.
We are proposing an incremental dissolution of the CCC which would not be finalized until the Minister of Supply and Services is satisfied, as he mentioned this morning, that there will be no detrimental effects upon our exports or trade relations with other countries. In the interim the CCC will continue or remain a corporate entity.
Also under Bill C-93 we are taking a look at Emergency Preparedness Canada which began as a civil defence organization in 1948 with the Department of National Defence. Its title, mandate and structure changed a number of times during the first 40 years and EPC became a separate agency with the passage of the Emergency Preparedness Act in 1988 which replaced the War Measures Act.
As part of this initiative the government also proposes in part V of this bill that Emergency Preparedness Canada be folded back into the Department of National Defence. This is an appropriate action given the fact that EPC was housed with DND prior to 1988 and still reports to the Minister of National Defence.
Part VI of Bill C-93 provides for the amalgamation of the RCMP External Review Committee and the RCMP Public Complaints Commission into a single body entitled the Independent Review Commission for the RCMP. As was the case with the ERC and PCC, the new commission will be independent of the RCMP and will deal with public complaints concerning the conduct of
February 16, 1993

RCMP officers and review appeals and grievances from members of the RCMP.
Consolidating these two similar agencies will achieve savings in administrative overhead, eliminate duplication of services and allow for increased efficiency in program delivery, both to the public and to members of the force.
I encourage members of the House to support this bill and facilitate its speedy passage.
Part VII of Bill C-93 deals with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. Bill C-93 will encourage efficiency gains to be realized by merging the Copyright Board, the Trademarks Opposition Board and the Patent Appeal Board to form the new Intellectual Property Tribunal, otherwise known as IPT. Its duties will include the fixing of royalties which the performing rights societies may collect in return for granting licences for the performance of dramatic or musical works. The tribunal will also decide how royalties should be divided, including those generated by the retransmission of television and radio signals. The IPT will also arbitrate disputes and copyright royalties and decide opposition and cancellation proceedings arising under the Trademarks Act.
Part VIII of Bill C-93 deals with the International Trade and Procurement Tribunal. The bill provides for the merger of the Procurement Review Board and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, otherwise known as CITT. Following the merger the new organization will be named the International Trade and Procurement Tribunal or ITPT and will report to Parliament through the Minister of Finance.
The Procurement Review Board was established under part II of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act in 1988.
Part IX of Bill C-93 deals with the Petroleum and Monitoring Agency. The government intends to wind up the Petroleum Monitoring Agency known as PMA. For those who are unfamiliar with the PMA, the agency publishes semi-annual and annual ownership surveys of the petroleum industry, as well as other reports as requested by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to whom it currently reports.
The Veterans' Land Administration is part X and the final chapter on this re-administration. It provides that
Government Orders
the Veterans' Land Administration Act be wound up and its functions and responsibilities transferred directly to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This merging of VLA operations with those of the department will allow greater economies while ensuring that the interests of veterans are fully protected.
In summary, these are administrative changes which will have a net saving for the taxpayers of Canada. That is something we all have to be conscious of because the cost of running government seems to be escalating when it should be shrinking. That is what we are now doing but not at the expense of the delivery of services; we are doing it to enhance the delivery of services.
I think most members in this House can take encouragement from that. If we look at the cost of government services in relation to our gross domestic product, it has grown dramatically in the last 15 to 20 years. It has to be curtailed, and I think part of that curtailment goes down to the efficiency and delivery of those services.
I am encouraged by what I see and I support Bill C-93 as will most members when they have a chance to examine the bill for what it really is.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before I start, I know that the Minister of Supply and Services spoke just now of merging and creating an international tribunal. I would simply like it to be on the record that we find this a valuable initiative on the government's part, and we hope to hear details of this new organization and learn how it will operate.
We would also like to obtain a report from the minister about free trade as it has affected his department in the four years Canada has had free trade with the United States. He told us recently that he would be presenting a report on this subject, but we have not seen any signs of it so far. I hope he is making a note of this.
Now I would like to say something about the government's proposal to set up a new organization that would combine the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canada Council.
As we know, this is an old idea. In 1978 the two councils did form one body, and after a great deal of discussion and consultation the decision was made to have two separate bodies, one to look after the arts and

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
the other to look after research in the social sciences and humanities.
It is surprising to see that the government is making this proposal. There are a great many objections to it. It is not only our caucus that objects but the educational and cultural communities also have numerous objections, especially as regards the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which has done a great deal of work in the area of research. It is one of the best institutions of its kind not only in North America but anywhere in the world. It functions well, and academics connected with it have written to us to say that everything is going smoothly. Why is the government trying to break something that works? As they say in English, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
The council says the government's proposal has not taken its views into account. There has been no consultation at all.
In addition, as we know, the government has decided to cut the budgets of these two organizations by 10 per cent. It is incredible to see the government on the one hand cutting funding to both councils and on the other trying to get rid of them by setting up a third.
We do not support this proposal, because the evidence suggests that amalgamation would affect the integrity of the research done and of the two existing organizations.
Furthermore, the government's proposal does not take into consideration the question of representation for the two councils. What does the government propose? Is it going to appoint one representative for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council side and one for the arts side? How would that work?
I find it truly bizarre that this proposal should be brought before the House of Commons without any consideration being given to the opinions of those who will be affected by the merger. We therefore suggest to the government that it at least set aside this part of the legislation, or that it agree to hold broad consultations with these bodies and especially with the most interested parties.
I do not think there is any need to push ahead so rapidly with this proposal. We have heard from a great many representatives of universities, student groups and professors, and I do not see how the government can go ahead with a proposal that everyone is against. The government should be asked: Who came up with this proposal? Who had the idea of merging, without consultations? What would the advantages be? Personally I do not think either of the organizations targeted by the proposal would derive the slightest benefit.
That being said, we have an obligation to be very clear about this subject. As a government, as politicians, we have a duty to take Canadians' views into account before we make decisions that concern them. The government has gone ahead with this proposal without consultations. For example, the government has to devote more effort to the research and development sectors and the councils working in the social sciences sector. It also has to do more in the area of social sciences research, because we have in this country a model council, one that can serve as an example not only in Canada but in all of North America and in other countries as well.
We should undertake consultations in a positive manner and to do this we should call upon the bodies that are affected by the proposal, ask them to participate and encourage colleges and universities to get involved. We should also consult the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the various Canadian federations active in the humanities and in the social sciences. These are the groups that are particularly affected by the proposal, and the government has an obligation to consult them.
I have a letter from the Canadian Graduate Council, addressed to the Prime Minister. In it, the Council asks the Prime Minister to undertake just such consultations.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today. However I am unhappy the debate is going on because I think it is entirely unnecessary. I think this is something long overdue.
February 16, 1993

Many people tell me that there are too many different branches of government, too much duplication of services and that is what this bill is really all about. It is eliminating a lot of the duplication, overlap and division of decision making that is seen. As the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte just stated, he would much rather see this bill moved along, go to committee and then brought back to the House.
This morning I would like to deal with a couple of areas of the bill, particularly parts V and VII. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte did deal a little bit with emergency preparedness in Canada and the fact that today perhaps it has become a little bit redundant. Certainly most of the changes that have been recommended by the government are very worth while.
Emergency Preparedness Canada began as a civil defence organization in 1948 within the Department of National Defence. Its title, mandate and structure changed a number of times during the next 40 years. The EPC became a separate agency with the passage of the Emergency Preparedness Act in 1988 which replaced the War Measures Act.
Many people today are asking why do we need such a thing. The cold war is over. Yet as we consider the unstable nature of the world in which we live, the problems that develop periodically across the country, it is obvious that we still need such an organization.
As my colleagues have already indicated, we would like to take 15 of these separate bodies and consolidate them into 10 separate organizations. As part of this initiative, the government proposes in part V of this bill that Emergency Preparedness Canada be folded back into the Department of National Defence. This is veiy appropriate action, given that the EPC was housed within the DND prior to 1988 and still reports to the Minister of National Defence. I can see no reason at all for this to be a separate entity and this is an excellent move.
Some people are wondering what the function of the EPC is. It co-ordinates the development of civil emergency preparedness among federal government organizations, provincial governments and international organizations. In other words, it deals with all the various government bodies. It maintains a 24-hour a day nation-
Govemment Orders
wide watch of potential and actual emergencies. That is the key; not only will it deal with emergencies but it will attempt to anticipate anything that does develop.
This would be under the auspices of the Government Emergency Operations Co-Ordination Centre in Ottawa. The EPC would be headed by an executive director who is a public servant. Its head office is in Ottawa with regional directors in most of the provincial capitals and a permanent representative on the Canadian delegation to NATO in Brussels. Its annual budget is $20 million and approximately 100 people are employed by it.
The budget papers noted that EPC's function in relation to planning and co-ordinating civil defence preparedness remains essential. I agree 100 per cent.
However, its separate organizational status is not necessary for the effective fulfilment of its mandate. Moreover, folding the EPC back into the DND will allow for its function to be continued just as adequately at a much lower cost than administrative overhead. We all agree that having the decision making and the ability to carry out those decisions without consulting other organizations is essential and makes good sense.
Like a number of other measures in this bill, the action proposed for EPC is a modest one if considered in isolation. Yet by taking them together with the other proposals of Bill C-93, it represents the sustained efforts on the part of this government to streamline its operations wherever it makes sense to do so.
This is what my constituents have been telling me. Let us see you streamline government wherever you can. Let us cut out the redundant waste. This is an excellent part of this bill.
The other area of the bill that I would like to talk about briefly this morning is the Intellectual Property Tribunal. This is an international concern. Many nations are concerned about the use and control of intellectual property. This is where the big advances are being made and it is of concern to people when they develop ideas that they want some kind of protection. They want to receive the benefits not just from manufacturing automobiles, et cetera. When they come up with ideas I believe they should have support and receive the benefits obtained from their intellectual pursuits.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
Bill C-93 would encourage efficiency gains to be realized by merging the Copyright Board, the Trademark Opposition Board and the Patent Appeal Board to form the Intellectual Property Tribunal or the IPT.
Its duties will include the fixing of royalties which the Performing Rights Society may collect in return for granting licences for the performance of dramatic or musical works. The tribunal will also decide how royalties should be divided including those granted by the retransmissions of television and radio signals.
The IPT will also arbitrate disputes and copyright royalties and decide opposition and cancellation proceedings arising from the Trademark Act. The establishment of an Intellectual Property Tribunal was recommended by the Henderson report many years ago, which was commissioned by Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada to study areas of concern about aspects of the intellectual property litigation system.
Some of the benefits as highlighted in the report include greater perceived and actual independence for the IPT from the government-and I think we all agree that is essential-an organization encompassing a greater wealth of expertise and experience in intellectual property law, and an operation better capable of balancing and co-ordinating varying workloads. The tribunal will bring together an expanded wealth of expertise on intellectual property law into one organization.
Industry sectors are significant and involved. The use of intellectual property will benefit through improved service such as a significant reduction of the time consumed in exchanging evidence in the Federal Court. It will short-circuit a lot of these very prolonged procedures that are necessary at the present time.
It will also benefit from an expanded expertise among board members. Given that the tribunal will at times rule on government decisions, it will and it is absolutely necessary that it remain independent of the government.
The proposed Intellectual Property Tribunal Act set out in part VII of Bill C-93 includes provisions for the charging of user fees to recover the full costs of the IPT operations, in other words user pay. These fees will be prescribed by regulation and on the recommendation of the Treasury Board. There will be full consultation with
all stakeholders in the process prior to enacting these regulations.
The IPT will be comprised of a chairperson, a vicechairperson, and up to a maximum of six members appointed by the Governor in Council. While these positions will be full time there are provisions for adding part-time members should they be required. To assist and support the board there will be a small complement of experienced public servants.
In conclusion, this new organization will bring greater efficiency to the government's role in a sector of growing importance to the Canadian economy: intellectual property with its attendant rights, responsibilities and balanced regulatory overview.
These are just a couple of the areas of this bill that I support very strongly. I know all members of the House want to see a better, more efficient government. This is a major step in that direction.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on Bill C-93, an act that comes out of the budget papers of a year ago. Almost one year later we are debating what was discussed in the budget.
The budget indicated that a number of agencies of the government would be amalgamated. Members are within their rights and responsibility to spend a bit of time familiarizing themselves with the proposals as put before us by the government.
On the surface, a number of these proposals appear to make sense. Some raise some questions which have yet to be answered by the government. I guess that is part of the process that will occur when it goes to a legislative committee. At this stage, second reading stage when we discuss the principles involved, there are a few things that I would like to say about some of the proposals.
There are 10 agencies and groupings being proposed in this bill. There is a proposal to combine in the RCMP the External Review Committee with the Public Complaints Commission so that both the public and members of the force appeal to the same body. It seems on the surface to make some sense. The Petroleum Monitoring Agency is being wound up with its functions to be undertaken by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which it says will continue to analyse confidential reports from
February 16, 1993

the industry on the state of petroleum supplies and pricing.
We will have to find out whether those reports are still published in a way that provides the public and members of the House with an idea of what is going on in the industry with regard to supply and pricing. At the moment I guess we will have to wait to see whether the reports are in fact in a form that will be of some use to us in performing our duties and to the public at large.
Emergency Preparedness Canada is being folded back into DND. This is a rather interesting one, because in 1988 one of the great initiatives was to make it a separate entity. Now the government has decided to fold it back into the Department of National Defence. Whether National Defence will be more able to respond to chemical spills, as have happened a few times in the last number of years in memory, to earthquakes, to cyclones or to other such natural disasters, remains to be seen. Hopefully the military will be able to respond quickly and well. Again the proposal seems to make a bit of sense.
It is probably time to put the Veterans' Land Act in with Veterans Affairs. There are not a lot of files still outstanding and the Veterans Affairs Department is shrinking all the time so it makes some sense to do it.
Where it becomes a little more controversial is the proposal to throw under the aegis of the Canada Council the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the International Cultural Program. They are all to be put under the one Canada Council. There may be an effort on the part of the government to try to combine too many things that have differing mandates and differing directions.
The mandate of the social scientist is not the same as the artist. The direction and the goals of the two groups are quite different. They will probably have a difficult time operating under the same organization, namely the Canada Council.
Social scientists have written to the government since the budget proposals came out and have put some proposals which they thought would help to mitigate that, but so far the government does not seem to have responded.
Government Orders
Some of the rules should be reiterated here when we are discussing this amalgamation in principle. Some basic ground rules to make the arrangement work better would include parity at all times with the representatives from the arts community and social scientists.
Since the new council has a mandate to respond to research, artistic and international concerns, it will be easier for it to respond effectively to the particular needs of each of those communities if there is an established advisory committee or panel to provide advice to the council on the particular matter. A particular panel on research, for instance, makes some sense.
With regard to research funds, members of the research community are concerned that the funds the government had assured them would be increased for all research councils may have difficulty coming through in the form of research under this arrangement. It is imperative, they say, that the funding for social science research continues to come from the science envelope through which the other research councils are funded. Research in the social sciences must continue to be part of the national science policy and funded as such.
The mandate of the council is also questioned by the social research community. It points out that it has done reasonably well through the tri-council committee which monitored the funding of various scientific research groupings, but if the social sciences are to be an integral part of the Canadian science policy a similar rule must be attributed to the new agency.
In light of the recent abolition of such important bodies as the Economic Council and the Science Council, the advisory role takes on added importance. This too frightens the people who work in the Social Sciences and Humanities Council. The demise of their sister councils has made them wonder just what is the priority of this government in the whole area of social scientific research. That is an area where questions are raised.
Another area is the Procurement Review Board. It has been discussed a bit this morning that it is now going to be part of the international trade tribunal, as has the Canadian Commercial Corporation which is going to be administratively merged with the Department of Supply and Services.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
There is some rather strange wording in the bill as it affects Canadian Commercial Corporation. It says very clearly in clause 79 of the bill:
The Canadian Commercial Corporation Act is repealed on such day as the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister designated for the purposes of the Act, may fix by order.
They immediately follow that by saying:
The minister shall not recommend the making of an order under subsection (1) unless the minister is satisfied that the dissolution of the corporation will have no significant detrimental effect on Canadian exports or on trade relations with other countries.
Are we closing the corporation down and merging it or are we not? It is not very clear but it is up to the minister.
This is the kind of so-called cost saving that the government has been engaging in quite a lot since the emergence of the Reform Party. It tried to appear to be doing away with agencies which have very little effect on the cost to the government. The changes to the Agricultural Products Board is a case in point. The board members were all public officials who are paid and will continue to be paid. The Agricultural Products Board being merged will not reduce the cost of government one iota. Neither I suspect will the effects on the Canadian Commercial Corporation, because the way this bill is written reminds me of the cash advance legislation of some years ago wherein the government tried to get out of the cash advance business but has been in it ever since. It could not get out of it.
While it may make the government feel better about changing the make-up and the facial expressions with the paint and the powder, I do not see any effective change in the cost of government with these changes.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I am joining in the debate today at this particular stage of the bill to voice my objection about a specific clause of Bill C-93. That objection is to the part II of the bill which would effectively dismantle the ECBC, the agency in Atlantic Canada in Cape Breton Island which has been primarily responsible for economic diversification on that particular island.
As a Cape Bretoner I certainly understand better than most in this Chamber the difficult time Cape Bretoners and indeed people in eastern Nova Scotia have had for most of the second half of the century in dealing with economic and industrial diversification.
Cape Breton Island held great promise in the past and I hope in the future will hold great promise again. The island was developed primarily for its mineral resources and its location. It is very close to the European markets. We had-and I underline had-rich fishing grounds. We had a vibrant steel industry at the turn of the century. We did not have one steel mill; we had more than one, we had two steel mills. We had one in Sydney and one over on the north side.
In the early part of the century we also had enormous exploitation of a valuable energy resource: the coal resource.
The island has been populated by a whole hodgepodge of individuals who have come from other places looking for a better life. Many of them have come from Scotland and moved over here in a number of different migrations. A lot of people of Acadian descent live on the island up in Cheticamp and down in Isle Madam. We have the Irish.
We have almost every mix of individual that late in the last century and early in this century came over to take advantage of the jobs that were being created in industrial Cape Breton down in the coal fields, in the steel mills and also on the seas fishing.
Cape Breton has been in decline perhaps longer than any other industrialized part of this country. Cape Breton held such promise. Going way back, the fortress of Louisbourg was established and is still down there and has been re-created. It was one of the first areas of Canada that was populated because it held great promise. For many centuries new Canadians have found their fortune in Canada by working the resources of that great island.
The people are a strong people. They come from strong stock. They do not seek to take from society; they just seek to work. That is all they want to do. They want to make a living, contribute, raise their families and they want their families to perhaps have better opportunities than they had.
My father was a coal miner. He is retired now. We grew up in the town of New Waterford where I guess everybody was equally as poor. We did not realize we were poor until we grew up and moved away and said that gee, by anybody else's standards we were poor. However, we were pretty rich because we had the right value system. We had a value system that had evolved

