1993-04-26

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Duhamel that Bill C-339, an act to eliminate the payments of bonuses in the public sector of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate though my voice does not have its normal strength. I know it will distress all members present that I will be a little more low key than usual. However, this is such an important issue my hon. friend from St. Boniface has brought before the House that I did want to have an opportunity to make a few remarks.
I do not know exactly what his intent is but in reading this proposed piece of legislation I must say I have some concerns. I know it was not his intent to suggest that members of the Public Service of Canada ought not to receive fair, adequate compensation or anything like that. What this bill proposes to do is to take away the principle of incentive in relation to performance. Some people will disagree with that of course but it certainly is my belief that people work best when they have some incentive to do so. Fair compensation for employment and reasonable, safe working conditions are very important.
The advisory group on executive compensation in the Public Service known as the Bums group was named after the current chairman, Mr. James Bums, who is deputy chairman of Power Corporation. The group expressed the opinion and strongly held view that there should be a portion of the compensation package for senior executives put at risk, to use the group's expression, so there is some incentive.
I am not suggesting for one minute that people in senior positions in the Public Service of Canada would not give 100 per cent if their salaries were 100 per cent guaranteed. However, I think the concept that people should have incentives to work hard by having a percentage of the compensation made available by way of some sort of a bonus is important.
That is obviously one with which the advisory group agrees. I might say also it is one with which Public Service executives agree. They have agreed to that basis for compensation in their own bargaining process. I am sure it is not the intent of my hon. friend opposite to interfere with the collective bargaining process.
I realize if I start talking about the sanctity of the collective bargaining process I am sure members opposite are going to remind me very quickly it was this government that interfered with that process through the imposition of the wage restraint program on the Public Service a couple of years ago. That restraint program applied not only to members of the Public Service but also to members of this House and all people paid by the government.
That action is not normal practice. Certainly it is not the normal practice of this government because this government respects that the best way for these decisions to be made is through the collective bargaining process on the basis of market demand and so forth.
I simply remind my hon. friend and others who may wish to support this legislation that there is some potential problem inherent in an arbitrary decision being taken by Parliament. Certainly that would fly in the face

April 26, 1993
Private Members' Business
of the position he and a number of his colleagues took with respect to the public sector contract that was there a year or so ago. I merely bring that to his attention.
Maybe part of the problem lies in the use of the word bonus. A bonus to me is like getting a little prize in a Cracker Jacks box. It is something extra, something one had not necessarily expected and presumably therefore is in addition to what is expected. All that is really expected inside a box of Corn Flakes or Cheerios is the cereal but a little prize might be found inside. That is a bonus because it is something extra. I suspect the root of the legislation in part may be in the use of that particular term when in fact one might prefer the term incentive.
It is important to recall the history of this particular provision. It was taken off the compensation package at the time when this process was implemented so that if there was a salary budget equal to 100 per cent a certain percentage of that was taken back. I believe it was 15 per cent. I may be wrong about my percentages but I am talking about the principle.
What has been done in effect is to not provide a bonus as an add on. The group of employees impacted by this provision is told it is guaranteed a certain amount, which is in fact lower, 85 per cent, and there is the opportunity based on performance to earn an extra amount. I think it is important to bear that in mind.
I recall when the subject of these bonuses came up in the House a year ago, there were very flamboyant speeches by some of my hon. friends about the size of those bonuses. I think that created the context in which people thought this was not an appropriate thing.
It is important for everybody to understand that these bonuses are not an add on. In fact they are a component of the salary package that is and was already there when it was brought in.
Having said that, a bonus which is paid automatically really ceases to be an incentive. It ceases to be what it was intended to be with the use of the nefarious word bonus. If there is concern about this, what would be helpful and might warrant review is some determination or clarification of the criteria by which it will or will not be paid.
It is not easy to determine or quantify progress in some Public Service jobs. These nights whether we want to or
not, when we turn on our television sets we are being treated to hockey games. It is very easy to determine whether a hockey player gets a bonus. How many goals did he get last year? How many assists did he get? How many minutes in the penalty box? How many games did the team win? However, it is much more difficult to assess a public servant. Certainly it is difficult to quantify the performance of the individual.
If one is to determine criteria and have a clear process by which decisions will be made as to whether or not people in fact qualify for an incentive, I can understand that. The point to be made is that we must have clear criteria. It must be understood that people have to earn the incentive. It is an assumption that possibly everybody is not going to automatically get it. The automatic aspect to it can also create some progress.
At the same time however, an unattainable incentive is not really an incentive at all. When a compensation system is set up that is targeted at rewarding a person's performance, then that particular criteria should be one that if a legitimate bona fide effort is made by the individual the intent is that he or she will obtain that. In other words, the intent of the process is to encourage high performance by rewarding individual employees for the work they have done.
Administered automatically, it is a very successful system. I think it can be a beneficial system, both for the public servants impacted and Canadian taxpayers. To change that system right now would create quite a disruption. I think that a kind of political mischief was played with the system in this House a year or so ago. Except when that goes on the system works well. It serves Canadians and it serves public servants.
At the same time it provides an opportunity and a recognition for the government to be aware of the fact that Canada does have a high quality of public servants. I think all members of this House will agree that although sometimes when issues get flowing back and forth, people sometimes forget that Canadians are very well served by their public servants. We have some extraordinarily capable people.
In the case of our senior people, the compensation is often not competitive with what might be earned in the private sector. But they are just like members of Parlia-
April 26, 1993