February 16, 1993

down on that island because of economic hardship, because of adversity.
It was a mentality that said individuals living down there had to rely on each other. If you did not rely on each other you were not going to survive. That is because in the early part of the century the Nova Scotia provincial governments and the federal government allowed the resources on Cape Breton Island to be exploited.
British firms came in and set themselves up. They bought the coal industry down there. They had the rights to the coal and kept the people in collar as they would say in Newfoundland. We had the company store, the only place you could get credit. They owned the houses, the public utilities and the water system. They owned everything. In short, to try to get enough money to raise your family you were literally owned by the coal company.
The strikes came in the early part of this century and blood was spilled on the streets down in New Waterford during one of the strikes. Bill Davis was shot during a strike and killed by the army which had been called in to quell the disturbance and put people back where they wanted to put them.
Cape Bretoners have grown to be a strong people. We do not want welfare. We do not seek to have anything other than the ability to eke out a living on that island.
In the sixties the coal industry was in great difficulty. The markets were gone. The British companies that owned the coal industry had squeezed every last penny out of it to ship somewhere else. It was not reinvested in that island and the industry was shutting down.
The Hon. Allan MacEachen, who used to be a member of this place and is now a senator in the other place, introduced a bill in this House. The bill was the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act. At that point in time there were two reasons for it.
One was to try to rehabilitate what was left of the coal industry on Cape Breton Island. Liberals of that time felt they had a fundamental responsibility through policy and through legislation to try to equalize the wealth of this country. It is a principle we still believe in.
Government Orders
One part of it was the coal division which was to either phase out or rehabilitate what we could and the second division, which was the one that held most promise I would have thought, was the industrial development division.
The industrial development division was going to attempt to diversify industry on the island so that we would not rely just on king coal for our economic life line. The Cape Breton Development Corporation worked well. There was a lot of federal investment and I underline investment-it was not money that was thrown away-that was put into the coal industry.
Outside of my home town of New Waterford we had the Lingan mine open, the first new mine opened there in decades. Then we had the Prince mine on the north side and the Lingan-Phalen mine. We had development into the Duncan-Morien coal seam, about $55 million to $60 million in developmental work went into that particular coal seam and again it held great promise.
Times have changed and Cape Breton seems to have been born under a cloud. The cloud is continued economic uncertainty. It seems that almost everyone who tries to go in and to do it right just adds to the problem. I suspect perhaps that is one of the prices we pay for living on that piece of real estate. It is a beautiful piece of property by anyone's standards and has probably some of the finest people that one would ever meet anywhere in the world. We are used to the adversity.
Instead of allowing the Cape Breton Development Corporation the resources so that it could continue the diversification of industry on that island, the government sought to destroy it after it came to power. In 1986 it announced that it was going to create this thing called the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I remember it well. I was back in Nova Scotia at that time. The government said this was going to be the panacea. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was going to be new money. It was not going to take from anything that had already been put in place. It was $1.05 billion in new money. It was going to be a new future for the people of Atlantic Canada and would take away nothing from the other commitments that the government already had made.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
No less than the Prime Minister himself said that in Halifax when the announcement of this new dawn for Atlantic industrial development came about. However the government was starting down a slippery slope. The slippery slope was the dismantling of every agency of special economic development in Atlantic Canada. Quite frankly ACOA has been a disaster.
When I was critic for that agency I used to try to temper my criticisms, hoping that the basic structure could be saved. I am of the opinion now that it is probably not the case. ACOA has been prone to more disasters economically than anything we have seen in eastern Canada ever. Political interference has been alleged in many of these spectacular collapses that we have in Atlantic Canada.
After years of this government dismantling systems that we had in place, what do we have? We have Cape Breton Island with 21 per cent unemployment. We have Sysco with about 450 employees. We have the Lingan colliery about to close down. We have problems with Lingan-Phalen. We have fish plants in Cape Breton that are closing. We have an island in despair.
This bill seeks to take it even further. The government was not content to do away with the industrial development division of Devco and put it under the ECBC. Now it is completing the circle in this bill. It is completing the loop that it set out on a few years ago and it is destroying this special agency to deliver special assistance for a special problem in the place that I come from and that is Cape Breton Island.
If the government was going to do away with this agency and it was putting proposals on the table to try to do things better so that the good people of Cape Breton Island, my fellow Cape Bretoners, could have some hope from these economic policies, then I would sit down, I would debate and I would listen. What the government has done is complete the loop. It has done something that I did not think was ever possible and that is, after eight years of government policy, try to break the spirit of the great people of Cape Breton Island. Therefore, I will not be supporting this bill.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Dartmouth who was talking about the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I thought as he spoke, what an excellent example of how a government is out of touch. If you read
the bill before us, you will find that the explanatory note indicates the reason the Cape Breton Development Corporation is being folded into ACOA is that the purposes of the development corporation have been served.
If you go back to what those purposes were at the time of the inception of that corporation, you will find that they try to address the very substantial unemployment situation in Cape Breton. The unemployment rate at the time the corporation was established by the government was of the order of 16 per cent. Now I understand it is of the order of 23 to 25 per cent.
I use this by way of example because members will be aware that Cape Breton is not exactly in my bailiwick in terms of constituency, but it is in my area of interest in the sense that those people, like the people whom I directly represent here, are hurting because of the unfair measures of this government. I use this as just the latest example of that.
Here is a case where a region of the country with an unemployment rate of 23 to 25 per cent is being told, in print, by the government that there is no longer any need for the agency that was set up initially to address the unemployment situation.
It is worth looking at the title of this particular bill, Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992. February 25, 1992 is almost a year to the day.
We are here a year later discussing the measures that were announced by the Minister of Finance at that time. That admission is itself a fairly revealing commentary on this government, on the mind set of this government. It is the latest proof, I say to the minister, that this administration holds Parliament itself in contempt, in much the same way that it holds the people of Canada in contempt.
We now know that the much repeated example of the 85 per cent of Canadians who said in every way possible, through letters, through petitions, through public protests, in every way available to them, they were unalterably opposed to the goods and services tax. Yet the government proceeded to implement that very unfair and very unpopular tax. It is another indication that this government holds people in contempt, holds the elector-
February 16, 1993

ate in contempt, has no respect for the concerns, for the opinions, for the views of Canadians across this country.
Here we are, a year later, about to get yet another budget from this administration, I suppose, though what that will do I do not know. It has already had eight or so of them and we are still in pretty much of a stew, indeed I think the stew is bigger and worse than ever before. We are about to get another budget from this administration, and still we find ourselves wading through the measures of the last.
Why is that? The answer is simple. You know the answer, Mr. Speaker. The answer is because this Parliament has not sat as it should have, because of the long periods when we have been out of this Chamber.
The government, because of its contempt for this Chamber, has not even seen fit to do the housekeeping and get its legislation through the House. We find ourselves a full year later trying to do what ought to have been done many months before.
Since it has been so long since this budget was brought down, almost a full year, it is worth reminding ourselves of some of the things that are in this budget. One of them is the tax measure whereby the government would reduce the personal income surtax. Nobody can knock a reduction in taxes.
With this government there is always a but. Even with this reduction the government managed to get it wrong. The government managed to show its hand. The government managed to treat unfairly the people who needed a reduction most.
Look at the table which is included in the budget documents entitled "Impact of Surtax Reduction". A family of four with two adults and two children and an income is $15,000 a year will get a reduction of $2 in the budget year.
For the full year 1993 the income tax deduction, because of this measure, is $8 for a family of four with an income of $15,000.
A family of four with an income of $100,000 will get an income tax reduction of $442. That one example is an indication of where this government's commitment, thinking and bias is. It is not with the ordinary people of this country.
Government Orders
The budget which we have now had for just about a year has failed most miserably on the issue of job creation. There is a crying need in this country right now for an administration, a government worthy of the name to address the number one issue. The number one issue identified in the polls as recently as last week is the need for employment generation.
While this government's policies are driving jobs out of the country and causing the permanent closure of plants right, left and centre we see nothing whatsoever that would replace those jobs. We do not see this government taking any serious initiatives or efforts to replace some of those jobs to get some of the 1.5 million jobless Canadians back to work.
I recall when this administration was in opposition its members made a great big fuss in 1982 because the unemployment numbers across the country had hit the 1 million mark. They launched a great campaign. The Minister of Forestry was part of that campaign. They launched a great campaign saying how scandalous it was that a full million people were without jobs across the country.
I say to him that 10 years later the figure is up to 1.5 million.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, as we have heard many times this morning, Bill C-93 is 84 pages long. You would think it was an economic program for the 1990s. In the 10 minutes I have I would like to suggest that it does exceedingly little in terms of making the Government of Canada more efficient and more protective of Canadian taxpayers' money.
For example, as you know there are dozens of departments. There are still something like 350 federal Crown corporations and agencies. The whole federal government shrieks to be streamlined; shrieks to be more efficient and more sensitive to Canadians. This bill will do very little to streamline the Government of Canada and save much needed money, scarce tax dollars for better purposes.
Part I of the bill talks about, and I quote from the note in the government's bill: "The purpose of this part is to wind up the Agricultural Products Board and transfer its function to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act". That is part 1 of the bill.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
Part II says and I quote: "The purpose of this part is to wind up the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and transfer its function to the staff of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency" and so on throughout the bill.
In other words, the government will take what appear to be stand alone agencies now and push them under the umbrella of some other existing agency.
I would like to deal with part III in the few minutes I have which purports to: " wind up the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and transfer its functions and its staff to the Canada Council, and transfer certain functions and staff to the Department of External Affairs concerned with the promotion of Canadian culture abroad to the Canada Council. Canada Council will be renamed the Canada Council for the Arts and for Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities to reflect its expanded functions".
There are six parts in the bill and they all do similar things. There has been a uniform outrage from people across the country about what the part I just referred to would do: the merger of the Canada Council and the academic funding boards.
I would like to quote from a letter although I will not name the person because I do not have permission. The person is at the University of Alberta and I am sure that she speaks for academics right across Canada. A part of her letter to the Prime Minister reads as follows: "I write with regard to the legislation affecting the merger of that council with programs from external affairs and with the Canada Council. The proposed merger of these three organizations has been effected without consultation with the communities of artists and scholars involved, nearly all of whom are opposed to it.
They are opposed for good practical reasons that are historically borne out. The scholarly and the artistic communities shared the first Canada Council when it was initially established and learned how inoperative that arrangement was. This legislation proposes to reverse the separation of the councils that was initially proposed to solve a problem.
It represents a step backward into the problems we had previously stepped out of; problems created by the veiy
basic differences between the work of cultural production in the performing of visual arts and scholarly research in the humanities and social sciences".
Finally she says: "Concerns of the research community about this merger are many. They include the failure of the present legislation to guarantee continued separate funding for the research and performing arts divisions of the new council. The failure of the legislators to consult the community of council users and the possibility-even likelihood given the description of the new council-the council's governing board will include significant members of patronage appointments with little knowledge of the arts or of scholarly research".
She asks for a reply from the Prime Minister. We will all wait with interest to see what the Prime Minister says particularly with respect to what his government has done to the academic community, to the teaching community and to equip young Canadians to compete in an emerging new world economy.
I do not have the time to go into it in detail, but I would just like to make three points that university teachers have made about post-secondary educational funding and federal research and development.
As my colleague said, this is what this group of dinosaurs opposite has done to the Canadian economy and young people in Canada since 1986. First of all, between 1986 and 1993 the established programs funding cutbacks will amount to $4.7 billion. That affects a lot of young people. That affects a lot of daughters and sons of a lot of members of Parliament and of course many other Canadians who are seeing post-secondary education suffer deeply at the hands of the members opposite. While they cut back $4.7 billion for post-secondary education and other programs including social programs, they have $4.4 billion available to purchase 50 submarine chasing helicopters.
What kind of priorities do these people opposite in this House have? Somebody pointed out that by not spending $4.4 billion on the submarines about 75 times as many jobs would be created if used in other more rational, more sane and more twentieth century methods.
February 16, 1993

Second, for the Tories to say that there is no money for post-secondary education when they almost instantly find the $4.4 billion I referred to for the submarine chasing helicopters is self-evident nonsense.
Third, why not institute tax credits to encourage our private sector to invest in basic research?
These people present themselves as bringing this bill before us to save taxpayers' money and make government more efficient but they have done no such thing since they took office. Canada's public debt is now about $665 billion and our foreign debt is about $300 billion. Not all of it has been hoisted on the backs of Canadians by this unloved government opposite. It is true that provincial governments have done it and the private sector has incurred debts.
A point was made recently by somebody in the private sector about the rapid deterioration in the deficit and debt to GDP ratios. In 1975 the total debt of the federal and provincial governments was 29 per cent of GDP. For those opposite, GDP means gross domestic product. In 1993 it has been estimated that the total debt in Canada will be at 96 per cent of GDP.
When will the IMF arrive in Canada? When will Japanese or Swiss investors stop buying our bonds? When will those opposite stop increasing the debt on the backs of Canadians by approximately $80 million to $100 million a day. Every 24 hours that go by, Mr. Speaker, you, your children and my children become further indebted by these people who constantly present themselves as being paragons of fiscal orthodoxy and fiscal concern.
It is like President Reagan who came into office saying he was going to fight the deficit and stop spending and borrowing money. I believe when he came into office the United States national debt was in the order of $700 billion. Today, at the end of the Reagan-Bush period of spend and borrow the U.S. federal debt is now in the order of about $4 trillion. Similarly these people opposite came into office saying they were going to fight the deficit and fight the debt. They have more than doubled the national debt of this government; $30 billion deficits through year after year after year. I will bet that if there is anybody on the other side who is prepared to get up to try to defend this bill, they will get up and say that they have been fighting the deficit and trying to protect the
Government Orders
Canadian taxpayer. It is all a lot of nonsense, as is this bill.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I see that I only have about five minutes. I would just like to continue where my colleague left off on this particular bill.
As we know, this is primarily a machinery of a government piece of legislation. That means that the officials, under the name of efficiency, are trying to reorganize and make these government units more efficient. From that particular point, I support any effort by the government to try to make service to the public more efficient. I think it is incumbent upon all of us in this House to encourage the government to try to review various agencies, departments of government and Crown corporations to make sure that they are in fact meeting the public policy objective they were originally targeted to achieve.
The problem I have when we bring forward bills like this to the House of Commons is that they seem to take away from the real problem that is happening in our country out there. That is the deep pain that people are going through right now. We need legislation in this House that deals with putting people back to work.
I want to refer specifically to a bill we had in here last week, the Small Businesses Loans Act, where we on this side of the House co-operated with the government, put the bill through the House in one day and urged the government to bring it to committee so we can bring in some witnesses. We can then return that bill to the House and get it into third reading and pass it so that the
900,000	small businesses in this country that could or might be eligible to use the Small Businesses Loans Act can use it. That is where the real source and hope for new job creation lies in this country.
Overall, this is an omnibus bill in which we are putting all these various agencies of government together and transforming them and reorganizing them. Obviously, even if we did have some amendments here, the government probably would not accept them. It very rarely does. However, I am hoping that when we get through this particular piece of legislation we will get something back on the table that is more relevant in terms of the economy.

This is the kind of debate in this Eiouse today that really causes a lack of respect for the institution. Most Canadians do not even understand the purpose of these agencies and to exacerbate or prolong the debate is really not productive when it does not seem relevant to the real priorities which most Canadians feel we should be addressing at this point.
I wanted to mention, for example, part III of this particular bill where the government is winding up the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and transferring its functions and staff to the Canada Council. There was really no need for the government to make that machinery of government change.
This really was not going to improve the efficiency. One of the things that happens when you make all of these machinery of government changes or when you move these various divisions around is that quite often the effect it has on morale in a negative way outweighs the benefit that the government may attempt to achieve.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock 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.

Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, Quebec supports the federal government on the North American free trade agreement.
"The Government of Quebec is on the whole favorable to NAFTA,'' said the Liberal minister for international affairs, John Ciaccia, as he made public a 90-page study entitled Quebec and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The authors of the study say that Mexico's inclusion in the free trade area will not fundamentally upset the
economic parameters that Quebec producers, exporters and investors must consider.
As far as agriculture is concerned, Quebec is pleased that NAFTA will not affect the Canadian supply management system for eggs, dairy products and poultry. The study also points out that Mexico offers attractive possibilities for producers of dairy cattle and bovine genetic material.
The new trade agreement respects Quebec legislation on the professions, consumer protection and financial services. Also, Quebec's language policy is not affected.


THE DISABLED
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, last week the NDP premier of Ontario was handing out hundreds of billions of dollars for roads, sewers and subways. This is the same premier, the same NDP government that says it has no money for a program to train 100 people with disabilities for skilled employment as electronic technicians.
This cost-shared program of training, job placement and follow-up would repay its costs in just 30 months. Yet it keeps getting bounced from minister to minister in Toronto while people with disabilities willing and anxious to work are kept poor and dependent.
Perhaps NDP colleagues from Thunder Bay, Beaches-Woodbine, Spadina and Nickel Belt think it is just fine that the NDP government has money for pavement and pipes but not for people. Or maybe they can explain why Bob Rae and his government do not seem to believe that Canadians with disabilities deserve the same chance as anyone else to have their own job and earn their own income.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, beginning June 1,1993 the European Community will require that all exports of softwood lumber to the European Community be either pasteurised or kiln dried.
February 16, 1993

This action will dramatically affect exports of coniferous material including our manufacture of lumber and also all our manufactured products shipped in packing crates, packing cases, drums and any kind of lumber.
The industry believes that the reasons for this restriction are not legitimate and amount to technical trade barriers which will impact a great deal of our exports to Europe including lumber and other products.
This initiative is a foreign government initiative and not supported by the industry in related European countries.
The industry is calling on the Minister for International Trade, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Forestry to give this issue the highest priority. It is asking for an extension of the deadline to allow its arguments to be heard in the short term and a total removal of these restrictions in the long term.


WINNIPEG WATER SUPPLY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, many Manitobans are concerned and disappointed that new exploration for gold is being allowed in Shoal Lake, Ontario, Winnipeg's drinking water supply.
The commitment to do an environmental assessment of any future mine development should the exploration prove positive is not good enough. Personally, I take the view that the time has long passed when mining in the water supply of 600,000 people should be considered at all.
The conflict between Manitoba and Ontario on this issue points out the crying need for a national safe drinking water act, something the federal government has promised for years but never delivered, despite numerous attempts by individual members such as myself, the member for Skeena and the member from Beaches to encourage such action through private members' bills.
I call on the government to bring forward draft legislation in this area and in the meantime to look at whatever other ways might exist for it to intervene in this interprovincial dispute that is pitting short-term economic goals in one province against the long-term health of another.


TOBACCO SMUGGLING
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, tobacco smuggling has taken on huge proportions in Canada. Over the years, the provincial and federal governments have dramatically increased taxes, which makes Quebecers and Canadians obtain their supplies on the black market and thus break the law.
I ask the Government of Canada to take the initiative of meeting representatives of the Quebec government to reassess the whole tobacco taxation system and recover the governments' revenue shortfall, because the public rightly feels exploited.
The governments know that some native bands are responsible for smuggling tobacco, liquor and drugs. Astronomical amounts of money are involved. It seems that organized crime which provides some outlaw groups with millions of dollars is tolerated. When will these people pay their taxes like any other citizen of Canada and Quebec?
Smuggling is in federal jurisdiction. The authorities and RCMP should thoroughly investigate these illegal activities. Ending all this illegal traffic on certain reserves may remove their opportunity for investing in the Charlevoix casino. Is that the way to launder dirty money?


JUSTICE
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
The committee recommended that the definition of serious harm be extended from severe physical injury or severe psychological damage to include any permanent or long-term disability, disfigurement or significant reduction in the quality of life.
These changes would reflect the serious harm done to victims of violent crimes under the age of 18 who must be

February 16, 1993
protected from dangerous offenders. I urge the Solicitor General to accept these recommendations and to bring forth appropriate amendments.
I also urge the Solicitor General to bring forth amendments to make the current system of dangerous offender applications less complicated and less likely to be plea bargained away.
Such amendments would include allowing a judge to bring forth an application and allowing Crown counsel to introduce such applications for persons convicted of violent crimes who are known to be high risk or repeat offenders.
To the Solicitor General I say, enough talk. Canadians and their families demand action.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, few in this House have doubted the need for reform of the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Growth of our small businesses is being hindered by limited access to loan capital. Last week the suspicion was reinforced by the comments of the director general of the small business office of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. Mr. Ian Donald was reported in The Globe and Mail as saying that the banks are still hesitant to lend to small firms.
This statement reaffirms that today's entrepreneurs are indeed being squeezed by a reluctance to provide start-up cash and operating and expansion capital. It also points to the necessity of extensive changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act.
What concerns me is that the amendments to the SBLA in Bill C-99 do not yet address the problem of capital access while still leaving the program affordable to its applicants. Further changes must be made to this bill at committee or report stage.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that the growth of a number of our small businesses and the creation of new jobs for a number of Canadians in this sector are counting on these changes.


CN RAIL
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on February 5 The Thunder Bay Times-News published an article predicting the eventual closure of CN's north line in northern Ontario.
It is totally irresponsible for the Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan NDP MP to fuel such speculation and to spread such gloom and doom. Has he thought for just one moment of the tremendous negative impact such a statement has had on the lives of the workers, the citizens and the communities along that line?
Hornepayne is a railroad town totally dependent on CN for its survival. Haavaldsrud's Lumber used the CN line to transport 12,000 tons of wood chips to Thorold last year as well as one-third of its lumber production. Weldwood of Longlac ships 80 per cent of its products on this north line.
Those affected demand that CN categorically deny the closure of this line and dissipate any uncertainty surrounding the issue. Further isolating these communities spells despair and disaster.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the European Community is at it again, this time using technical barriers to keep our softwood lumber in any form out of its markets.
If left unchecked, this provision would become effective June 1, 1993 and would result in the loss of $1.4 billion in trade. I urge the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Forestry to continue strong representation on behalf of the softwood lumber exporters to derail this very restrictive practice. It cannot be allowed to succeed at the expense of our own Canadian industry.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, several labour groups, as well as the farmers represented by the UPA, have been working for a long time to set up an ethanol plant in Varennes, in the labour minister's riding.
February 16, 1993

This project is very important for the region's economic development. It could create more than 300 jobs directly and indirectly and increase the market for com growers in the region south and east of Montreal by 10 to 15 per cent.
In addition, ethanol is a product with a good future. It reduces environmental pressures and ethanol production is growing very rapidly in Ontario and Western Canada with the federal government's help.
I ask the Minister of Labour and member for Vercheres to act quickly so that this project can be carried out as soon as possible.


CANADA SCHOLARSHIPS PROGRAM
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Scholarships Program has been a tremendous success. Thousands have received scholarships which are divided equally between men and women. One must have exceptional marks to qualify and maintain high grades to continue to receive the scholarships every year.
We have an opportunity through this program to measure educational results across the country by requiring applicants to take a standardized test.
I urge the minister of science of technology to consider holding tests for applicants. This will give us as Canadians an indication of how well our educational systems are performing across the country.


GUATEMALA
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 1,600 Canadians asked me to present a petition to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The petition asked her first to urge the Government of Guatemala to negotiate in good faith with the real representatives of the Guatemalan people, including the Maya, to end the civil war.
Second, it asked that Canada tell all Latin American governments that we insist on having Guatemala registered under item 12, grave and systematic human rights violations, at the next meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
On January 20 I saw 2,500 Guatemalan refugees returning from Mexico in peace, the first of 45,000 yet to come. This happened partly through the pressure of the Guatemalan people and partly through negotiations by the Governments of Canada, France, Sweden and Mexico.
I commend Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada's part in this good beginning. I urge her to continue support for the refugee return peace negotiations with the URNG and United Nations monitoring under item 12.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, there is something radically wrong when we have people suffering from hunger in this country and we do not have a delivery system to get free food to them when it becomes available.
It is even worse when we have people actually dying of starvation in other countries and we cannot come up with a delivery system to take free food from Canada and put it into the hands and stomachs of these people.
The case in point involves 2 million hundredweight of P.E.I. and New Brunswick potatoes being diverted from the tablestock market through a federal-provincial agreement. These potatoes must be removed from the regular market.
Farmers in P.E.I. and New Brunswick do not want these potatoes to go to waste. They would very much like to see them used to alleviate hunger in Canada and abroad. Twenty million 10-pound bags of potatoes is a lot of potatoes and would feed a large number of people.
I would ask the federal government to use the resources at its disposal to make sure that as many of these potatoes as possible find their way into the plates of the hungry and starving in Canada and abroad rather than simply being allowed to rot and to be ploughed down in the fields.

February 16, 1993
Oral Questions POLITICS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, clearly concerns about racism, sexism and anti-Semitism can be relative in politics.
Everyone knows that the member for St. John's West has a histoiy of thoughtless, even tasteless loquaciousness masquerading as humour. He is an easy target even for arrows from within glass houses.
Within such a house resides Jean Pelletier who, uncondemned, counsels racial exclusion. Also there now is his friend Camil Samson who accused Jewish abortionists of trying to destroy the people of Quebec while elevating Hitler's economic policies.
Meanwhile in the Victoria men's room of the same glass house the defender of a rapist is in while two female executive members are out in the sexist cold.
The Liberal house is the house of glass; it is silent within, with an interesting cast.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this month the government missed an important deadline. By February the government had promised to complete studies of the first 33 chemicals on the priority list of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Only 5 of the 33 chemicals have been assessed. In other words, the majority of chemicals have not been assessed for their toxicity as planned.
Every day 1.5 tonnes of persistent toxic chemicals enter Lake Ontario. Therefore, the fact that many of these chemicals are still to be assessed and regulated is of extreme urgency. The government will not meet its own goal in the green plan where it promises to virtually eliminate discharges of persistent toxics in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Environment and human health are endangered because this government fails to keep its promises.


DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Police forces across Canada are to be commended for publishing the names and photographs of dangerous offenders who are
scheduled to re-enter the community. Canadians are entitled to learn the identities of those individuals who are considered to pose an extraordinary risk to public safety. My constituents are urging the government to take action in ensuring that the public is made aware of the identities of violent criminals and of young offenders.
I am encouraged by the initiative taken by local law enforcement bodies and urge the government to provide whatever co-operation is necessary to help protect our neighbourhoods.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Yesterday, the Minister for International Trade met with his Mexican counterparts and after the meeting, he did not say clearly what the government's position is and suggested that the government might proceed with the North American Free Trade Agreement without waiting for the results of negotiations with the Americans on labour, the environment and even agricultural problems.
Would the Prime Minister not agree to tell his minister that we should not proceed with the agreement in this House unless and until we know the results of the negotiations with the United States on the parallel accords that President Clinton wants?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, President Clinton already said, as I repeated yesterday, that the free trade agreement was a standalone document and that supplementary agreements would not in any way change the substance of the primary agreement. Supplementary agreements will be negotiated with Canada and Mexico in due course without affecting the accord itself. This means that we can proceed without compromising anyone's principles.
As for my friend's question, I would point out the position stated yesterday by Quebec's minister for international affairs, the Hon. John Ciaccia. He warned those like the federal Liberal leader who want to renegotiate
February 16, 1993

portions of the agreement or include new chapters in it. Mr. Ciaccia thinks that this might endanger this agreement which Quebec needs. Not only Quebec but Canada needs it. I think that Mr. Ciaccia, a former deputy minister of the opposition leader, was right and it would be time for him to listen to him again.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of external affairs for Mexico said that this accord is perfect, that they will never look at reopening any element of it and more or less said that they did not take seriously the problems that President Clinton and Vice-President Gore mentioned on the environment.
Does the Prime Minister not realize at this time that this take it or leave it attitude will lead to a big problem and that it would be wise for this government not to rush into the House of Commons with a proposition? We should know exactly what the position of the American administration will be before taking the time of Canadians on this subject.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we do know the position of the American administration. The position of the American administration was given in a statement by the President of the United States on Friday, February 5. In response to a question I indicated, and I quote: "The President has indicated many times that he is going to sign the NAFTA agreement as it is. But he proposes to bring in supplemental agreements with Mexico, particularly in regard to some of the points that he has mentioned that do not impact on the NAFTA agreement as concluded. President Clinton said: "That's right".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, President Clinton said very clearly at the end of his intervention that he believes he can do that. He also said that he has to have included some parallel accord. It was exactly what was said last week by Mr. Kantor, who said that the administration will not present the deal to the American congress until it has these parallel accords.
Would it not be wise for this government to know what will happen in the United States before forcing a vote in this House, subject perhaps to coming back later to
Oral Questions
amend the legislation because there will be some supplementary agreements and the House will have to vote yes or no on them as well.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says that President Clinton went on to say something-


Ms. Copps:: No, you don't.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Of course he said no such thing. I will read the transcript for my hon. friend. After, President Clinton said: "That is right". He then said: "And I might add that the Prime Minister's administration in Canada has had a strong record on the environment".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: It makes sense to me.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks a question suggesting that the answer is there and indeed it is. I did not mean to offend the opposition, but it gets better.
Then President Clinton said: "Something that we want to try to beef up in the supplemental agreement, and that Canada would be, more or less in line with the United States in terms of its impact on any supplemental labour accord we might reach. We certainly intend to work with them. After all, this is a three way agreement, not a two way agreement". Then the President said: "But I still believe, as I said many weeks ago, that we can negotiate agreements without reopening the NAFTA itself".


PEACEKEEPING
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
About one hour ago, the minister announced that Canadian troops would be redeployed into Sarajevo. She added that there would be no new mandate, no air cover, no new equipment and no contingency plans. Yet she maintained that: "All possible measures had been taken to ensure the safety of the Canadian peacekeepers".
Considering that in the last few months 28 UN peacekeepers have been killed in Bosnia-Hercegovina, can the minister explain what kind of measures will be

February 16, 1993
Oral Questions
taken to ensure that our troops are not being put at undue risk?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in making a very serious decision such as the one we made today to deploy the 2nd battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment to an area just west of Sarajevo, we consulted and were advised by the senior members of the Canadian military as to the level of risk and its acceptability.
That is a technical question which requires a very high level of expertise. The Chief of the Defence Staff and those who work with him have advised the government that the level of risk in this new deployment is somewhat less than it was in Sarajevo, but it is considerable. We are pleased to say that the 2nd battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment is perhaps one of the best equipped and able forces in that area of Yugoslavia at the time.
There will be a technical briefing on this deployment at 3.30 p.m. in conference room D at the Department of National Defence. I invite any members of this House who would wish to have more in depth information about the question, I think quite rightly raised by the hon. member, to attend that briefing and satisfy themselves as to the great care that went into making that decision.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, considering what the minister said and all the due consultations that have been taken, I want to quote to her a statement made by her colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on Sunday when she said: "I would like to see our troops take a more active role in terms of keeping the peace or peacemaking. I think it is important that we have clear roles of engagement and those would have to be further discussed with military people at the United Nations".
It appears that has not been done. If cabinet itself cannot speak with one voice on this issue, and there seems to be a confusion about the mandate, is it not about time that the government ensured that there is a full parliamentary debate and approval before committing our troops into these dangerous situations?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague the hon. Secretary of State for External
Affairs was referring to was that she would like to see the international community take those steps.
She and I had the opportunity to attend a very useful and interesting conference on these matters in Munich a week and a half ago where all of our colleagues in Europe in particular and our American counterparts were addressing themselves to the question of what the future would be of the international community in addressing aggression and in trying to make sure the situation such as that in Yugoslavia did not spread and did not destabilize the rest of the world.
This is all being done through the United Nations. There is absolute consensus on the part of the government, and I think probably all members of this House, that the challenge we face now as members of the international community is to define the rules and principles by which we will join with other countries in trying to stop aggression and trying to prevent the development of a world where no country feels safe on its own, where all countries feel they have to arm themselves to the teeth because the international community cannot act to protect them.
This is the challenge we face today and this government is committed to addressing that challenge.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This government is well aware of the concerns of Canadians with regard to environmental sustainability yet the NAFTA contains no guarantees to ensure that market forces cannot erode environmental standards, standards that are designed to protect the health and safety of workers as well as protecting the environment.
It contains no guarantees with regard to a country which fails to establish and enforce such reasonable environmental standards, which has in essence a trade subsidy.
I ask this government how it can continue to give assurance to Canadians that the interest of multinational companies will not override the democratic rights of Canadians.

February 16, 1993


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, much of the information conveyed to the House by my hon. friend is of course inaccurate in regard to the proposed treaty as it affects the environment. In fact NAFTA was the first international trade treaty to deal with the environment and there is much to commend it to my hon. friend.
The members of the NDP are complaining. The NDP minister for development from Saskatchewan, Mr. Dwain Lingenfelter, said: "Western Canada and agriculture probably have more to gain from NAFTA than any other part of Canada".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting non-answer. The minister he is referring to came back, in fact, more determined to oppose NAFTA than he was before.


An hon. member:: That is right. And he said so publicly.


Lynn Hunter: Will the Prime Minister give us his assurance of a parallel environmental accord? No parallel environmental accord can adequately address the concerns. Minimum acceptable environmental standards must be negotiated within NAFTA, not alongside it. We British Columbians have learned this to our sorrow.
Under the current trade deal, a conservation program that protected dwindling B.C. salmon stock was struck down as unfair to American trade.
My question is: If the government agrees to negotiate with the U.S. and Mexico a parallel accord, will it be negotiated in secret like NAFTA? Will it be a secret dispute settlement mechanism like NAFTA or will it be toothless, like it is now?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to challenge the assumptions on which the hon. member is basing her questions with which we have a fundamental difference.
I think it is important to stress to the hon. member that when the Americans talk about a parallel accord they are mostly focusing on border issues between Mexico and the United States. That is the perspective in which they examine this parallel accord.
Oral Questions
Already in Canada we have an important number of similar agreements with the United States.
Furthermore, NAFTA is the greenest trade agreement ever signed. It is the first one after Rio, the first one to commit to sustainable development, the first one to recognize that international environmental agreements have precedence over the NAFTA agreement itself, the first environmental agreement to also recognize that countries will not lower their standards for the purposes of attracting investment. It is the first trade agreement that has successfully leveraged the creation of a North American commission on the environment, something that this government is very proud of.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, Liberal and Tory economic priorities have already crippled the Canadian economy, causing massive unemployment and astronomical growth of the national debt.
This government is condemning Canada to an environmental deficit. What we have had so far is an in-house, secret environmental assessment.
I ask the minister. Where is the environmental assessment of NAFTA? When can Canadians trust this government to bring in real environmental concerns to this debate?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member brought that issue up because it is the first time the federal government undertook to do an environmental assessment of a trade agreement, which was a precedent. This environmental assessment has already been made public.
Frankly, I do not know where the hon. member has been in so far as that issue is concerned because the environmental assessment has been made public.
I want to make another point that is extremely important in regard to this debate. The member is making the argument that a developing country should have tariffs imposed upon it if it does not meet certain environmental standards.
If the member chooses to pursue that argument, which I also understand is the line of argument of the Government of Ontario, Canada would then be breaking off

February 16, 1993
Oral Questions
trade with Bangladesh, Somalia and all the other developing countries in the world. I do not think that is in the interests of Canada, which is a trading nation.


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister is aware that 25,000 people in eastern Bosnia are cut off in the town of Cerska while a UN convoy of food and medical supplies is parked on the side of the road just 20 miles away.
In Somalia we learned it was necessary to use force against the warlords to deliver supplies to the people most in need.
On Sunday the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested that Canadian peacekeepers should take a more active role in the region.
Does the redeployment of the second battalion which she announced today mean that the government is considering military intervention as a possible solution to the standstill of humanitarian relief efforts?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no. The 2nd battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment is being deployed on the basis of what we call a permissible environment, which means it will perform its task of attempting to deliver humanitarian aid only with the acquiescence and co-operation of the other forces that are there. We see no reason at this time to change that mandate.
I think the hon. member would agree that the circumstances in Bosnia-Hercegovina are very different from those in Somalia. We are hopeful, as a result of the clarification of the American position with respect to Bosnia-Elercegovina, that co-operation will be found. We will be able to fulfil our task of delivering much-needed aid to starving people in that region of the world.


Jesse Philip Flis: My supplemental is for the same minister.
On Sunday the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced that she wanted our Canadian troops to take a more active role in peacekeeping and peacemaking and that the rules of the engagement be absolutely clear.
Today the Minister of National Defence makes a confusing commitment for an additional 1,200 troops without consulting Canadians through a debate in this House. Troops cannot do their job properly if they are not given a clear mandate and a clear mission. There is a confusing mandate coming from the secretary of state, the Prime Minister and the present minister.
Will the Minister of National Defence stand up in this House today and give the troops going there a clear mandate and a clear mission as to exactly what they are to do?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the only confusion appears to be in the mind of the hon. member.
The troops that have been redeployed today have been in that region since last November.
The original request from the United Nations to have them deployed in the Banja Luka area was not able to be fulfilled because our people were not able to get into that region. The United Nations has now asked us to redeploy in an area west of Sarajevo. We have accepted that engagement and our people are now on their way to fulfil that engagement.
Their mandate is very clear. There is not time in the context of Question Period to go into the details of it, but I would invite that hon. member to attend a technical briefing at the Department of National Defence at 3.30 p.m. today in which he could be advised of all of the specific aspects of that mission.
It is very explicit and I assure the House there is no confusion in the minds of the Canadian men and women who will be carrying it out.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, a newspaper headline on November 3 reads: "Canada wrong to send troops to former Yugoslavia says general". In this article two generals serving in the Canadian forces questioned the manner in which we commit our troops to peacekeeping operations. Later,
February 16, 1993

serious questions on command and control of peacekeepers were raised.
Can the minister still deny, as she did in Question Period yesterday, that serving generals are so concerned about this government's handling of peacekeeping commitments that they have seen fit to speak out in public?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am only aware of one general who has made a comment of that sort and that was the general from whom we took advice on the acceptability of the risk to our people who were serving in Sarajevo at the time.
I think it is important to point out that the assessment of risk, the assessment of the appropriateness of the deployment of our forces and their ability to carry out the missions is an assessment that is undertaken not by politicians, but by expert military advisers.
The government then decides on the basis of that expert military assessment whether it is consistent with our foreign policy objectives to deploy troops in that particular way.
We have always been extremely respectful of the advice of our military advisers. I am not aware of anyone wearing a uniform of the Department of National Defence who is not supportive of the decisions that we have made because they know that they are based on the very best military advice.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has completely missed the point.
Clearly there is a problem with the way we commit Canadian troops operationally. Last fall the Chief of Defence Staff said that Canadian forces were stretched to the limit and that we could not sustain the current peacekeeping mission without additional resources. Two months later the new CDS said that reducing manpower was a defence priority. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot do more with less.
Will the minister recognize the reality of the serious situation and debate on the floor of the House of Commons Canada's involvement in peacekeeping and the manner in which we commit our troops?
Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I welcome not only a discussion of that very important issue in this House of Commons, but in Canada as a whole.
As I have indicated since I became Minister of National Defence, peacekeeping requires the participation of a highly-trained, well-equipped professional military. It is not simply a question of boy scouts with guns. It is an extremely serious enterprise.
We deploy in this particular enterprise the resources that are available to us. Canada now participates in peacekeeping operations in 15 locations around the world.
It is quite true that we cannot continue to accept engagements and I think that with the growing capability of the United Nations we will be asked to accept more engagements. Therefore, I would ask all members of this House to think very seriously about what is an appropriate level of the Canadian military, what is an appropriate level of the defence budget, how many of these kinds of engagements we can undertake, consistent with what Canadians are prepared to pay to support their defence establishment.
Those are the questions we have to address. They are questions for all Canadians to consider because I think all Canadians support the need to contribute to creating a stable world order. How big a role Canada should be playing is one which we all have to address.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
The Canadian human rights commissioner has said that he is troubled by the possibility that Bill C-105 could put women who face sexual harassment at risk of losing their UI. Max Yalden is asking for the assurance that persons facing discrimination in the work place will not be disadvantaged in any way should they feel obliged on that account to leave their jobs.
The minister knows very well the problems caused by the lengthy appeal process which exists now. It is going to get worse with more appeals as a result of this bill.