Private Members' Business
ment. We know when we take the job what the salary and the compensation will be. That is the deal and if one does not like it then do not run for office.
I conclude with those remarks. I commend my hon. friend for bringing forward his initiative. However I cannot support it and I urge fellow members of the House to turn down this proposal also.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I have given much consideration to Bill C-339. My constituents are continually expressing concern about our national debt and deficit each year. Therefore, I am always looking for ways to reduce spending. But I also want to take into consideration the effect that any changes we make will have on the efficiency of government and also on the people affected.
I would like to remind everyone that the present situation has the salaries of federal civil servants frozen for three years. This means last year, this year and next year there will be no bonuses paid.
Bill C-339 proposes to eliminate the payment of bonuses in the public sector of Canada. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the performance bonus system in place for senior public servants.
I would like to briefly go into the history. In 1981 when a management category was created, it was decided to allocate a portion of the senior level's compensation package to annual re-eamable performance awards-or lump sum payments-rather than having these sums permanently built into the base salary.
The advisory group on executive compensation in the Public Service, a private sector group made up of senior executives from the Canadian business community, has been providing advice and recommendations to successive governments over the past 24 years.
The advisory group first recommended and still supports the performance bonus approach to pay. The principle that a certain portion of the compensation package for executives should be put at risk, that is individual rewards determined on the basis of their contribution to the organization, is very widespread in the private sector. Performance lump sum awards were introduced for public servants by reducing the salary range maximum to compensate for lump sum performance payments.
Therefore the replacement of the base salary adjustments with bonuses represents a cost saving because the lump sums are not compounded from one year to the next. Performance lump sums do not represent an extra payment but rather an alternative, a more cost efficient and effective method of distributing the same compensation envelope. We are talking about the same compensation envelope.
I would also like to point out that the elimination of performance bonuses would mean moving to a system which provides permanent base salary adjustments equal for all regardless of their level of performance or their contribution to the organization. Not only would this be counterproductive but also unfair and most of all, my greatest concern, more costly.
I would like to add that the passage of this bill would be going against the current trend in the private sector. Many of my constituents have advocated that we go this way. This was reported by the Conference Board of Canada and other consulting firms on the increasing portion of the compensation package that is variable or performance related.
Finally, the proposed act would have the effect of reducing the flexibility of the compensation system in favour of a rigid and more costly method of compensation. The government has the responsibility to ensure that public servants' compensation is fair and equitable compared to compensation paid in other sectors of the Canadian economy while being attentive to the interest of the Canadian taxpayers.
To date, the advice of bodies such as the advisory group on executive compensation in the Public Service has been determinant in establishing the current compensation system for executives which is recognized as one of the best systems by many other countries. We should continue to rely on those with the necessary expertise to make compensation recommendations.
I would like to do a synopsis of what this means. The advisory group on executive compensation in the Public Service expressed the opinion that a certain portion of the compensation package for senior executives should be put at risk, in line with the private sector thinking. That is what a number of my constituents are asking for and have continued to ask for.

Private Members' Business
Directly linked to performance it is misleading to suggest to Canadian taxpayers that the current system is overly generous. It is not. Performance pay does not represent additional compensation. The system of performance pay is looked at in many countries as one of the best systems in the world.
Misconceptions abound about how and why these bonuses are being paid. Performance pay is not a bonus but rather one part of a total compensation scheme for Public Service executives. Five per cent of the total package for Public Service executives is normally set aside for performance pay. I said normally because for three years it has been discontinued temporarily.
Performance pay encourages high performance by rewarding individual employees. It is an effective and economical way of encouraging high performance and is a system recognized as being cost effective.
Bill C-339 would necessarily entail changes to the salary administration plan. Automatic salary increments that are permanently added to a base salary would be a major disruption to a system that has been working well.
I will conclude by saying that I do not see any immediate or prospective gain to be achieved, at this time, by passing Bill C-339.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. Boniface has introduced a private member's bill dealing with a pay item that has been the cause of much frustration. Lump sum payments commonly referred to as bonuses, be they bilingual bonuses, performance bonuses or what not, have been criticized for many years.
Generally, bonuses are paid in respect of performance, which sounds reasonable to me, and in respect of bilingual capabilities, which was a commendable initiative. But over the years we have come to that conclusion. That is why the hon. member for St. Boniface saw fit, and rightly so, to deal with this problem which should have been dealt with a long time ago. Should we pay bonuses to a few supposedly qualified people, Public Service managers, or look at the system as a whole instead and tell all those who are working to make it
better, especially by making it more effective and efficient, that they deserve a lump sum payment or bonus?
My colleague made a few points and I agree with him that we should have a fair and equitable system under which all Public Service employees who have helped improve efficiency should get a bonus.
Other organizations that have been overlooked in this analysis would indeed deserve the same deal. My colleague from St. Boniface pointed out to me that some organizations are missing from the list and others, such as the NRC and all other departmental agencies, should be included. In the end, no one should be excluded.
The nearly $66 million paid in bonuses is quite a lot of money. Many people are realizing that big money is spent on bonuses, and many of those who are not getting a bonus do believe they have contributed to improved efficiency. So this is becoming a source of frustration for them, and that is understandable. Over 375,000 people work for the central government throughout the public and parapublic sector in Canada. That is a lot of people. It is essential that we have a system in which the people feel they are all working together and where bonuses are not just for a few managers according to the standards.
The question of course is that these bonuses in relation to individual compensation are disproportionate; the bonuses are very high compared to the salary. So that raises questions. My colleague from St. Boniface wonders if the time has not come to refer this issue to committee where it can be thoroughly examined, because we are not just dealing with a few thousand dollars here, but tens of millions of dollars paid in bonuses. Like my colleague, I believe it is essential to discuss this problem in committee, and in good faith of course, because these are our employees and they deserve that we take a look at the rules and criteria governing the payment of bonuses. I am convinced that the situation can be improved.
Right now there is a perception that this system is not fair. If you stop and think about it, a lot of questions come to mind. Therefore it is important that in a system like ours perception match reality. Right now it does not fit reality and the perception that people have clearly demonstrates that the system is not fair.
April 26, 1993