February 16, 1993
Oral Questions
How can the minister assure Mr. Yalden that claimants facing discrimination will not be disadvantaged in any way when the claimants are forced to live without income? Also they have the burden of having to prove that their case is real.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in my answer to Mr. Yalden I intend to say that Employment and Immigration Canada has a long history of dealing with such cases in a fair and sensitive manner.
The government and I will continue to deal fairly and sensitively with these important issues of sexual or other harassment. In the legislative process that lies ahead we will ensure that the legislation is demonstrably responsive to the concerns that are being raised.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much what the minister has said.
However I question his consultation process. We do not know who he is consulting and he does not seem to be listening to anybody during that consultation process.
In another article in The Ottawa Citizen today, we find another case where a woman wanted to leave her employment to be with her spouse in Ottawa. This woman is now in UI limbo because it has been over a year and her case has still not been heard.
How can the minister explain to us that the benefit of doubt will go to the claimant when clearly this is yet another case of someone wanting to join her spouse and is being denied benefits. Under the old system she lost a few weeks. Now she is going to lose everything. Is that fair?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in the case to which the hon. member refers that person has sought a further review in the Federal Court of Appeal. Therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday in responding to questions, the Prime Minister reminded the House of the government's record in appointing women to key government positions to advise this government on important matters of the day.
One of those women, a woman who all members of the House would acknowledge as an outstanding Canadian, has said of the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act: "I am very concerned. I am concerned about the consequences of the law and by the minister's stubbornness in not seeing those consequences".
Would the Prime Minister agree to listen to and act on the concerns of his own appointee, Senator Solange Chaput-Rolland and put an end to this act?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest of respect for the opinions of Senator Solange Chaput-Rolland.
She is a very distinguished member of the Senate. She has well developed opinions on matters of public policy, some of which I endorse and few of which I do not. That will not surprise my hon. friend.
The reforms being proposed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration deal fundamentally with a very simple matter. In this society with the fiscal problems this country has, is it appropriate that someone who quits his or her job without reason, without excuse and without provocation, continues to draw unemployment insurance benefits paid for by his or her fellow Canadians? That is the issue.
That action is not insurance against unemployment. That action might fall under some other social program that my hon. friend would want to propose but it does not follow that every person who quits his or her job is entitled to payment by his or her fellow Canadians. That is the issue before the House and I think we have made the proper and intelligent decision under the circumstances.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Senator Chaput-Rolland, members of the government backbenches, certainly the opposition parties and many concerned Canadians understand something the Prime Minister does not, obviously.
Any Canadian who quits his or her job without just cause is already subject to a severe penalty today in this country. The real question the Prime Minister ought to address is: Is it appropriate in a country that has 1.6 million Canadians unemployed, and all the consequent misery for men, women and children in Canadian households, to battle unemployment by declaring war on unemployed Canadians?
February 16, 1993

Is that appropriate, or is it more appropriate to take measures to put Canadians back to work? Will the Prime Minister come to his better senses?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is an astonishingly misleading statement by my hon. friend, a very misleading statement.
The fact of the matter is that Canada treats its unemployed citizens more generously than any other G-7 country. Now my hon. friend might wave.


An hon. member:: Talk about the penalty.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Thlk about the penalty. The penalty is the same, for example, as exists in New Zealand and as exists in France.


An hon. member:: What penalty?


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is a self-inflicted difficulty of someone who without reason, without justification, decides he is going to quit his job.


An hon. member:: It does not cost him a cent.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend should be aware that in Canada, for example, we spend four times as much per capita on our unemployment insurance scheme as in the United States of America. It is so generous that there are some experts, including the House royal commission in Newfoundland, that suggested the present unemployment insurance scheme, as argued in Newfoundland, has distorted the ethic of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and has added 2 percentage points-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is an argument that has been made. It has added two full percentage points to the unemployment rate in Canada.
This country treats the unemployed with a level of generosity unmatched anywhere in the OECD, but we do not have an obligation in this country to provide someone who quits his job without reason, without provocation and without excuse with unemployment insurance paid for by fellow citizens. I think the decision of the Government of Canada has been an appropriate one.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that it was only the four horsewomen of the Apocalypse who cared about the unemployment insurance issue but today we see that it is not only the four horsewomen who care. Even a senator appointed by the Prime Minister has said that she is truly concerned about the minister's proposals, worried about the legislation's consequences and by the minister's stubborn refusal to see those consequences.
If the minister will not listen to the opposition, is he ready today to listen to his colleague, Senator Chaput-Rolland?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. I have every respect for Senator Chaput-Rolland. Incidentally she once said that the Liberal Party's systematic obstruction of the GST in the House of Commons verged on imbecility. Would you go along with me on that?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister rejects Senator Chaput-Rolland's concerns, is he ready to accept the very disturbing remarks of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, who said in connection with the proposed changes that he too was worried about the consequences for women who left their jobs because they were harassed?
If the Prime Minister denies the remarks of his colleague, Senator Chaput-Rolland, is he ready to endorse the concerns of Canada's chief commissioner for human rights?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in the other official language, I received a letter from Mr. Yalden, which I am answering today. In it, he asks for my reassurance that we are going to continue to make sure that we treat with sensitivity cases involving harassment or discrimination. My department has 40 years experience in dealing with such cases, we have always done so fairly and justly and we will continue to do so.

February 16, 1993
Oral Questions


BILL C-43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader.
He will note that some time ago a committee of the House and the Senate unanimously reported on an inquiry concerning Bill C-43 on the Order Paper and recommended that the Parliament of Canada Act be amended to deal with the conflict of interest of members of Parliament, the conflict of interest of ministers and others.
Is that report to be buried forever, or is the government going to follow that unanimous report and do something about the matter?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to be buried. Yes, we are going to bring it forward.
I am told by Department of Justice draft persons that it will be ready very soon. I think we will find that the bill reflects the consensus view of the all-party committee, and I hope that will be reflected in a willingness on the part of the opposition to treat the legislation expeditiously when it comes forward so we can get this important legislation in place.


TOBACCO SMUGGLING
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The minister is well aware that cigarette smuggling in Canada has become a plague and a disgrace which profits organized crime with the complicity of thousands of citizens who act against their conscience to save a few dollars on a pack of cigarettes.
Can the minister confirm that a national conference on this issue was convened with his provincial counterparts and can he say what concrete measures have been taken so far by the federal government to end this scourge which tarnishes our reputation and weakens our ability as a country to enforce our laws?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that government's underlying policy as far as tobacco use is concerned is to try in every way, shape or form to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of tobacco products in this country.
We have taken cigarette smuggling, as a very serious issue. We have put in place numerous projects already, including joint efforts with the RCMP. We have increased personnel both at customs and RCMP. We have got tobacco manufacturers to put markings on tobacco products so that they can be tracked as they go through the distribution system in the United States.
Progress is being made, but we still have a long way to go. As far as the hon. member's question is concerned regarding a national conference, there are continuing discussions between the federal government and all the provinces. I know the Minister of Finance and his colleagues are going to be reviewing this matter in the very near future.


FISHERIES
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last month during the fishery committee meetings in Vancouver most partners agreed that for the aboriginal fishery strategy to succeed there must be river-wide agreement. On December 7 the minister announced that he would not proceed with the strategy unless he had river-wide agreement for a particular river system.
I ask the question I asked last week: Is the minister ready to announce that he has a river-wide agreement for any of B.C.'s major salmon rivers?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman should know, discussions are under way now with various aboriginal groups and others in British Columbia.
In connection with this issue I myself met about 10 or 12 days ago with all or most of the chiefs of aboriginal bands who live along the Fraser River. I intend to visit British Columbia again next week to meet with representatives of the commercial industry, the aboriginal groups, and the sport-fishing industry.
February 16, 1993

I intend to continue these meetings to have the stakeholders meeting together and trying to understand or understanding just what the aboriginal fisheries strategy is, that it is in the interest of everyone in the B.C. fishing industry that there should be stability, and that the issue should be dealt with calmly and rationally.
That is what I intend to do. I hope that before the fishing season opens we will indeed have a watershed agreement with reference to the Fraser River, but we do not have one yet.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, one of the points made at the hearings was that there should be multi-party negotiations; all the users should be involved in these negotiations and discussions. Is the minister consulting with anyone other than the people he has mentioned?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned the commercial industry, which means the people representing the various gear types, the trailers, the seiners, the gill-netters. We have met with the representatives of the processing industry.
We are meeting with representatives of the aboriginal peoples. We are meeting with all kinds of representatives of the sport fishery. From time to time I have even met with representatives of the British Columbia government. We are setting up a process in which all these stakeholders will meet together on a regular basis.
I intend to write to the B.C. government to invite it to have a representative present so that we can find out exactly what its position is on these issues, just as we would like to know what the position of the NDP is on these issues. Is it supporting this policy or is it not? Is it going to continue-


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He will know that Atlantic fishermen and plant workers are literally on the ropes because of the catch failures and quota cutbacks.
Oral Questions
If I may say so, his handling of the problem has been haphazard. It has been unfair and in some cases it has been downright callous. For example, he blatantly excludes pockets of communities along Newfoundland's south and southwest coast and across the maritimes.
Will he now come up with an assistance package to help those who he has been neglecting for so long so that they can be properly compensated for their losses in income?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. gentleman is somewhat exaggerated in his criticism when he suggests that we have taken a haphazard or a callous approach.
Is it a callous approach of the government that we are spending in excess of $800 million on a compensation program in the northern cod area? Is it callous on the part of the government that we have come up with employment projects for people who do not come under the northern cod program at all? Was it callous on the part of the government when we came up with an ice compensation program costing $57 million a year or two ago when ice was the problem? Was it callous when we came up with the $500 million for the Atlantic fisheries adjustment program? Is that evidence-


Mr. Speaker:: We are going to have to move on.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, yes, I would say it is haphazard that he has paid out thousands of fishermen who now have to refund because of the haphazard nature of his policy and, yes, it is callous when he gave the ice compensation to somebody who got $60,000 in income on the fisheries last year.
On that ludicrous policy of licence cancellations I hear he has seen the light a bit, but why is he still being evasive and letting those people twist in the wind as it were? Why does he not tell us now that he is not after those people-


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, the questions and the answers do have to be co-operative.

Point of Order


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the only people twisting in the wind are those who listen to the hon. gentleman and the jet stream that he is offering in these matters.
With respect to the licensing situation, I will be issuing a release today or tomorrow, certainly this week, which will explain exactly what we are attempting to do.
We are tackling problems in the Atlantic fishery that were left untackled by the hon. gentlemen opposite. In all their years in government they never have tackled these problems. We are tackling them.


Mr. Speaker:: We will move on.


THE ENVIRONMENT
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
There is a controversial project near Brookfield, Nova Scotia, concerning burning toxic waste in a cement plant. It will be the first time this has been done in Canada. People in the area are very concerned about their environment. I wonder what part the federal Department of Environment will play, and can the residents of Brookfield be confident their environment will not be damaged by this new process?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can report to the hon. member there is no disposition that presently allows the federal government to intervene directly in this process, but I do understand the provincial government has a process that has gone forward, that recommendations have been made to the provincial minister and that he will be following up on such recommendations soon.
I may add though that the federal government, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and through Environment Canada, works in very close co-operation with the provinces in establishing minimum standards that apply throughout Canada for the disposition of similar toxic waste, which is exactly what Canadian people expect from us in terms of
co-operation among all jurisdictions in the countiy in the area of the environment.


STEPHENSON INQUEST
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister of Canada and concerns the Stephenson inquest.
The Prime Minister will know that ordinary Canadians are flooding the Solicitor General's office with calls that he drop his hard line position with respect to the Stephensons' costs.
The coroner's jury, which represents a cross-section of independent ordinary Canadians, has recommended that the government pay at least a portion of the Stephensons' legal costs. This is no longer an issue of law alone but also one of compassion.
Will the Prime Minister intervene on behalf of the Stephensons, whose little boy was so brutally murdered, and instruct the Solicitor General to implement the jury's recommendation?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General, who is not here today, recognizes the seriousness of the situation in the Stephenson case. However, one must understand that particular problems are raised when people not legally involved in the case are represented by lawyers in court.
Requests have been considered by the provincial government. The Government of Canada has made an offer to the family and I believe that discussions are going on between the parties. While my colleague and I recognized the seriousness of such a situation, it must be understood that there are dozens, indeed hundreds, of coroner's inquests in Canada. We must therefore make sure that our involvement is fair and equitable for all cases throughout the country.


POINT OF ORDER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, During Question

February 16, 1993

Period the Prime Minister in responding to my question made reference to the House report and I believe made reference to a distorted work ethic in Newfoundland.
I have to believe, in fact I am confident, that the Prime Minister did not mean to cast any aspersion on Newfoundland workers. As a former president of IOCC, the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and someone who employed hundreds if not thousands of Newfoundlanders, I am sure the Prime Minister would want to express his confidence that when Newfoundlanders have jobs they tackle those jobs with enthusiasm and energy. I would ask the Prime Minister to make very clear, so that nothing is misunderstood, that was his intention during his remarks in Question Period.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that statement is not what I meant. He is quite right. It is not what I meant and it is not what I said in response.
In light of his constructive intervention I can say as former president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada that we had major and significant operations in Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders have an excellent work ethic.
The House royal commission expressed very serious concern, as did the Forget royal commission, that in Canada that work ethic could be distorted by unemployment insurance programs that are counterproductive and that foster dependence as opposed to independence and a commitment to new jobs.
This is what I said, and what we are trying to do with the amendments to the unemployment insurance programs is to keep them generous, to keep them the most generous in the world, but to ensure that all Newfoundlanders who wish to work have an opportunity to work. This is why we have committed billions of dollars to help Hibernia get off the ground in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope; and the motion of Mr. Worthy (p. 15483).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood has four minutes remaining.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, that is about all I need on this particular bill because it is pretty basic material.
There are very few recommendations that we have in this government reorganization bill concerning these various agencies, boards and commissions.
The one point I wanted to make to the government is that at a time when confidence and morale is very low in our country, a lot of this reorganization has an adverse effect on the Public Service in total.
Because our Public Service touches the people of Canada in so many different ways, during a period of deep depression in the economy I believe it is incumbent upon the government to be sensitive to the morale of the Public Service. A low morale ultimately affects the quality of service to the public.
In my community there are examples day in and day out. I hear from constituents that the quality of service they have been getting from the Government of Canada through the Public Service in the last few years does not seem to be as good as it used to be. When I check some of these complaints out I constantly hear that because of the cutbacks in various departments the public servants are working incredible hours under incredible pressure and just cannot get the work done.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
At times this government is just too quick with the knife in terms of its cutbacks and reorganizations. I realize that this bill is going through and realistically I know that not much change is going to happen.
As the government is making these changes it should be ever mindful that the morale of the Public Service if it is functioning in a positive way can go a long way to affect the service to the public in this country.
The converse of that is also important. When those members are making these machinery of government changes in the name of efficiency, I would ask them to do so in a manner in which the morale and dignity of those public servants concerned are properly attended to.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate again in the debate regarding Bill C-93 and in particular some of the effects that this bill will have on different agencies and different structures of the Government of Canada.
On an earlier occasion I took the time to spell out for the House the ways in which I believe this bill has been inappropriately laid before the House. At that time I indicated clearly that I thought this bill, which affects numerous departments and agencies of the Government of Canada, ought to have been split. However, the Chan-in its normal wisdom did not see the validity of my arguments and of course ruled otherwise.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid I do wish to reiterate for members of this House that there is one section of the bill in particular which is of great concern to my constituents. It has to do with the gutting of what has become known as Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
I know my colleagues from Nova Scotia, particularly the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, will want to support me in my endeavours in this particular debate. That hon. member was a part of a government on an earlier occasion which brought in legislation to create Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. I am certain that the hon. member in question would not want to be classified or referred to in the political world of Nova Scotia as a person who does not support the principles
for which he voted only a year or two ago and now would change because of the political winds a certain minister or a couple of ministers would have on the situation.
Now that I have the support of my colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants I am wondering if perhaps we could get the support of the hon. member for South Shore who has been very studious in his representations on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that even though his political persuasion is different from mine he can readily see the merits of the proposals which I will lay before the House in a moment or two.
Years ago under the auspices of the Cape Breton Development Corporation two divisions were designated. One was a coal division, which is self-explanatory. The other was an industrial development division, the sole purpose of which was to try to expand upon the economic base in industrial and rural Cape Breton.
In 1988 the government of the day, to which members opposite are privy to, passed a piece of legislation, namely Bill C-103. In effect it did away with the industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
In its place members opposite, and in particular the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, that other famous person in the upper house, Senator Murray said in no uncertain terms that this particular enterprise would assume the role of the industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Now just a little anecdote about the great, famous Senator Lowell Murray. He comes from New Waterford, an area in my district of Cape Breton-East Richmond, but he is a senator from Ontario.
However back in 1988 when the good senator, supported by those left-wing pinkos of the New Democratic Party, passed Bill C-103 he said the following, which is from page 3656 of the Senate debates of June 14, 1988:
Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will be a Crown corporation. It has a mandate almost identical to that of the industrial development division of Devco. As a Crown corporation, it will have a board of directors which-and I make this as a general statement-will have the same mandate and powers in respect to the ECBC as the board of directors of Devco has in respect of the IDD.
February 16, 1993

That was the great senator in 1988 when he travelled in Nova Scotia and in particular the three federal constituencies in Cape Breton and talked about this new wonderful identity called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
However, now we have on the floor of the House of Commons the Government of Canada under the auspices of the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency placing before the House a bill which will do away with Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. It is the same argument the Liberal Party made during the entire debate on Bill C-103, which it opposed at that time for the very fear that this would be done away with within a short period of time.
I am sad to say to my colleagues opposite that they did have the support of the New Democratic Party with regard to Bill C-103. Perhaps not knowing the area or not understanding the complexities of the economic situation there, that is their rationale for supporting it, but I hope the New Democratic Party will come alive with its so-called common sense and support the provisions we are trying to put forward in that we ought not to destroy Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. We ought to keep it in place.
What is even more devastating in recent weeks is that the Government of Canada, not the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, not hon. members in our caucus, but the Government of Canada through the auspices of Statistics Canada has said to the people of Canada that the unemployment rate in industrial Cape Breton is 27.6 per cent. Is there any more justification for a federally owned Crown corporation to disperse economic development in that region? What other facts would hon. members need to affirm my conviction?
The action of this government in doing away with this Crown corporation will be met in the next federal election. It will be met in the next provincial election, whenever it is called. The premier of the province, just to show how bent, unfocused and removed the premier of Nova Scotia is with regard to economic development in Cape Breton, has said very little if anything with regard to restoring this agency and thereby putting pressure on the Government of Canada.
We know the track record of one Donald Cameron, premier of Nova Scotia. He set a precedent which is being followed by the private sector throughout Cape
Government Orders
Breton. The example I share with the House is that not less than two weeks ago Premium Automotive Tanks in Port Hawkesbury tried to lock its doors in the middle of the night and to escape into the darkness. It was following the actions of Premier Don Cameron, who did the same thing when he removed the toll booth from the Canso causeway a year prior to that.
I urge members of this House to stand in opposition to this particular bill. I give notice to the Chair and I give notice to the Thble that we intend as an opposition party to seek witnesses at the committee stage of this bill to examine in its entirety the consequences not only on Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, but also on all of the agencies which have been named therein. I seek the guidance, the support and the fairness of the Chair in making certain that particular operation is given a full hearing at the committee stage.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time at my disposal I will try to clarify the proposals before us in this bill, which might perhaps be called an omnibus bill since it deals with a number of familiar agencies: the Agricultural Products Board, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Canada Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Emergency Preparedness Canada, the Independent Review Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Intellectual Property Tribunal, et cetera.
I would like to focus on the proposal to abolish the independence of one of the most dynamic bodies we have in the area of research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. It is not a Johnny-come-lately. It was founded in 1978 by a Liberal government. The research it has funded in the social sciences has contributed greatly to understanding the importance of research in Canada, truly Canadian research, in very complex and difficult areas.
The bill before us provides for the dissolution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the transfer of its functions, and of course its staff, to the Canada Council. The responsibilities of the Department of External Affairs for culture and education in the sphere of international relations would also be transferred to this new agency, which would be called the

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
Canada Council for the Arts and for Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is of course a funding body, which administers funds allocated to research, and awards bursaries. Created in 1977 to administer programs that were previously the responsibility of the Canada Council, it is directed by a 22-member council. Its budget for the 1991-92 fiscal year was $97,635,000, and it had 101 employees.
At the Department of External Affairs, about 25 people work international cultural and educational programs. The budget allocated to those programs for
1993-94 was in the neighbourhood of $27 million. The Canada Council, which was created in 1957, makes grants and services available to creative and performing artists and arts bodies. It has a staff of 248. Its programs are funded through revenue from an endowment fund, gifts, and parliamentary appropriations. Its budget for the 1991-92 fiscal year was $114 million. I wanted to situate all these important national bodies in their context.
The government has decided to put an end to the independence of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, to amalgamate it, so to speak, with the Canada Council. Has the government taken the trouble to explain the reasons for its decision to the members of this House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I would urge members to find a quieter spot for their conversation, because it must be very distracting, both for the Chair and for the person who has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Speaker, especially as I was myself on the verge of alluding to the chattering coming from my caucus, who are still chattering with members of the Liberal Party.
As I was saying, the government has not taken the trouble to explain the reasons for its decision to us, and still less to the immediately interested parties, that is to say the Canada Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. It is a political decision
which stems from this great program of fiscal restraint brought forward by the government in its February 25 budget which, as we know, was followed on December 2 by an additional statement announcing further decisions.
Included in those decisions was the winding up of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and a 10 per cent cut in the budget of many agencies and councils, including the Canada Council.
I have been unable so far to ascertain whether or not the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will be affected by this new 10 per cent cut. I know that all the groups, all the non-governmental organizations, councils and agencies will be affected by this 10 per cent cut this year and the next. I know that grants and awards will be affected. I know that the operations of many groups will have to adjust to these new fiscal restraints.
I have some difficulty in understanding, when we as a country are trying to be more competitive in this global market, we are unable to understand and to explain to Canadians why we are sending confusing signals on social sciences research.
I am quite puzzled, knowing full well that the Canada Council is barely alive. Budget cuts have been so severe that the Canada Council itself is on the verge of disappearing and now they graft onto it the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Is it to strengthen it? I would say, since they are two very distinct bodies, so very different from each other, that it will weaken the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and it will weaken this agency's contribution to Canada.
I refer to an article published by Robert Nadeau, the president of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and a professor in the philosophy department of UQAM. I quote Professor Nadeau:
Unwarranted decision while it is certainly legitimate for a responsible government to want to reduce as much as possible the administration costs of the many programs and agencies it supports, it is not legitimate to proceed arbitrarily and without any explanation, as if the announced measure was self-evident and the people affected by such a measure had no right to be heard. It is unacceptable that this bill winds up the SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and creates something as an appendage to the existing Canada Council, by somehow grafting to it the SSHRC and the International Cultural Program.
February 16, 1993

I am not the one who said that. It was someone in the field, who is familiar with the issue, who is president of this Canadian Federation for the Humanities and a professor in the philosophy department at UQAM.
I was talking today with one of my good friends at the University of Ottawa who is also interested in this issue. She told me quite candidly: "It is a disaster to make such a big cut in the funding of this organization without any explanation or reason and to leave its future status in some doubt".
I know that my time is up, but I just wanted to say in closing that the government has a lot of explaining to do. This budget of February 25, 1992 is full of such bad news that it is high time for this government to explain itself to Canadians. It is high time for this government to put its mandate to the Canadian people and to call an election to clarify this issue.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in this debate.
I am not even certain how many times I have talked about this issue before. A number of my colleagues have spoken on different aspects of this bill. The aspect that most concerns me is the closure of the International Centre for Ocean Development in Halifax. It was not only in Halifax but in my own neighbourhood around the corner from my house.
It is interesting because a very well-known member of the government party from the other place, Senator Finlay MacDonald, feels every bit as strongly about this as I do. He thinks it is a disgrace that the government has decided to lay waste to ICOD and close it down in this day and age. I must say that although there are many other things that Senator MacDonald and I do not agree on, we certainly agree on this.
It is a very sad thing that Canada is losing its edge in research and development. It is losing its edge in areas where it should be leading the world. We have three oceans in this country. We have universities with oceanographic departments. We have marine biologists, marine engineers, marine geologists and on and on.
We have people in numerous disciplines who could come together through organizations such as ICOD and
Government Orders
do wonderful things in the area of research and development for the world at large. They could add lustre and burnish to the reputation that Canada has internationally. However, what are we doing? We are closing it. We have closed it. It is gone. It is over.
We have thrown people out of jobs. We have sent off people who came to Canada because of the International Centre for Ocean Development. They came here just because of that. We have sent them off to Indonesia, Wales, various African and European countries and to the United States. Why?
It is because Canada, a country with three oceans and a long-time reputation for being a leader in this area, clearly no longer cares. Its government no longer has any interest in this kind of research and development. I call that a shame.
It is interesting, too, that this bill takes two hits at the province of Nova Scotia in the beleaguered region of Atlantic Canada. The first from my point of view is ICOD and the second is the carnage in Cape Breton, which has been dealt with very eloquently by my colleague who is the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. It will be equally eloquently dealt with by my colleague the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.
It really gives one pause to think that this government is so short-sighted.


Mr. Milliken:: I am not surprised.


Mary Catherine Clancy: No, it is not a surprise. I agree with my friend who is the member for Kingston and the Islands.
What we want to know, as we stand here opposing this bill down to the wire, is what the government thinks it is doing by eviscerating all of these organizations, many of which have a mandate to look at research and development. It has a mandate to add, not only to Canada's general lore in establishing certain standards in our own country in science, technology and research, but to add to our contribution to better standards world-wide.
We are proud of a number of things that we do as Canadians. We are proud, and justly so, of our history and our present as peacekeepers. We are proud and justly so of our contributions in a thousand different ways, whether we talk about the invention of the telephone, the developments in northern Canada or the

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
developments in fisheries and oceans and on and on. There are so many.
Yet with the sweep of a pen and a few hours of debate in this Chamber most of the institutions that have added to Canada's reputation in this area have been wiped out. They made us a part of the international world community in the area of research and development and have been a part of our heritage as citizens of the world. I would be very interested-I think it is unfortunate that there is obviously nobody here to tell me-to know how the government sees the small amount of dollars it might save benefiting Canadians by passing this bill. None of us on this side know. We have no idea. We have asked the question repeatedly and we have received no answer.
How does the government benefit by destroying all these institutions and taking away jobs? Admittedly it is not a huge number of jobs but it has other pieces of legislation on other projects to take away huge numbers of jobs. It is taking away important jobs that add a great deal to the communities in which the institutions are located. I am curious. I pose this question, and I gather it is going to be rhetorical at this stage of the game.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: There is nobody here to answer.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Exactly. As my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands says there is nobody here to answer my question. Possibly the former hon. minister from Manitoba might answer it, I do not know. He is happy not to respond.
In all seriousness, those of us on this side of the House pose the question and it is very simple. Why has the government decided to kill all these institutions? Is it because in some of these institutions there was more criticism of government policies than the Prime Minister and his cohorts might have liked? I cannot believe that. Even I find that hard to believe. I have to believe there is a method in what otherwise appears to be madness but I would like to know. More important, my constituents would like to know.
We have a proud heritage in the area of marine studies and ocean development in Nova Scotia. While ICOD is not a major contributor to our economy it was certainly a major contributor and a major potential contributor to
the reputation and the general betterment of life for all countries that border on oceans and go down to the sea in ships.
We would like to know, as Nova Scotians and Canadians, what the government's reason is for this bill. It has never been explained.
My question is very simple. I would like to know what benefit this will bring to Canadians, as opposed to the great detriment it will bring to the world at large.
I think it is unfortunate but at the same time it is only what we have come to expect from this government and that too is unfortunate. We are seeing another breaking down of our infrastructure, heritage and those unique things about this country that make us Canadian.
There is only one word to say to all of that and that word is shame.


Gilbert Parent: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not have a complete answer of course for the member from Halifax who just spoke. She was asking why the government is doing this. I do not have the answer but I do have a general idea of what is being done in this act. It is the result of the budget tabled February 25, 1992. The purpose of the bill is to implement certain changes made by the budget.
This legislation predominantly winds up a number of agencies, boards and commissions and moves their responsibilities to other offices. Generally speaking, I have no quarrel with that. While listening to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, speak earlier I was taken by the similarities that exist between Cape Breton and my own riding of Welland-St. Catharines- Thorold and the Niagara peninsula in general.
This piece of legislation is in 10 parts and I want to deal with the second and tenth parts. The second one deals with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. You might wonder why someone from southern Ontario would be talking about this particular aspect.
The government wants to close down the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and move its function and staff to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities agency. I
February 16, 1993

question how many jobs will be cut because of this and whether it will really be more efficient.
For this reason and on that basis I am opposed to this move to kill the ECBC, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
The government stated in its budget speech that this and other organizations were being eliminated because: "They served their purpose and were no longer needed".
I believe this is wrong. I believe the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is still needed today.
Witness some of these facts. The Cape Breton economy is still extremely troubled and special programs to address it are urgently needed now more than ever. The official unemployment rate reached almost 25 per cent earlier this year and now hovers around 23 per cent. The UI rate was only 16 per cent when the ECBC was created and Cape Breton's economy faces great challenges today just as it did in 1985.
The groundfishery is on the verge of collapse with huge quota cuts and job losses expected in 1993. Employment in the coal and steel industries is down. In my view the ECBC's job is not nearly complete.
Let us put that into juxtaposition with what is going on in the Niagara peninsula with regard to the unemployment patterns that have emerged in the last 18 to 24 months.
We in the Niagara peninsula have suffered the losses of well over 8,000 jobs in the last 18 months and if things go as they are projected to go, in the next 12 months we will be hovering around a loss of 10,000 jobs in the Niagara peninsula.
Last Saturday there was a demonstration by the members of the CAW of the Niagara peninsula who wanted to bring the plight of the people in our area to the attention of the governments of the day. I do not claim that our unemployment rate has reached 23 per cent but imagine an area where traditionally unemployment has been in single digits: 7 per cent, 8 per cent, and 9 per cent. Now we have an increase of almost 70 per cent in unemployment in the area.
Surely new programs are needed for the retraining of these people who incidentally are very highly skilled in the automotive industry, the steel industry and the abrasives industry. All these people are being affected. It
Government Orders
is not to say that these people want charity. They want recognition as there was in Cape Breton by the foundation of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. If something like that could be established in the Niagara Peninsula and offer money for training, our people too would have a chance to rebound more successfully from the depression they are in right now.
The UI bill that came up in conjunction with this is going to hit many of our people because I would say of the 8,000 who are now unemployed as of the last 18 months, 2,000 to 2,500 have taken early retirement. They are very worried at this point that their severance pay will be lumped in before they can get UI benefits.
I think about what is going on in Cape Breton with regard to the downsizing-another word for firing people-of one commission and rolling it into the other and I wonder if the job loss is worth it.
Just so we will not always be labelled as being in opposition and never looking at the good side, I agree wholeheartedly with the very practical area of the Veterans' Land Act, part X.
To put it into perspective, this part of the legislation transfers the office of the director, Veterans' Land Act, to the office of the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs. Part X also provides for an amendment to the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act representing review committees. It is common sense to do this.
In 1975 I was the parliamentary secretary to the then Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Daniel MacDonald from Prince Edward Island.
My party and I are in favour of this because the last sitting of the board of the Veterans' Land Act was 16 years ago and all its members have been released from their responsibilities. The Liberal government in 1975 created the sunset clause on the act. Therefore since 1975 no one has been eligible to apply to the government for any loans to purchase land under the Veterans' Land Act. That is an eminently sensible thing to have done.
I would address myself to one more thing and that is the international trade and procurement tribunal. Part VIII merges the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the Procurement Review Board into a new board to be called the international trade and procurement tribunal.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
Not much concern has been expressed over this merger and it has been suggested that it may be quite positive. The individuals directly affected are awaiting more information on how it will operate and so are we, as members of this House. This is going to directly affect trade not only inside but outside Canada.
In synopsis I understand the need for this type of bill and I understand that we are going to have to take some steps to streamline. I only hope that by streamlining and downsizing not too many people will be affected. It is to that end I hope the government will address its thoughts.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West I consider it a privilege to rise on second reading debate of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain provisions of last year's budget, or as it is also known, an act to exterminate certain Crown agencies and appeal to disenfranchised Conservative supporters.
Like all eight budgets brought down by this government which slashed spending, cut away necessaiy resources and suppressed economic growth, the budget of February 25, 1992 was indeed no exception.
Since the government failed in those eight budgets to bring down the deficit which it promised to do when first elected, it decided to appear to be cost conscious and give the axe to several important Crown agencies.
With the government low in the polls and unable to control the deficit, as it has so prudently demonstrated, it decided to cut important public bodies and appealed to the notion that Canada had an over-bloated Public Service. By doing so it dealt Canada and important research and development a heavy blow.
Of course, this government has been fond of taking the Public Service to task and making a scapegoat out of it for years. Just ask the federal public servants in my riding of Hamilton West. Just ask members of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety who are looking over their collective shoulders and expecting this government to terminate the centre. They fear that it might happen at any time.
When announcing the closures in this House, the Minister of Finance boasted of clearing the Public Service deck of over 500 public servants. He can boast that a large part of the department of immigration is going to relocate to Alberta. In fact, I stand to be corrected. It is going right into the riding of the Deputy Prime Minister who is the Minister of Finance is it not? I think it is.
Just ask the federal public servants in Hamilton West or in any riding what the workload is like at the immigration office in their particular ridings. I challenge any one of the members opposite. Have they ever taken a moment to go into the immigration office in their particular riding to see the paperwork that is stacked about a foot and a half high on the 14 desks that line the area inside that office? There are only seven, if you are lucky, federal public servants who are sitting and attempting and trying as best they can to keep ahead of the incredible workload at immigration while the cuts continue to happen.
Along the floor there are boxes of files. Heaven forbid that someone has called before you, fellow member, to inquire about that particular case. It has been pulled out of that particular box number 26 on the floor and set down on a desk somewhere. Your question has been responded to and then we have to call that immigration office on behalf of the constituent who is a little frustrated at the very least. Of course, they cannot find the file because it is out of box number 26 now and on someone's desk.
What about the savings from eliminating 46 public bodies or $22 million? Is it a lot of money? No, it is not a lot when Canada benefits so much from the work that the civil servants have done. It is not a lot when compared to the tens of millions of dollars the government paid out in consulting and advertising contracts. It is not a lot when compared to the $4.4 billion for the new Cadillac version of helicopters. We could have taken some pretty good advice to upgrade the existing ones.
The Law Reform Commission, which played a nonpartisan role-as all of these agencies have done-in providing information and research to the government and to Canadians, made several recommendations to the federal government on reforms to criminal law. Instead,
February 16, 1993

it chose to refer research to the Department of Justice where, practically speaking, it is vetted of contentious issues before it reaches the minister.
The Science Council of Canada is to be wound up. Since 1966 the federal government has relied upon valuable information and research on many areas of public policy.
The Economic Council of Canada, created in 1963, served Canada for three decades. It is closed. It is another important agency and contributor of important information that was given the axe.
In a report entitled Pulling Together the council explains how Canada's share of world trade has fallen. The prices of Canada's natural resources have been weak. Canada has higher manufacturing costs due to inflation and slower productivity.
In another report entitled A Lot to Learn the Economic Council of Canada noted that education is the key to the kind of jobs and the economic base that Canada will require in the future. Some of the recommendations include: by the year 2000 all 16-year old Canadians will be functionally literate; the proportion of high school graduates will be increased; science will be emphasized in high schools and the quality and quantity of high-tech training will be increased.
To learn some of the exact things that the Economic Council of Canada recommended in one report it cost taxpayers the same amount the government will save by closing more than over 30 agencies when it used more than $20 million of taxpayers' money to fund the so-called prosperity initiative.


Mr. Boudria:: It was $21 million for ads.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: It was $21 million for ads says my colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Untendered.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Untendered ads.