One wonders if the system is objective. Of course, in the face of so much criticism, we are led to believe that there is certainly a flaw somewhere. It is therefore very important that in people's minds this system be objective and fair.
As the representative of a constituency located in the national capital region, on the Quebec side where a lot of civil servants reside, I have had the opportunity to hear this issue debated on numerous occasions. I do not claim to know all the elements that should be taken into consideration to solve the problem, because I noticed that there are people who can talk about this issue for hours on end. My colleague from St. Boniface tabled a motion regarding this issue and I do not think it is a partisan initiative. It is absolutely clear that only in committee, with the co-operation of all the parties in this House, will we be able to review this issue thoroughly. Several people have worked on this issue and we must examine the different criteria in order to make this system fair. I am convinced there are ways to achieve this objective.
Moreover, we must ensure that the perception, not only on the federal government's employees' part, but also among the general public, is that the system is fair and objective.
These are essentially the comments I wanted to make altough a lot more could probably be said about this issue. I simply want to mention, for the benefit of all those who get these bonuses as well as for the many who do not, that we want this system to undergo a review. I am convinced that with good faith this can be done, thereby making the system fair for all federal public and quasi-public employees.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo -Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, there is a question to be asked: Where does fairness begin and where does it end?
The two members on the government side of the House, the member for South Shore and the member for Wild Rose, both said that we must be fairer in dealing with civil servants. I can agree with that. I think we should be fairer, but does fairness begin with the 4,750 managers in the Public Service and stop there? Does it not apply at all to the more than 200,000 who are not managers, who are not affected by this bonus program
Private Members' Business
and who do not benefit from it? They get no bonuses regardless of their performance, but the managers are entitled to bonuses.
The member for South Shore in particular said that it was based strictly on merit and performance and that if it were any other way it would not be proper. I can also agree with that. However I would like to ask the member for South Shore how many of the managers did not get a bonus? How many of the people entitled to participate in this program did not get a bonus? It would be interesting to see what the figures were and also to get some idea of what the ranges were. We know that no one outside the top 4,750 received a bonus, but how many within the group did not get one?
Both members on the government side said that it was not an add-on, that there was a deduction from the pay package and this was made available to them so they could make up what they had lost. They did not deny the possibility that they might come out ahead as well. Again, I would be very interested in seeing the figures to see how much of a deduction there was in anyone's salary before this bonus system came into effect.
I would like to make a small wager with my friend from South Shore, if we could talk about this later. I will bet there was no reduction in salaries put into effect and that people had to prove by their performance before the amount of pay they had been getting for the same work in the same position could be re-established. That is another way in which the program we have now is not fair. It is just not fair to be treating people that way.
The people in managerial positions are the ones who are getting top pay now. They average much in excess of what the people in the bargaining units are getting. Yet the bonus is available only to those in the top brackets, not to those in the lower brackets.
The freeze on salaries for those in the bargaining units will be in effect according to legislation for a period of four years now. For four years they are frozen with no movement at all. Is that fair in light of the fact that it is gradually being eaten away by what is certainly a reduced increase in the cost of living but is still a gradual increase? They are steadily losing some of their salary. Over a period of four years there will be a substantial reduction.

April 26, 1993
Private Members' Business
These other people in managerial positions have an opportunity to make that up, and perhaps even a little more, with their performance bonuses. However the people below them are taking all the heat. They are the ones on the firing line, who are dealing with line-ups of people applying for unemployment insurance, who are really stressed out, who are having problems and who are getting paid the least. Many of them are women, women who are the heads of single families. They know their salaries are frozen for a period of four years. Is it fair to them?
If we are talking about being fair to 4,750 managers how could we totally leave out of the discussion the concept of fairness with respect to the more than 200,000 who are doing the work, some of which the managers may be getting credit for when their performance bonuses are calculated? I agree we should be fair, but it is not fair to do what we are doing to the people in the bargaining unit. That is to say to them that they shall do without but those who are in charge of them and who are responsible for them are going to get performance bonuses.
It is not just performance bonuses. Reclassifications are available to people. From what we have heard through problems in our ridings and in our critic areas we know that the people in the upper ranks are being reclassified into higher and higher salary positions while people who are actually on the firing line, sometimes literally, are not.
For example, I am thinking of fisheries officers who are armed in some cases because of the hazards of their occupation. They have been trying for years before this freeze ever came into effect to get reclassification in line with their training and that take into account the hazards of the job, which is hazardous to the extent that in some cases they must carry arms. They cannot get reclassification yet the people who are supervising them, the people who are in the managerial positions, do get reclassifications as well as performance bonuses. Is that fair? I submit it is not. The government's arguments about fairness are falling on deaf ears when it is talking to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 220,000 public servants.
This program, this freeze, was initiated because of the financial condition of the government of the country,
because of the amount of money that we owe, particularly internationally. It is not making much difference there but nevertheless it is supposed to make them feel they are part of the campaign to fight the deficit, and eventually to fight the debt one would hope.
Is it fair to freeze the ones at the very bottom of the pay level and say that there will be no adjustment in their pay but the government is going to reward the ones at the top for having suggested that one way of not spending so much within the department was to freeze salaries for the ones at the bottom and to give performance bonuses to the ones at the top?
People will sacrifice. They will do their share to fight the deficit. People will do without. However if they see that this program is being applied unfairly, if the people at the top are continuing to get rewards and the people at the bottom are being denied even the possibility of maintaining their status then they are not going to feel so enthusiastic about fighting the deficit, not if the weight of fighting that deficit is placed on the shoulders of the ones who have no possible way of fighting it and no possible way of maintaining their position.
I suppose one of the things that bothered a lot of them, and we get headlines for this and sometimes perhaps there should not be, was that the Governor of the Bank of Canada had his pay scale increased by something like 25 per cent at the very time at which he was taking credit for having destroyed the economy of southern Ontario and with that eventually the economy of Canada as a whole. He wrestled inflation to the ground, regardless of the cost to Canada, regardless of the increased unemployment, regardless of the fact that the Conference Board of Canada said at the time that it was the first time in history that we were in a made-in-Canada recession. Since then it has become much worse. A performance bonus perhaps, but it was certainly a reclassification to a much higher level of salary.
How can they talk about fairness when they are leaving out of the equation any concept of treating employees fairly in the face of giving managers something extra, when they are allowing certain individuals, heads of Crown corporations for example, to move upward within their ranges and then when they reach the top of the range they increase the range higher so those individuals
April 26, 1993