Don Boudria: A very tender subject.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: My colleague from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell says it is a tender subject. This is all to tell us that we need to be more competitive.
Government Orders
I have had friends at the dinner table who tell me we all need to be more competitive. It is how we go about being more competitive and the tools that were available to us-the operative word here is were-to point out to the government the best way in which to achieve that competitiveness. Otherwise it is just a big guessing game, is it not?
As the title of the Economic Council of Canada's report suggests, the government itself has a lot to learn about the way our federal government should deal with public agencies that provide comprehensive scientific, medical and sociological research that has served Canada and should continue to serve Canada in the years to come.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-93 and I would like to begin my remarks by congratulating the hon. member for Hamilton West.
[English] .
The member for Hamilton West really put it the way it is. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you noted that as well. He really got to the centre of the issue. The centre of the issue is that this government has its priorities messed up. I am putting it kindly here because I am not sure that the word I want to use is parliamentary.
The member for Hamilton West pointed out that the government wants to save money-so it says-but it has provided no proof at all that the merging of the Canada Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is going to save any money. It has not proven that the collapsing of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is going to save any money. There are no studies to back it up either. Also, it has not shown that that the effective closure of yet another government organization, Emergency Preparedness Canada, is going to save any money either.
Emergency Preparedness Canada is a rather interesting case. The member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke brought to our attention only a few weeks ago that the government actually announced the construction of a new facility in his riding in the election campaign of

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
1988 to house Emergency Preparedness Canada. It was around the community of Amprior if my memory serves me right.
Then the government allowed this thing to drag on and on. If my memory serves me right, it announced the construction of the building twice. Now you might think there are in fact two buildings there, but no. There is in fact no building at all or no new structure as was initially proposed. Nothing is there. Now the government is collapsing this particular organization, Emergency Preparedness Canada, and is merging it with the Department of National Defence. My colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, as I indicated, has been fighting valiantly to keep this particular organization in his riding.
I want to get back to the Canada Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council merger because there is an alleged saving of money unspecified and unsubstantiated on the part of the government. It says that it wants to save money. I have a few ideas for the government across the way. Recently Canadians to their shock and dismay found out that the government had given no less than $21 million worth of advertising contracts for Canada's 125th anniversary.
Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you and some of our viewers out there are thinking that it was a special celebration and it warranted ads on television. Maybe so, but $21 million is an awful lot of money.
Even if one recognizes that some advertisements may have been in order, what is the reason those ads were untendered? As I indicated earlier, it is a rather tender subject on the government side. There were no tenders. Not even a bidding process was entertained.
Do you know what the government did, Mr. Speaker? It had a meeting in a restaurant in Hull, the Cafe Henry Burger, with six invitees. The six invitees had lunch with government officials and made their pitch, as the minister put it, for the advertising contracts. No minutes were kept of the meeting, no records exist, and no written bids were submitted. Two of the six firms won the so-called successful bid, the successful oral bid made in a restaurant with no minutes. Between the two they shared the spoils: $21 million worth of advertising contracts.
Think of all the people in the riding of Algoma who could have benefited from that $21 million. Think of all the people in the riding of Edmonton Southeast who could have received assistance, or the people of Hawkes-bury in the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who are suffering right now as a result of the policies of this government. Did they get advertising contracts? Did they get untendered jobs of any kind from the Conservatives across the way?


An hon. member:: They got Bill C-105.


Don Boudria: No, they did not. They got Bill C-105, as my colleague has just said so eloquently. It was thrown at them.
The Prime Minister said today in the House of Commons that it is the fault of the unemployment system if people in Newfoundland, as he put it, have lost their work ethic.
Get a hold of this stuff. The Prime Minister, during Question Period, alleges that unemployed Canadians who have lost their jobs as a result of this government's economic policy have lost their work ethic because the unemployment insurance system, according to the Prime Minister, is too generous. That is the Prime Minister's version of the truth.
No, that is not what Canadians expect of the government. They expect a more ethical behaviour as it pertains to the awarding of government contracts, to the way it administers dollars, and more particularly to claiming there are alleged savings that are necessary in Bill C-93.
The government has not proven to me at all that these savings will be made. Even if the savings were there, why did it not cut out some of those generous untendered contracts it is giving to friends of the government instead? Why is the government not attacking the issue that way? Even if the government had exhausted all of those, even if the government had totally cleaned up its act, which it has not done, there is still the fundamental question. Even if we did want to, and I do not think we do, merge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with another agency, why merge it with the arts council? Why not merge it with another council?
February 16, 1993

What studies were done to determine if that is the best merger that could occur versus another one? None.

My party, my colleagues and I intend to vote against this bill. Of course, we still have a lot to say and we do not intend to let things go ahead so quickly. We here in this House all intend to try once again to make the Conservatives opposite, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, all his colleagues, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, understand that this bill is wrong, particularly the clauses affecting the Canada Council as well as other agencies, especially Emergency Preparedness Canada and a number of other agencies.

This government better start cleaning up its act, and when I say cleaning up its act I do not mean with things like Bill C-93. I mean by changing its code of ethical conduct in the awarding of government contracts and in the way that it administers taxpayers' dollars.
My colleagues and I intend to speak further on this issue of ethics in government. Let the government be warned that we are not finished talking about this issue. It will come up again, very soon. Canadians want this government to be accountable. They do not want this government to spend taxpayers' dollars lightly. They want it to be invested appropriately and for the betterment of all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moncton- Transportation; the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-Salmon Fishery; the hon. member for Mississauga South-Veterans; the hon. member for Scarborough West-Justice; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Municipal Infrastructure.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak on this bill because I think Canadians are getting the impression very strongly that this government does not know what it is doing.
I do not know if it is devoid of ideas or if it has so little belief in the role of government in a civilized society that it really does not want to govern and does not believe
Government Orders
that government can or should function for the common good of all citizens.
We have ample evidence of the incompetence of this government, its lack of direction, its lack of understanding of what needs to be done to pull the country together and to set a clear course for the future. It is totally missing.
We have a bill that dismantles 10 agencies with no rationale, no analysis of how the functions of these agencies will be fulfilled in the future, or whether they should be abandoned, whether they can be done in a different way, or whether abandoning these agencies is going to cost money or save money. This is only one in a series of measures by government to destroy a number of agencies that have served this country well, to in fact carry on a mission based purely on ideology, not on common sense and good budgeting, to carry on an agenda of tearing down those things which Canadians regard as part of their heritage and as part of the foundation of this country.
We have seen it with the destruction of VIA Rail, the cutbacks to the CBC, with a number of actions geared more to simply getting rid of this and getting rid of that, with no sense of strengthening, no sense of serving Canadians better, no sense of ensuring that there is the objective qualified advice that a government needs to make sure that it is doing what is best for this country.
We have seen the loss of the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council and the Pay Research Bureau which helped make for smoother labour negotiations in both the public and private sector. We have seen the transfer of patent development away from a corporation that was doing a fine job in that field into departments all across government at much greater cost and at much less benefit to the country.
If we have been insistent in our speeches, good. This is a bad bill when it comes forward with absolutely no justification based on the functions these agencies perform, absolutely no justification based on cost. It is because we have seen the results when this government has dismantled organizations with no clear sense of their purpose, no clear sense of the public importance of the

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
work they do and no clear sense of how they are going to replace that work.
We see as well this trend in the kind of budgeting we have had and the absolutely stupid determination to tax Canadians more, to provide them with a lesser level of services, to live budget after budget for eight years on the pretence that somehow this is going to put us in a sounder economic situation when in fact it has done exactly the opposite.
Canadians can add. They know that the debt this country was carrying eight years ago was barely one-third of what it is today. They know that the deficit they were carrying was much smaller than they are carrying today. They know that money was being spent then to provide services that Canadians needed, not being spent as it is now just to pay the interest on the debt.
I could address the individual agencies in this bill. Some of it we happen to agree with. We feel that some agencies outlive their purpose and function, but one does not simply say cut 10 per cent across government, cut staff to serve Canadians, cut agencies. One brings forward reasonable, sensible, well founded arguments as to why an agency has outlived its purpose and what cost savings there will be in replacing it with something else, or just simply abandoning it altogether.
The kind of blanket panic of just cutting here and cutting there shows an absolute lack of any sense of management, any sense of direction, any sense of responsibility to the taxpayers for public policy or for the management of their financial resources.
We see the results. We see the results when we read today that Canada may very well have trouble borrowing on the international markets in a very short period of time. This is the kind of legacy that this government has left us.
It is the result not of what is in this bill but of the fact that this bill is so typical of how this government has operated.
There is no sense of direction for the future. There is no sense of the purpose of government and the role it plays in the national life. There is no sense that we need a good and solid public sector in this country to work in partnership with the private sector, labour, educators, the provinces and people in their own communities if we want to address the problems of Canada and create the best possible future.
We oppose this bill. We oppose it because it is so typical of the running hither and yon, the crying about the sky is falling in, the total failure of the government to take its responsibilities as a government seriously and to provide the leadership that this country so desperately needs.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today.
The bill that is before the House now is intended, according to the government, to streamline the government, the efficiencies of the government. It is to make the running of government more efficient and to make the spending of the government go further.
That is a laudable goal and it is very commendable. The problem is that the government oftentimes has gone around with these bills and these proposals in a fashion that quite frankly is not beneficial to the people of this country.
I point out, for example, in this particular bill that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has been merged with Canada Council, which has caused no end of concern to these groups which are saying that this body was doing a very good job on its own. Merging them is only going to hurt the work that these people are doing.
This has happened in other areas. Last year the government in its same effort to streamline and cut costs cut the Law Reform Commission. It cut the Court Challenges Program. Both were very effective. Both made large contributions to this society. The Law Reform Commission in its work attempted to provide answers and suggestions as to the way we can better govern ourselves in this country.
That commission was cut at a time when we are facing an issue in this country of law and order. The media is carrying stories of crimes that are taking place in this country. They are of concern to people. There is the release of inmates who are considered to be dangerous criminals. There is a whole host of areas that the Canadian public is concerned about and is demanding answers to.
It is certainly going to be an issue in the next election. In fact, it is an issue right now. The Law Reform Commission was there to provide answers and did provide a lot of answers and suggestions. It is no longer there.
February 16, 1993

This whole area of crime prevention, reform of the Criminal Code and so on demands to be addressed right now. I think one of the things we have to look at is crime prevention. Certainly groups like the Law Reform Commission made comments on that. The justice committee right now is going to report on this.
It is very clear that Canada desperately needs a crime prevention strategy that is going to battle the social causes of crime right across this country. That is not a New Democratic position though. It sounds like one and it is one but that is not what the New Democrats alone are saying.
This is going to be the recommendation of the justice committee and the justice committee is made up of members from all sides of the House. The majority will be Tories, then Liberals and then New Democrats. That committee has heard evidence from so many areas and from such a wide range of witnesses that its members have been forced to come to that conclusion. I want to quote from one of the witnesses who came to this committee from Saskatoon, Sergeant Don Evers who stated: "Just as cancer eats away at people, crime eats away at our communities and societies. If we do nothing about it, it will continue to grow and erode everything".
Canada is the second most violent country of the Group of Seven nations, right behind the United States. Yet we have people in this country talking about building more jails, making tougher laws and becoming more confrontational.
There are areas where we do need tougher laws. That is true. This idea of having a confrontational approach simply does not work. The fact that we are starting to realize that is quite clear from the comments of the chair of that committee who, quoting from the newspaper, said: "If anyone had told me when I became an MP nine years ago that I'd be looking at the social causes of crime, I'd have told them they were nuts", said the P.C. member for Mississauga West who by the way is a former mountie. "I would have said lock them up for life and throw away the key, but not any more".
What about some of the Liberal members? The Liberal justice critic and member for Scarborough West
Government Orders
said in an interview: "There are definitely people who will continue to commit crimes no matter what you did for them, but there are many others who turn to crime because they have low self-esteem brought about by not having a job, the breakdown of their family or some other social condition".
It is very clear a whole new approach to the way we deal with the justice system is needed and in order to deal with that we need all the tools we can possibly avail ourselves of. Certainly the Law Reform Commission was a very important tool. That commission no longer exists. We simply have to look to other areas and there are other areas.
If a government is going to be committed to reforming the justice system, it makes very little sense to cut the Law Reform Commission and the Court Challenges Program. To take a case to the Supreme Court of Canada is extremely expensive. Unless there is a fund available for Canadians they are going to be unable to access the highest court in the land, even though they may have a very good issue.
This all-party committee is going to look at "Fighting Crime By Getting Through to the Social Causes", which is a very worthwhile document. I am very much looking forward to reading it. As a member of a subcommittee of justice which is looking at recodification of the Criminal Code, we will be tabling a report next week in the House as well.
I am glad to see that through this bill and other legislation the government is attempting to reorganize the way we do business in this country and save money. The problem is it is doing it in a fashion that is not beneficial to Canadians, particularly those in the lower income brackets or from certain social classes.
I hope that we as Canadians and parliamentarians can come to deal with some of these issues in a more logical fashion. This bill deals with a whole host of groups that are going to be cut and I wanted to focus on the area of justice because I think it demands attention right now. Certainly voters in the next election are going to be asking where the particular parties and candidates stand with respect to justice and law reform.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
I think the answer is very clear, certainly from this member. If we are going to have law reform, its objective has to be to provide as safe a community as possible for all Canadians.
We can do that without building more jails and without being more confrontational. We also have to be sympathetic to the causes of crime and look at crime prevention as the main goal in creating a justice system in this country that is going to benefit all.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-93 as it goes to third reading because this bill implements the parts of the 1992 federal budget.
Many of the sections of this bill are really designed for political purposes in the province of Alberta where the Reform Party last year at this time was doing quite well in the Gallup polls. The government was keen to show to the electorate in Alberta, where the Reform Party was doing very well, that it could cut and slash.
It is doing away with a lot of agencies here. In fact, most of them are just sort of moving over so the civil servants who were working before under the authority of an agency or board are taken back into the department. For instance, in the Department of Agriculture, products aboard is being done by the same government officials who are now acting within the Department of Agriculture, rather the Agriculture Products Marketing Board.
The Petroleum Monitoring Agency is useful because it tells Canadians how much they are paying in terms of excise tax and sales tax on petroleum products; how much is being charged by the retailer; how much is being charged by the various upstream sectors; the value of crude oil; the value of refining; the cost of distribution and so on.
Those sectors of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency are being taken back into the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is mostly political matters that are being looked after in this whole bill rather than anything of any real substance.
The Prime Minister is concerned that when he goes to Alberta he can say he slashed and cut out government agencies. That is supposed to impress the electorate so it will vote for the Tories rather than the Reform Party which is doing quite well.
What has happened of course is that the Reform Party has gone into a complete decline. The question is whether the government would even have bothered with this legislation if it had known how much the Reform Party was going to slip in the most recent Gallup polls or in the polls that were done for Angus Reid.
I really want to talk about the budget, the government's general fiscal and monetary policy and its attitude toward the regions of this country. One of the sections for instance deals with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the changes being proposed there.
Many areas of the country have similar agencies. Southern Ontario and Quebec have the Ministry of Science, Technology and Trade. Northern Ontario has FEDNOR, the western provinces have their little agency while southern Ontario and the province of Quebec have the full department.
Those departments were designed to create economic opportunity and diversification. They have been singularly unsuccessful in diversifying the economy, not because of the agencies themselves doing their assigned tasks, which in the case of FEDNOR is really designed for quite small projects, at least in rural areas, but because of the government's over-all fiscal and monetary policy and general policy toward the regions of the country. Of course that is identified in the budget of 1992.
If we look at the Algoma district we see economic carnage because the government has essentially withdrawn from the problems.
If we look at the free trade deal of 1988, the government was saying it would solve the problems of the steel industry in cities like Sault Ste. Marie. Algoma Steel would not have to worry any more about countervail duties or dumping duties. The marketplace of the whole of North America would be open and the trade problems and restrictions that had been proposed in 1982 and 1986 would be over.
If you look at that community today Algoma Steel has essentially gone into ownership by the employees. It is a kind of receivership situation. How do we see the government's trade policy? It would be hard to describe it as anything but a disaster. After the 1988 free trade agreement was put in place the screws were put on by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the monetary policy was very restrictive.
February 16, 1993

In 1989 and the first part of 1990 the Governor of the Bank of Canada imposed interest rates that were at least 5 to 6 percentage points above those in the United States. This drove the value of the Canadian dollar from 70 cents to 85 cents and even higher. We had the worst of all worlds. We had a very high dollar.
Companies like Algoma Steel were trying to produce steel with interest rates at 14 or 15 per cent while their American counterparts were paying 7 or 8 per cent interest. At the same time the dollar had appreciated by 12 or 14 percent. It was the worst of all worlds in a supposedly free trade area of North America.
If that was not bad enough, that kind of monetary policy gave the American producers a great opportunity. They immediately started to increase their exports to Canada by some 25 per cent, taking away markets for the Canadian steel industry. That industry was in total torment because of that.
It is not only those policies that have driven companies like Algoma Steel into receivership and employee ownership hoping to recover from that. In the past few weeks the United States government has imposed a dumping duty on the Canadian steel industry right across the board along with other countries.
Supposedly the free trade deal was going to resolve those problems. In fact it is much worse. The Americans have not backed down one iota and are not only imposing dumping duties, they are taking up a larger share of the Canadian market. The industry is in the most difficult time in its history.
This budget bill, Bill C-93, an implementation act that we are debating today is being brought in at a time when the government's fiscal and monetary policies are extremely Draconian for the Canadian steel industry. That industry today is in a terrible turmoil. It is during a time when there should have been an agreement.
We talked back in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s of a North American steel agreement, something like the Canada-U.S. automobile agreement. That agreement is being proposed again in spite of the fact that we have a FIA, but the Americans are not agreeing to it. We are in a free trade area where there is really no free trade. All you get is countervail duties, anti-dumping duties and a
Government Orders
demand for more and more of the Canadian marketplace which just ultimately costs more and more Canadian jobs. That really came out of that budget.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would just like to designate tomorrow as an allotted day.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to speak on Bill C-93, which is a budget implementation bill and in effect dissolves many agencies and merges others.
In some of the cases the agencies should be dissolved. They have not been used. They have not been of use for some time. Indeed, one would wonder why it has not been considered before.
However, in other cases we wonder why the government is behaving in this fashion. It appears there was absolutely no consultation. In some cases the government may say it was due to fiscal restraint. We acknowledge this is a terribly difficult time economically for all of us. Perhaps there is reason to consider fiscal restraints. However, after looking deeper into some of these mergers it is realized that perhaps in some cases it will not only not save dollars but may also cost even more.
One of the things we would like to see when this bill goes to committee is that there be extensive consultation with some of the agencies that are suggested to be merged.
Perhaps when I was first elected I was quite naive in thinking that there was a lot of co-operation and consultation before a budget measure was implemented. However, shortly after I was elected I was made an associate critic in one of the fields and had been closely following the speeches made by the minister in charge of the particular department. If I can recall this was in February of 1989, but in any case it was the first budget I was here for.
It just so happened that approximately one week before the budget was read the minister in question went out west and gave a speech. He told the people concerned that if there were to be any way that the particular program would be discontinued they would be given ample opportunity, ample notice but that it would not be discontinued at the time.