are able to get regular increases? When the employees see that going on they know it is not fair.
Bill C-339 is an attempt to convince people that there will again be some kind of fairness applied. I am not saying I agree with Bill C-339, after all it is imposing something. It is doing something by handing it down, by giving a reward to somebody on the basis that they have earned a reward. That is not the way of negotiation and we do believe in negotiation.
The government's program is wrong, there is no question about that. This bill might make it look a little better for the time being, but it is not the answer in the long run. The answer in the long run is to deal fairly with everyone. That means everyone, not just the ones at the top or the ones at the bottom but all public servants. That is what this legislation should be trying to accomplish.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party must be going through a period of profound reflection and rethinking its philosophy.
A few moments ago we heard the NDP member for Nanaimo-Cowichan talk about deficit reduction and expenditure control. This is a new departure for NDP members because so far spending and borrowing money has been uppermost in their minds. That is why I was astonished, to say the least, to hear the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan of the New Democratic Party talk the way he did. This is a fundamental change in policy.
To get back to Bill C-339 introduced by the hon. member for St. Boniface, I had a chance to hear the hon. member's arguments when he presented his bill before the subcommittee on private members business. I listened to his arguments very carefully, and I must say, after giving a lot of thought to the purpose of the bill, that the hon. member for St. Boniface failed to convince me it was a good bill. There are a number of reasons for this, which I will try to explain as clearly as possible for the benefit of the members of this House, who will be asked to vote on the bill either later today or later this week.
Private Members' Business
The purpose of Bill C-339 is basically and specifically to eliminate the payment of performance bonuses in the federal Public Service. First of all, I want to say that as the bill is worded, if it were approved by this House, the government would have to eliminate all bonuses now offered in the federal Public Service, including bilingualism bonuses, isolation allowances or any kind of bonus paid by the federal government to its employees for specific reasons, in addition to performance bonuses.
My hon. colleague's bill would eliminate or abolish these bonuses. There is a whole series of them. I mentioned some just now, like bilingual bonuses, the bonuses for on-the-job training or for working in remote regions of Canada and the bonuses given to those who provide special education, for example.
Of course I am not prepared to approve this bill. I cannot approve it or vote for it because had it just concerned performance and efficiency bonuses I might have given it another look, but eliminating all the other bonuses is reason enough for me not to support it.
Furthermore, the other fundamental point on which the bill causes serious problems is that it goes against agreements reached between the federal government and its employees in collective agreements and collective bargaining. Bonuses are paid which are an integral part of the collective agreements and salary agreements that the federal government has concluded with its employees. For the government, going back on these agreements would simply mean that the employer has decided not to respect that part of the collective agreements and this would be quite unacceptable.
I listened to the argument of the member for Gatineau-La Lievre who spoke of $66 million paid in bonuses. For the benefit of those listening to us today, Canadian taxpayers, I must say that this money is already in the Public Service salary budget of the managers for whom it is intended. This is not new money that the federal government has to pay. These are not additional amounts that the federal government must provide in its budgets. They are already in the payroll package.
When the bonus system was implement 5 per cent of the Public Service payroll of those for whom these

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
bonuses were meant, the managers who met the program criteria, was set aside to pay the bonuses. This is not new or extra money.
I have thus submitted three reasons for which I must vote against the bill presented by my colleague from St. Boniface. I hope that the other members of this House will recognize that it is important for the federal government to reward its managers who do their jobs well, who look for ways to reduce spending and cut needless expenditures in the Public Service. I therefore trust that hon. members, when they recognize how effective Public Service managers are, will vote against the bill of my colleague from St. Boniface.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to take a few moments to speak on Bill C-339 this morning.
There is a perception in the public mind's eye that we are talking today about something that has become part of a system that somehow or another is abusive.
It behoves all of us to speak in defence of senior public servants who have been the recipients of performance pay since 1981, if indeed their performance warranted, to clear up the notion that what we are talking about is not just another Christmas bonus a government has decided to reward its senior managers with.
We have a system whereby senior executives are rewarded much the same as they would be if they were involved in the private sector. It is important that we have the opportunity to attract people who are competent and capable of performing jobs which are vital to the country. We need those who are as interested in becoming public servants as they would be interested in the private sector.
I have hardly begun and my time is already up. I am sorry that I do not have more time to deal with this very important topic, but suffice to say in closing we are fortunate indeed to have senior public servants in place who are professional at their jobs. It is the compensation package in place that in part attracts them to the jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-109, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act, as reported (without amendment) from the legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are seven motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-109, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act, all in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal.
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be grouped for the purposes of debate and the vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
Motions Nos. 4 and 7 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 5 and 6 go beyond the scope of Bill C-109 since they attempt to introduce new concepts into the bill. The Chair must rule them out of order in accordance with citation No. 698(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition. They will not be selected.
I will now submit Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the House.


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we proceed with the debate on Motions Nos. 1 through 7,1 have read and listened very carefully to Your Honour's decision on the grouping of amendments at report stage.



April 26, 1993

I do accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, however I must express my disappointment. I was wondering whether the Chair could assist in satisfying my concerns by indicating to me whether the Chair and the Thble took into consideration that the intent of this particular bill, Bill C-109, in part is to protect cellular privacy, to protect people from the snooping and eavesdropping that occurs out there.
I would like an explanation, if you would not mind, on how Motion No. 4 which deals with the use of scanners was acceptable whereas Motions Nos. 5 and 6 which you have ruled out of order deal with the availability of scanners. In my view they both address scanners and their availability. The one talks about preventing the import, distribution and sale as has been done in the United States in order to control access to the information that is being exchanged on a cellular telephone.
I wonder if the Chair could assist me and perhaps might even reconsider the debate around Motion No. 5.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I understand the hon. member's disappointment, but I want to reassure her that before making its decision, the Chair followed the rules and tradition in this kind of situation, where the Speaker seeks to group together motions that have the same theme.
On this point, without wanting to get into a discussion with the hon. member, I am not a procedural expert but I know that in their recommendations, the Table carefully considered the scope and substance of the amendments submitted by the hon. member. I wish to reassure her that the decision was made in accordance with the tradition and rules of this Elouse.