February 16, 1993
Government Orders
Lo and behold, one week later in the budget the program was cut off as of midnight that night. It surprised me somewhat. I thought: Well is the gentleman not a minister? Is he not a part of what happens with the pre-budget deliberations? Elow could he make a speech out west guaranteeing consultation and plenty of advance warning and have one week or so later the Minister of Finance actually make him look like a bit of a fool because the program was cut off with no grace period of six months and so on.
I asked the minister: "Did they not speak to you before?" He just shrugged his shoulders and walked away. I thought that was not the way to do budgeting. When doing a budget, the departments are brought in to try to find the best way to utilize the dollars available. Yes, cutbacks are extremely difficult and sometimes are necessary.
I have worked as an accountant. I know how easy it is to look at an amount and think that it can be done without. But many times there would be easier ways and perhaps ways of saving even more money while doing the work that we are doing. Sometimes just looking at a sheet of paper and knocking off numbers is costlier than the amount of money it saves.
I ask this government to please reconsider and when the legislative committee is formed and studies this bill that we allow extensive consultations, especially when we deal with part II and part III of this bill which deal with the Canada Council for the Arts and Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities.
Part III of the legislation winds up the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and transfers its functions and staff to the Canada Council. Certain functions and staff of the Department of External Affairs and International Trade that deal with the promotion of Canadian culture abroad would also be transferred to the Canada Council. I am sure there will be some very good suggestions made by people who are involved in these councils who know the good that is being done and the ways by which the councils could be used more advantageously without costing the government a great deal of money. It is absolutely essential when we streamline that we do not, contrary to the spirit of the legislation, cause more cost for the taxpayer.
The new Canada Council would have to develop a whole new international division and network quite apart from its domestic concerns if it is to administer the various cultural programs effectively. That has not been part of its mandate at this time. We are asking that the Canada Council perform this function. Maybe the Canada Council would like to have this function. Perhaps we could allow that function to be carried on by external affairs as it has been up until now.
As well, staff in various posts abroad would now be accountable to two masters, that is, the Canada Council and the heads of the posts. How would that save money? It is far better to have them answerable to only one boss. Again, we ask that amendments which would facilitate this be considered.
It is a matter of being humane in the cutbacks. It is a matter of using your head and as well as cutting back, doing the best that you can do. The only way we can properly run this country and offer the kinds of programs we need and at the same time manage to better spend taxpayers' dollars is to have all people work together. We cannot have only one person unilaterally cut back at one level just perhaps to cost more at another level. That is not the way we will address the deficit position we are in, or for that matter the deficit positions of other levels of government and other departments.
We are asking that this government stop this unilateral decree in terms of budgets. I do want to stress it is extremely important we allow every due consideration. Those agencies that should be closed down by all means if they are not in use now let us get it over with and close them down. Those agencies that are performing very valuable functions should be separated and allowed to continue to provide the kinds of services that they have in the past so that they can continue to make us a great and wonderful country. It is absolutely essential and I beseech this government not to continue in decreeing budget cuts but to consult and together we can make it work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today under Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to complete the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
February 16, 1993

Government Orders
The first vote will be on Mr. Worthy's motion. [English]
Is it the pleasure of the Elouse to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1993
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to Standing Order 61(2) the next question is on the main motion. 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you might seek consent to apply the vote we just took to this motion.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.



[Stage Direction]
nii/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should cancel the proposal to amalgamate the RCMP Public Complaints Commission with the RCMP External Review Committee, and furthermore the government should implement the recommendations contained in the 1990-91 RCMP Public Complaints Commission Annual Report.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to propose that we change the direction in which the government is moving in one particular case. This is the case of amalgamating two very worth-while agencies: the RCMP External Review Committee and the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.
The concerns I have involve an incident that happened in Gibsons, British Columbia, on September 30, 1988. On that particular night an individual happened to be under the influence of alcohol and sleeping in a local pub. The owners asked that the individual be removed. The individual was then subsequently taken to the RCMP station and throughout the night an altercation resulted.
Private Members' Business
The individual was taken out of the RCMP cells during the night. He was subjected to the exercise of force by a police officer involved. There had been an altercation in the cells as well. Later on in the course of the night the individuals who were in the cell began to ask that the person be dealt with by a physician. It was clear that the person was badly injured. It was not exactly clear how those injuries came about, but very definitely throughout the night the individual did not have access to medical attention.
The next morning there were no charges taken and suddenly all the other individuals in the cell were asked to leave. This individual was held back to account for a parking ticket in Sechelt, British Columbia. Then, once his brother dealt with the parking ticket in another community, he was released out into the street where he promptly could not function because of his physical condition.
A taxicab picked him up and took him to the hospital. The hospital examined him and my understanding of the injuries were that his face had been stoved in, his ribs broken and his spleen had been ruptured. He was in fact in danger of dying. The hospital picked him up by helicopter and took him to North Vancouver to deal with the injuries.
The two points the commission findings dealt with were an improper procedure on the part of the RCMP officers involved and failure to provide medical attention. Had it not been for the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, this would never have seen the light of day.
There were definitely attempts by RCMP officers involved to obstruct the process of this complaint. It was extremely difficult to deal with it. In any other agency, such as the provincial ombudsman, nobody would have essentially picked this complaint up. It is ironic that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission came into force at midnight, October 1. Even though this had occurred on September 30, I gather the RCMP took the commission to court arguing that since the event had commenced prior to the proclamation and imposition of this legislation it did not have jurisdiction.
The Federal Court upheld that jurisdiction and the case went ahead. It took years. Eventually the RCMP admitted wrongdoing, apologized for the event and then wound up in an out of court settlement resolving it years later.

February 16, 1993
Private Members' Business
The point is not to criticize the RCMP. The RCMP is the finest police force that one can point to in Canada if not in the world. It is absolutely critical that the force maintain high morale and that the complaints commission not be used as an instrument to harass the police force when it is carrying out the will of the public so that fair, even-handed and effective law enforcement takes place.
We are concerned about the odd incident, the odd individual who is not suited to the rigours of police work. There must be a mechanism by which the complaints of the public can be brought before a commission or an agency that handles these fairly.
I would like to read the mandate of the External Review Committee. It says: "The RCMP External Review Committee was created to provide an independent, impartial recommendation to the commissioner on grievances, formal discipline, discharge and demotion under the provisions of the RCMP Act. Any case resulting in a formal discipline, discharge and demotion is referred to the committee by the Commissioner of the RCMP unless the member requests that it proceeds otherwise".
This is a totally different matter. It is almost a committee that handles labour grievances within the police force. I think it is an extremely valuable, useful and productive arrangement where officers within the police force can ask that these complaints be dealt with within a more impartial purview than with members of the RCMP.
On the other hand, the principles laid out in the RCMP Public Complaints Commission are different. It talks about two important functions: that the mandate of the Public Complaints Commission is to provide individual members of the public with an effective mechanism that they can make complaints in. The public also, in laying complaints, must not interfere with the public's interest in the fair and proper enforcement of the law. It is a very delicate balance. It is not there to disrupt the process of fair and even-handed law enforcement, but it is also there to deal in a fair and equitable way with the complaints of the public.
A number of important principles have to be looked at. We cannot allow these two agencies to be melded together. It is a blurring of their purposes.
The public is already sceptical enough, when you say RCMP public complaints, that it is an agency of the RCMP and that it works hand in glove with the people against whom they have a complaint. That is not true.
The first principle we should be looking at is that police forces have strict accountability in the use of force, especially the use of deadly force, which we have been encountering lately in a great many public complaints, not against the RCMP but other police forces. There is a strict accountability of the use of force against members of the public.
The second principle is that the complaints have a fair and impartial investigation mechanism to ensure the public that they are fully investigated and they know the consequences and outcome.
The third principle is that the public be aware of the process. When you talk to members of the general public it is ironic that they do not have any idea that this organization exists. Many people who have complaints against the RCMP say: "There is nothing you can do. This is the force of the state and if you wind up complaining against them the force will come down on you even harder". There is an element of truth in this.
I think there have been at least a dozen complaints against police actions in the community of Gibsons. It is interesting, when individuals were charged and the use of force was involved in the laying of that charge, the individuals who laid the complaint about what they felt was the inappropriate use of force, usually a month later or some time later, even further charges emerged. So there was a real deterrent against the individual making a complaint and it was recommended often by friends not to complain because they would make it even worse.
However, the public must be aware that there is a process by which they can get to an agency that will investigate their complaints.
When we went to the hospital in this community and asked if the records showed that when individuals were brought into this hospital that they complained about the excessive use of force or injury because of excessive force of the RCMP. It never appeared in the hospital emergency records and it was not traceable back through hospital records, so it is extremely difficult.
It is my understanding that this is now changed. If an individual comes in and says how he or she has been injured, the hospital will at least record that the injury
February 16, 1993

was as a result of police force action and the use of force in the law enforcement process.
The public is not aware of this organization. I think it is important that all referral agencies and hospitals should make it clear where one can get a fair and equitable hearing of one's complaint, a thorough investigation.
The RCMP must co-operate with an investigatory commission and that co-operation must be seen to get to the bottom of a complaint. In many cases the RCMP officer has been found to be completely justified in the use of force for the protection of himself, protection of others and for the public good of enforcing the law.
In other cases, there was a misunderstanding and an explanation to the complainant about what the procedures are has often satisfied people. There has often been a simple apology that in the heat of the moment measures might have been used that were precautionary. Then in a very small number of cases there is in fact a legitimate concern and a good thorough investigation is useful in clearing the air and resolving the matter for future police operations procedure.
This procedure, with RCMP co-operation, gets to the bottom of what its members are doing. Getting to the bottom of what its members are doing can change police operations and make our police force a more effective agency, more highly regarded in the eyes of the public for doing the work of the public.
It is absolutely critical that this process be transparent. If in those small number of cases where an individual requires discipline, where changes are made as a result of a complaint of improper procedure, then it is incumbent upon the RCMP to let the complainant know what the outcome was.
At this time, there is no indication of what occurs. The commissioner of the RCMP in responding to the report and recommendations of the commission in a finding is not required to produce that information to the complainant.
I do not know how we got to the point of talking about the recommendations in the 1990-91 report. I believe what we are talking about is the recommendations in the
Private Members' Business
1989-90 report. Substantial recommendations were put forward for changes in the RCMP legislation. Not only do these agencies have to be held apart in order to keep and encourage the public confidence in an organization that is there to handle complaints, but the legislation has to be strengthened to make it more effective.
It is interesting that in asking to be able to distribute interim reports and final reports of the agency, they are asking for the authority to make these matters of the public record and that the public can refer to previous actions taken by the commission in the event of certain kinds of activities. There is no reason that this should not be a matter of public record. There is no reason that this recommendation should not be implemented.
Another thing is that the commissioner within 60 days should be required to provide notice to the commission and to the complainant of the commissioner's response to the report and recommendation of the commission. The complainant, as I mentioned before, is entitled to know what kind of action is to be taken in a case where there was inappropriate use of force or inappropriate action on the part of the police force and its members. That should be reported. Any disciplinary action, any changes taken, should be reported back to the complainant and the commission.
The commission asks for the ability to share information that it has gathered, even personal information with the provinces who are responsible for contracting for those police forces. It is important that the attorneys general of the various provinces have access to the kinds of information that may in future affect important police operation matters. It would allow them to co-ordinate and to change actions of other police forces where it is important. This kind of change to the legislation would certainly help and be effective.
An interesting problem arose if the complaint is made against the police force in its entirety as well as against a member of the police force. It is suggested in the recommendation that if it is simply against a member, the discipline falls on the member. The member becomes a scapegoat and the force is held blameless. The entire operation of the police force is not up for

February 16, 1993
Private Members' Business
consideration. It is absolutely important that this recommendation be implemented as well.
The commission in its recommendations in the 1989-90 report asked for a mechanism to be provided to permit mediation of complaints where the police force and the complainant could sit down in a mediated situation rather than going to court and rather than being placed in a continuous adversarial, confrontational type of arrangement that that environment provides. Mediation as an opportunity should be provided.
In summation, it is important that those recommendations be considered seriously. There should be ongoing dialogue between the office of the Solicitor General and the chairperson of this commission for the implementation of those recommendations. We could have an improved legislative base from which this commission could operate. It would be an agency that is more effective in resolving the complaints of the public.
In fact in the long run this will enhance the credibility of Canada's police force and will improve the law enforcement activities in Canada.
One of the requirements that we should be looking for in this House is a statement from the Solicitor General. That will probably be the subject of the next private member's motion. The subject of the next private members' motion is probably that the Solicitor General report to this House the progress on the implementation of these particular recommendations.
It is important that this agency not be rolled into the External Review Committee, that its mandate and its responsibility be blurred by an activity which is not in any way related.
The suggestion is that the government will save money in this process. By the time the moves are all made and the two agencies move into their new facilities, expand the number of floors they take up and rearrange things no money will be saved. In the long run, it is likely that RCMP Public Complaints Commission will be harmed in its ability to carry out its absolutely critical tasks.
Hopefully the government is in a position to reconsider what I think is a strategic error in the law enforcement policy of Canada. To reiterate, the RCMP is literally the finest police force in the country, if not in the entire
world. It is respected from coast to coast to coast by all Canadians as having done an enormously good job. When there have been complaints, we have seen those complaints addressed and we have moved on.
At this point there has to be serious consideration by the government to complaints from the public, that those complaints be moved on quickly and effectively, without harming law enforcement and to the satisfaction of the complainant. At least they got a fair hearing.
The RCMP sets a standard for law enforcement in this country. The handling of complaints in an effective, fair, even-handed manner where the complainant gets to know the reasons a situation occurred, for better or for worse does not harm this police force. It does not harm the cause of law enforcement. At least it lays to rest the often serious concerns of complainants.
It also sets an example to other police forces in this country that there is strict accountability, that the RCMP has the courage and the integrity to answer. It has full accountability to the citizens' confidence in it of delegating the right to use force in the enforcement of the laws. That example would go a long way to resolving many of the complaints that we are faced with each day.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address the House on a motion sponsored by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should cancel the proposal to amalgamate the RCMP Public Complaints Commission with the RCMP External Review Committee, and furthermore the government should implement the recommendations contained in the 1990-91 -
Or rather the 1989-90, as my colleague corrected in his presentation
-RCMP Public Complaints Commission Annual Report.
From the outset, it must be understood that the issue of the consolidation of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission and the RCMP External Review Committee is separate from the proposal to consider amending the RCMP Act for the purpose of improving the complaints process.
February 16, 1993

The former action is structural, a streamlining of the system to improve efficiency.
The latter pertains to a substantive review of the effectiveness of the accountability mechanism, and is in no way precluded by a merger of the two agencies.
To better explain this distinction, let me first provide a brief history of the creation of the Public Complaints Commission and the External Review Committee.
Many significant amendments to the RCMP Act were passed in 1986. Within this package of amendments, a substantial number, including the creation of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission and the RCMP External Review Committee, were in direct response to the findings and recommendations of the Marin commission of inquiry, embodied in the commission's report of 1976.
The Marin commission was established in 1974 to inquire into public complaints, internal discipline and grievance procedure within the RCMP.
The Marin commission recommended that within the RCMP, the public complaint system operate separately from the disciplinary system. However, at the independent review stage, the commission recommended the appointment of a sole authority, referred to in the report as the federal police ombudsman, to review and make recommendations on matters of public accountability, internal discipline and grievances.
Notwithstanding the recommendation for a single review authority, two separate agencies were formed through amendments to the RCMP Act in 1986: the RCMP Public Complaints Commission to review RCMP handling of complaints made against individual members of the force by the public and the RCMP External Review Committee to review and make recommendations on certain types of grievances initiated by members and appeals of formal discipline and discharge or demotion actions initiated by management.
The committee became operational in 1986 and the commission in 1988.
It is important to keep in mind that ten years passed from the time the Marin commission submitted its report of recommendations in 1976 until the RCMP Act was amended.
In that period of time successive governments researched, consulted on, and refined the issues that
Private Members' Business
resulted in significant amendments to the RCMP Act and the creation of two civilian oversight bodies. Compare this deliberate and extensive process of consideration with the fact that, after only two years of the commission's being operational, the then Chairman proposed in the 1989-90 annual report 30 recommendations for improvement necessitating further substantial amendments to the RCMP Act.
As I have stated, the first study was an extensive process that evolved during a period of more than 12 years, which included the two-year inquiry by the Marin Commission. The Public Complaints commission recommendations were based on a review of only two years of operational experience.
The recommendations in the 1989-90 Public Complaints Commission annual report touch on the scope and nature of the complaint process, post-complaint discipline and the monitoring of the complaint process.
As I indicated, changes to the RCMP public complaint process would necessitate further amendments to the RCMP Act.
Because the commission had only been in operation for two years, it was believed premature to consider amendments to the RCMP Act at that time.
As part of the streamlining measures contained in the government's February 1992 budget, it was announced that a number of agencies would be consolidated, including the RCMP Public Complaints Commission and the RCMP External Review Committee. This was done to provide a more efficient management process to handle complaint investigations and grievances.
The purpose of the amalgamation is to reduce administrative costs, increase efficiencies in program delivery and avoid duplication.
Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, would create the new independent review commission for the RCMP. This bill was tabled in the House on February 5, 1993 and has just been passed on second reading and referred to a legislative committee. With the bill now before the House, my colleague from North Island-Powell River has the opportunity to propose amendments during the

February 16, 1993
Private Members' Business
committee's clause-by-clause proceedings or at report stage in the House of Commons.
The return to the original Marin commission recommendation of a single review authority does not detract from the distinctiveness of these two functions or impugn the impartiality of either process.
In practice, all the major activities of these two agencies will be assumed by the single agency. Moreover, as many of the administrative functions of the commission and the committee are analogous, the integration of these two agencies will result in greater efficiency and administrative savings. As well, once the new commission is established, there will be a reduction to one chairperson, one vice-chairperson and one deputy chairperson from the current configuration of, in total, two chairmen and two vice-chairmen.
With respect to the potential for conflict of interest, or real or apparent bias arising from one agency handling both public complaints and internal grievances and discipline, Bill C-93 deals with these issues. For example, one particular provision ensures that the deputy chairperson review any matter previously reviewed by the chairperson in the other context, and the legislation provides that the chairperson cannot use information that he or she has obtained from a discipline case to initiate a complaint in the public interest.
The legislation which will give effect to the new agency was drafted after a series of extensive consultations among officials of the Public Complaints Commission, the External Review Committee, the Privy Council Office, the RCMP and the Secretariat of the Ministry of the Solicitor General to ensure that all issues and potential difficulties were fully addressed.
In the end, we are maintaining an independent review system, resembling more closely the single authority envisaged by the Marin commission, with legislative safeguards that protect against possible conflict of interest situations and streamlined to increase efficiency and reduce administrative costs. The new body will continue to provide the same high quality of complaints investigation and grievance review.
I have explained why the recommendations of the 1989-90 Public Complaints Commission annual report
were not pursued. Once the independent review commission of the RCMP is established and running and there has been a sufficient period of experience with it, improvements might suggest themselves.
As the system has matured since the 1989 recommendations and because of the amalgamation, it would not be appropriate to base future recommendations on the 1989-90 review. After a sufficient time of operation, we will be able to consider whether it is necessary to take a fresh look at the system with the participation of the independent review commission, ministry officials, the RCMP, both rank and file and management, the Department of Justice and the central agencies.
The consolidation of the commission and the committee does not preclude a subsequent review of the efficacy of the legislation. This is not a situation where a choice has to be made to amalgamate or conversely to implement the recommendations embodied in the 1989-90 annual report.
The decision to amalgamate is premised on this government's commitment to implement streamlining measures. This consolidation in no way jeopardizes the integrity of the oversight mechanism which is ultimately established. If there are any problems or issues that arise after a reasonable period of operation, they can be addressed at the appropriate time.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to take part this evening in making some comments on this motion by the member for North Island-Powell River. May I begin by saying that the parliamentary secretary gives a very interesting and accurate historical perspective on what happened.
May I comment briefly on what I consider to be an incredible Dickensian coincidence in connection with this motion. I notice that the member has a motion dated March 30, 1992. It concerns the proposed amalgamation of the two bodies. He happens to have it on the Order Paper today, of all days. What a fluke, since we happen to be speaking today, of all days, on Bill C-93. One portion of Bill C-93 happens to be precisely the exact same subject matter that the hon. member brought up March 30, 1992. It has taken this long to get here.
February 16, 1993

I guess in effect he has had an extra kick at the can to criticize at least a portion of Bill C-93 after we just voted to have no further debate on Bill C-93 and to proceed to committee. By the way, I voted against that because we should not be stopping debate in this House of Commons.
However, having said that, let us take a look at what that portion of Bill C-93 attempts to accomplish and why the hon. member moved his motion. It is an attempt to consolidate the External Review Committee and the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The plain and simple reason is to save money. We are told that if these two bodies are amalgamated, there will be a saving of approximately $1 million a year. In government language there will be a reduction of seven person-years in the operation of this new commission.
The hon. member who spoke just before me also indicated that there would only be one chairperson instead of two and one vice-chairperson instead of two, with the usual support mechanisms.
Contrary to popular belief and to the unfortunate slurs that have been foisted upon the Liberal Party by the government, we are not averse to saving money where that makes sense. We support saving money where it makes sense. We think in this particular instance that it makes some sense to amalgamate the two agencies.
It is interesting that the Conservative member opposite reminded us that at one time there was a feeling that these two commissions should be one. Notwithstanding that feeling, they became two. Now, for budgetary constraints it has been decided that they become one again.
Is there something wrong with that? The member for North Island-Powell River pointed to three specifics. I wrote them down. He wanted a fair and impartial investigation mechanism. That is reasonable. He did not, however, cite any evidence in his remarks as to why this proposed amalgamated commission would be anything but fair and impartial in its investigations. He said that the RCMP must co-operate with the commission. Who could disagree? However, is there any evidence that the RCMP would not co-operate with this proposed commission? Is there any evidence that as a matter of policy
Adjournment Debate
the RCMP has not been co-operating with both the External Review Committee and the RCMP Public Complaints Commission? I would suggest that there is no such evidence.
He said that that process must be transparent. By that of course he means that the public should be able to judge what is going on. That is something that is not going to be changed by amalgamating.
Am I almost out of time, Mr. Speaker? Let me finish. I want to bring to the attention of those who are listening who have followed this one specific clause of Bill C-93 as it deals with this independent complaint commission. I cite it specifically. Clause 25(6) reads:
No member of the force is eligible to be appointed or to continue as
a member of the commission.
There can be no question of independence since there cannot be a member of the force on the commission.
Unfortunately I do not have time to comment on the recommendations in the RCMP Public Complaints Commission annual report, particularly since the wrong date was given.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about transportation. It arises out of a question that I put to the Minister of Transport on November 20, 1992. It was a question that was very pertinent to what is going on in Atlantic Canada and the lack of a transportation policy by this government.

February 16, 1993
Adjournment Debate
We were dealing with the situation in which CP had requested the abandonment of portions of the line from Saint John to Montreal. The effect of the abandonment of that line would mean the end of VIA Rail service three out of six days of the week.
We are seeing more and more pressure being put on the highway systems of Atlantic Canada. We realize, of course, that the railway has been abandoned in Newfoundland. It has been abandoned in Prince Edward Island. The government is in the process of abandoning the line from Truro to Sydney, all of which puts major burdens on our highway network. We are clearly facing a major problem in New Brunswick as well as in other provinces in Atlantic Canada, but the unique thing about Atlantic Canada is that all roads eventually go through New Brunswick if you are trying to travel from anywhere in Atlantic Canada to Upper Canada, as we call it, to Ontario or Quebec.
That means that when you tamper with a rail line and abandon that then that brings about greater pressure on our highways. Anybody who has been in New Brunswick realizes the major problem with truck transportation on a two-lane Trans-Canada Highway.
I asked the minister to tell us what the policy is. What is the transportation policy of this government as it relates to Atlantic Canada?
The answer comes back that they are looking at it, they are not sure, that all the lines have not yet really been abandoned, they will study it and they will get back to us.
Clearly there has to be a transportation policy which is going to be supportive of the three major elements of transportation in Atlantic Canada which are air, highway and rail.
If this government has its way there will be only one rail line that runs from Halifax to Montreal and if this government takes the next step, it will probably try to sell off that line to another private concern so that there will not be a national rail line that runs from Halifax to Vancouver. That is a shocking and callous display by this government.
My speaking time is limited and I have much on my mind and many concerns about this government's lack of policy in the area of transportation. Mr. Speaker, I can tell by the look on your face that you are concerned about it as well. It is a concern for all citizens of this country. We have to link this country together from east
to west. If we are going to have a disjointed transportation policy that puts danger on our highways and destroys the steel linkage across this nation, then in effect we have started the dismemberment of this country.
I ask the government to come forward with a policy, stop rail line abandonment until that policy is in place and do something about the Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick and all of Atlantic Canada. It needs an upgrading, it needs something done. Let us see some action from this government.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the hon. member for Moncton who raised these issues of concern.
First, I would like to deal with the question of the rails because of course by issuing notices of intent, CP Limited has initiated the rail line abandonment regulatory process available under law.
There are certain real opportunities that should be considered by those interested in the continuation of rail service on these lines. The National Transportation Agency hearings will provide a perfect forum for all parties to raise their concerns.
With respect to highways, the federal government has certainly recognized that the road system in New Brunswick is in bad condition. A study of the national highway system identified that while only 961 kilometres or 4 per cent of the national highway system is in New Brunswick, over $2.2 billion or 16 per cent of the total required to upgrade the whole system is located in that province.
The government does not have to apologize for its commitment to highway spending in maritime Canada. New Brunswick is benefiting now from a cost-shared agreement which provided $131 million of federal funds over eight years to upgrade the highway system. For that matter since 1984 the federal government has contributed over $650 million in highway programs in Atlantic Canada alone, which represents a higher investment in this region than in any other region in Canada.
New Brunswick and Newfoundland have been the largest recipients of federal highway funds with over $240 million and $250 million contributed respectively.
In addition, the Minister of Finance announced in his December economic statement the national infrastructure program which will result in more than $2 billion during the next five years. Federal assistance will be provided on priority highway projects in New Brunswick
February 16, 1993

and Nova Scotia in order that significant work can be commenced on development of an Atlantic expressway.
We too are sorry that details have not yet been ironed out. I know that the Minister of Transport has made this a very real priority and that the message is clearly understood by the negotiators who are determined to strike the best deal possible for all parties concerned.


SALMON FISHERY
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, this discussion started with a question that I asked of the minister of fisheries five months ago yesterday.
In response to a question I put to him, he said that because he entered into agreements with aboriginals for conservation purposes, for management of fish resources and for the sale of fish that there are tensions in the industry in B.C.
Those are not the reasons. Had they been agreements for conservation, everybody would have supported them. Agreements for management would have had the same degree of support. The only question with sale is how many? If the aboriginals were selling the number of fish that they were allotted, there would have been no problem with that either.
The problem is there is no policing of the regulations and to the extent that there was supervision, the supervision was not even-handed. Everyone knows and admits that now. DFO officials will admit they were told to observe, record and report but not to do anything further than that if they were dealing with aboriginals. With respect to others, they were to arrest them on the spot if they liked.
As a result of these tensions the minister said a great deal is being made of a situation of the alleged disappearance. It is much more than alleged. A DFO official told me that 1.2 million sockeye had gone missing. When Dr. Pearse did his study he came up with a figure closer to 500,000 but whatever, it is a lot of sockeye. It is not a little thing. It is something pretty important.
The minister said it was a great success, a great year for B.C., because so many more spawners returned in this low cycle year than were expected. With respect to
Adjournment Debate
the Stuart Lake run, perhaps the most important of all, while we were hoping and expecting and counting on getting 200,000 spawners, according to Dr. Pearse we got
64,000,	less than one-third of what we anticipated. We knew they were in the river, but they did not get to the spawning ground.
It is not just that they did not get there. The ones that arrived, according to Dr. Pearse, were all net scarred. They had fought a tough fight to get through the many nets that were in the Fraser River picking up these fish. The question remains, and we will not know for another four years, whether or not the spawning of even one-third of the expected number was successful. We will just have to wait and see.
It was a bad year in British Columbia. It is not because of the new strategy that there have been troubles. It is because the strategy was not applied even-handedly. It goes against both. We know that Indians were taking advantage of the situation and we know that whites were taking advantage as well.
Stories were related and not denied by anyone that white fishing boats would take a single Indian on board and put that person on deck where he or she could be seen. They then could do almost anything they wanted without fear of being picked up by DFO officials.
That is what makes it wrong. It was not even-handed. There was not the supervision that was needed to guarantee the resource. Those are the problems in the industry, not the fact that a new strategy has been introduced.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member opposite, who has shown real concern about what happened last summer in the fisheries on the west coast, yes there were problems. I will be the first to admit that. Also, as the summer unfolded, corrective action was taken to make sure that the fish that we wanted to get to the spawning grounds would get there.
We had estimated that there would be 6.4 million fish, which exceeded the pre-season estimates and the largest run of a low-cycle year in 80 years. Salmon every four

Adjournment Debate
years return to their birthplace, spawn and die. The cycle then starts all over again.
The number of early Stuart sockeye which returned to spawn, some 65,000-1 have seen 66,000, I have seen
64,000,	and I have seen 65,000, but within 1,000 of each other-has only once been surpassed since 1960. That I believe was four years previous.
Over all the British Columbia commercial fishing fleet had a very successful fishing season this year. In fact, it has been estimated that it had over 400,000 fish, more than what the total allotment should have been, but that is not the problem that the hon. member was alluding to. He is alluding to the problem of what took place on the lower Fraser River of the early Stuart runs.
When the problem was identified, and the member opposite will have to agree with this, on August 6 all native fishing was disallowed in the river and the nets were taken out. This was watched by helicopter surveillance so that all of the spawners, all the fish that were in the river to spawn, would get back to their grounds. A very successful season of spawners has been there, so we can look forward four years from now to a very successful fishing season.


VETERANS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on September 17 I directed a question in the House to the acting Minister of Communications. It was with respect to the drama documentary The Valour and the Horror, produced by the National Film Board and shown on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
This piece of work is now being distributed by the National Film Board to schools and other institutions. The problem is that anyone can rent it and anyone who wants to rent it, gets it.
The film series is billed as a drama documentary, a documentary. Dramatized truth is what it is supposed to be.
The drama documentary that runs three parts is anything but truth. The level of historical rightness contained in the series is totally and completely false. There is a complete lack of balance and it pays no attention to the allied situation in World War II. It has an emphasis on the negative. It demonstrates Canadians as
inept, murderers and horror creators. It is a shameful expression by our National Film Board and by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Veterans right across Canada have risen up. They have written and complained but that does not matter. The McKenna brothers were out to get Sir Arthur Harris, chief of bomber command. He was shown as ruthless, a murderer and someone who would bomb and kill women and children.
The Normandy-Dieppe activity was shown as a case where Canadians were badly led. They were incompetent troops and untrained troops. They were troops that did not know what they were doing. In Hong Kong, where our troops held off the Japanese invaders for 18 days, one of our men received the Victoria Cross.
This documentary shows our troops as incompetent. This is the invention of the McKennas. They have decided to rewrite history. Forget about the truth. Forget about Adolf Hitler. Forget about the fact that the German war machine had taken over all of Europe, all of the European part of the Soviet Union and that it occupied North Africa.
Forget about the fact that the Japanese, who brutally treated people, had occupied all of southeast Asia. Forget about the damage done and say our people murdered a few people. They killed a few people. A few of the enemy civilians were bombed. That is the spirit that the McKennas want to give to national television.
I know you signalled me, Mr. Speaker, that my time is almost up but I must give you a feeling for a very good veteran who served as a justice in the Supreme Court-


Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member for Mississauga South.
The communications minister has always respected the autonomy principle regarding the activities of the National Film Board and does not interfere with the creativity aspect of its decisions. As a producer and distributor of films and video material, the NFB is entirely autonomous in creating and marketing its productions.
February 16, 1993

As you know, Mr. Speaker, The Valour and the Horror is a three-part documentary on Canada's participation in World War II produced by Galafilm Inc., of Montreal, in collaboration with the NFB and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This project was the brain-child of an independent producer. This program has raised controversy about Canada's participation in World War II.
This film was reviewed in minute detail during the public hearings conducted by the Senate sub-committee on veterans affairs following numerous complaints from some veterans and military historians who claimed that this film gave a distorted account of World War II events.
Mr. Speaker, you certainly know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ombudsman indicated in his report that the show might contain historical inaccuracies. However, the CRTC reviewed the complaints concerning this production and found no irregularities in the way the matter was handled by the CBC.
The Senate committee has now released its report and recommendations regarding the series.
The NFB holds all the non-commercial Canadian rights for the distribution of The Valour and the Horror whereas Radio-Canada and the CBC hold all broadcasting rights for Canada. The usual distribution policy was followed. This production can be rented or purchased from all the NFB distribution centres in Canada. In response to concerns expressed by some members of the public, the NFB is preparing a document to be distributed to those who either buy or rent the series in order to put the events into their historical context. Therefore, anyone who-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, the two minutes provided for in the Standing Orders are up.


JUSTICE
Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, in the brief four minutes I have allotted to me I wish to expand on a question that I asked one week ago.
On that day, February 9, an event occurred in the legal history of Canada which is unprecedented. The coroner's jury investigating the tragic murder of 11-year old
Adjournment Debate
Christopher Stephenson reconvened and issued a statement at a press conference.
I think it is important to read the statement verbatim into the record of this House of Commons:
We spent four and one-half months listening to the testimony of approximately 90 witnesses before making our verdict and recommendations. We feel strongly that our 71 recommendations, if adopted, will preclude a tragedy of this nature from happening again.
Crucial and indispensable to these recommendations was the cross-examination of these witnesses by Mr. Tim Danson who represented Jim and Anna Stephenson. His consistent pursuit of the truth, from all witnesses, greatly benefited our decisions. Indeed, we cannot conceive of an inquest of this depth and nature proceeding without the perspective provided by Mr. Danson on behalf of the Stephensons who are the parents of Christopher, the victim.
The Solicitor General of Canada, the Honourable Doug Lewis, has publicly stated that Jim and Anna Stephenson did not need independent legal counsel and that had they come to him for legal advice he would have told the Stephensons this. Mr. Lewis also said that his decision to deny funding to the Stephensons was sensitive, sound and just. We disagree with both points. We think he is wrong. We therefore urge the minister to reconsider his position and we hope that he will consider our opinion in the positive and constructive way in which it has been given.
We therefore strongly recommend and urge the federal government and the provincial government to compensate Jim and Anna Stephenson for all legal costs incurred in this inquest, the results, if acted upon, will benefit all Canadian families.
We remind everyone that on June 17, 1988, Christopher Stephenson, age 11, went shopping with his mother at a local mall. They had every right in the world to be there. Joseph Fredericks who had spent 34 years in either mental or correctional institutions should not have been there. Mr. Danson made all this very clear to us.
The Solicitor General is obfuscating. The Solicitor General is stalling. He is talking about consulting with the bar association. He is talking about consulting with the Law Society of Upper Canada.
He does not need to consult because an independent jury of ordinary Canadians has already told him what to do. I quote the foreman:
We are the ones that were asked as citizens of this country to attend the inquest. I think we are probably the only ones who have the insight to recognize that the government should pick up the legal expenses for the Stephensons.
To suggest first of all that the taxpayer should not be paying the cost is a specious argument. All legal bills can be examined by the court to determine that they are fair and reasonable. To say that this will create a precedent is also nonsense. To make the payment and simply announce this is not a precedent ends it. There is precedent in legal history for this, and I cite it for the Canadian public now.

Adjournment Debate
Susan Nelles was paid an amount of money by the province of Ontario some time after her preliminary inquiry on a no-precedent basis. There is absolutely no reason why the Solicitor General cannot accept this recommendation by this jury.
The Toronto Sun said it best in an editorial:
Well, it is time to look after the interests of the victims. Federal
Solicitor General Doug Lewis and the provincial government can
start with the Stephensons.
I ask the Solicitor General to please pay the reasonable legal bill.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Solicitor General, like my hon. colleague, is sympathetic to the tragic loss experienced by the Stephensons and the efforts they have made to participate in the recent inquest in order to get the best possible results.
Consequently, on compassionate grounds, the government offered what it believed to be a reasonable settlement of their outstanding civil action against the Crown. That offer remains on the table.
With regard to the legal fees, the government has no idea what they amount to, because no final bill or account has been submitted by the family or their counsel. Let me be clear that the offer the government made to settle the law suit was not specifically to pay the legal fees, although the family would be free to use it for that purpose.
On the matter of the inquest itself, it should be noted that inquests are provincial mechanisms established at considerable cost, to protect the interests of citizens by ensuring that the causes of deaths are known and corrective action, where required, is recommended.
The federal government co-operated fully in this process, also at considerable expense. I believe my hon. colleague will understand that the offers, which are still on the table, should receive an answer at the earliest opportunity.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last week I had 11 constituents come into my riding office in Toronto. Seven out of those 11 constituents had lost their jobs. They were out of work. These were not habitual
receivers of unemployment insurance or welfare. Each of them in fact had worked all their adult life. All of them wanted to work.
The problem is that there is no work available for them. There is no work as an architect. There is no work as an optometrist's assistant. There is no work as a sales manager. There is no work in the hospitality industry. There is no work in computers. It goes on and on.
At the same time I walked out the front door of my office and looked across the street at the East York, North York O'Connor-Bermondsey industrial district. What did I see there? I saw the McBride Group plant for sale. I saw the CCL Industries plant for sale with a sign on the front "Job Search Assistance Committee-Action Centre". I saw the McLellan and Stewart plant for sale. I saw Halls Canada Paper closed. I saw Long Packaging closed and for sale. I saw Block Drug for sale or for lease. I saw Rockwell International for sale. The list goes on and on because one-third of all of the plants in that industrial area are closed.
This is the industrial heartland of Canada. These plants were used to generate wealth for Canada and used to generate federal tax dollars. What, if anything, is there that we can do? If there is something we can do where is the money going to come from?
It is interesting to note that about one-third of all of the green plan budget, which is about $1 billion, has not as yet been publicly committed. Rather than spending that money on more and more studies, why do we not use that money not only to clean up the environment but also to stimulate the economy and to create jobs at the same time?
This Friday metropolitan Toronto is holding an economic summit to try to find ways to get the economy going again. I am going to be there. Will the minister come and will he bring with him a handful of that green plan money?


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the green plan makes an important contribution to both the environment and the economic future of this country by investing substantial resources in science, education, technology and other programs which will help us meet our environmental goals in ways that promote economic prosperity. There are many examples of how green plan funding will contribute to Canadian competitiveness.
February 16, 1993

For instance, in the forest sector the green plan commits the government to accelerate and intensify its efforts to develop and deploy environmentally sound solutions to the forest management for insects and disease. Reducing loss or damage will yield benefits to Canadians to enhance economic and recreational use of our forests.
The green plan also recognizes that private sector research and development of environmental technologies promises new investment opportunities and the creation of jobs in Canada's environmental industries.
The environmental technology industry is among the fastest growing sectors in the Canadian economy and it will play an increasing role in positioning Canada favourably in a highly competitive world market. That is why the green plan has initiated a program to accelerate the development and demonstration of commercially viable environmental technologies. That is also why additional green plan funds have been made available to assist Canadian firms in locating, assessing, transferring and promoting environmental technologies.
This government recognizes the important contribution of infrastructure projects to both job creation and to
Adjournment Debate
Canada's competitive position in the global economy. In its December economic statement, the government announced a strategic investment program which will encompass investments in all regions to strengthen our national transportation system and communications network.
Investments will include upgrade of federally owned highways, bridges, ports and airports, as well as development of a high-speed, high-capacity information network across the country.
Over the next five years these initiatives will result in investments in national infrastructure of more than $2 billion and are expected to generate 6,000 to 8,000 direct jobs each year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion that this 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 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 17, 1993