Mr. Edmonston:: Mr. Speaker, I had a similar question to that of my hon. colleague because we are going to be discussing the purchasing and possession of scanners.
It certainly would be helpful for us if before getting into this discussion we would be able to make ourselves privy of the information that perhaps was discussed and
Government Orders
decided by the Clerk so that we would see the exact mindset on the particular question of scanners.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, in that same vein I too have a concern. My concern is that when we are looking at the whole question of scanners we are looking at cellular phones not being telephones, so to speak, but more or less being radios and having the phones' conversations picked up by scanners.
If we are allowed to sell scanners, manufacture scanners and import scanners it goes directly to the absolute use of the scanners. With the experience in the United States and other countries there is an inter-relationship where the whole picture has to be looked at. I too am rather confused as to how the differentiation was made and why the distinction not to allow Motions Nos. 5 and 6 was determined.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair's decisions cannot be appealed. I am somewhat embarrassed to have to discuss this ruling. I am quite prepared to review it in the light of the arguments hon. members have just presented. I submit that we could at least begin the debate on the first few motions and I could check again. But, once more, I would not like us to debate the Chair's decision, which cannot be appealed in this kind of case, let us not forget. This is what I suggest: let us begin right away and the Chair could review the decision in light of the facts that were just presented.
Therefore I submit Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-109 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 21
to 36 at page 8.
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-109 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-109 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 27
at page 14 and substituting the following:
"section 184 or 193 may, on the".
She said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment removes the government's proposal to create an indictable offence

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
with a penalty of up to five years in prison for anyone who maliciously or for gain intercepts a radio based telecommunication or telephone conversation.
On this issue I would like to point out that we concur with the privacy commissioner who said at the legislative committee: "I favour a technical answer if one can be found". I will elaborate on "if one can be found" in a moment. He went on to say: "If limitations on the manufacture and distribution of scanning equipment were the answer I would find favour with that too".
Like the privacy commissioner, I have not been convinced by those who said that a technical approach would not work. We have to try it first and it has not been tried. Should we not try the banner scanning approach before moving on to jailing people for the interception of radio based telephone or cellular calls? I think that all of us in the House know how overcrowded the cells are in this country and how costly it is to maintain people in prison. This in a sense is a white collar kind of crime that could lead to a very serious infringement that could impact on the stock market. It could impact on the personal lives of people.
All that being said, where there is the potential for constraining this kind of action rather than moving immediately into the Criminal Code and into the criminal system, I think one has to look at other avenues and at the civil remedies already in the Radio Act.
I believe we should think of this as a balanced approach. It makes sense before one moves hastily into the Criminal Code, heavy sanctions, heavy fines and the long term that we have to get to that point perhaps down the road. However, it should only be as a last resort, not as the first resort, as this government moves for the first time to take a look at what is happening with the potential for scanning conversations on private cellular telephones.
I would like to point out that the cellular telephone is given a certain band width. That band width is allocated by the Department of Communications. The companies that manufacture and sell cellular telephones are using a precious public airwave. They have a certain obligation and responsibility if they are going to sell this piece of equipment without the proper kind of protection. We know that one can encrypt these phones. We also know
that with the speedy changes taking place in technology today we are digitizing phone calls and with the digitalization there is a much easier way of encoding or encrypting, whichever word you care to use, the message and the voice that are going across that air space.
There are hubs. There are distribution and radio centres on the wires across this land that transmit one's voice. One can encrypt it for the use, let us say, of the ministers, deputy ministers, army or police of this land. Then why does one not consider it equally important to stop the snooping and the eavesdropping which can be very damaging? One has just to hark back to Madam Wilhelmy and the impact on Mr. Bourassa, his credibility, and the whole argument around the constitutional accord.
I am saying there is the need for the government to find the kind of technological answers because the technology is there today. It must therefore take responsibility when it issues licences for cellular telephones to ensure that there is encrypting or protection on those lines in accordance with what the FCC is doing. The FCC has rules requiring that scanner receivers be incapable of tuning, or readily being altered to tune, within the bands allocated to the domestic public cellular radio telecommunications services.
The United States has rules and regulations and laws in this regard that will prevent and prohibit frequency converters being used in conjunction with scanners that receive or can easily be modified to receive cellular transmissions and require that scanners be incapable of converting digital cellular transmissions to voice audio. It therefore seems to me that Canada, which is in the forefront and on the leading edge of the technology and technological research certainly in the field of telecommunications, we can insist on this as a first step before we put people behind bars and we give them with incredibly high fines.
As I said, we are not encouraging the interception of cellular calls. We have a great deal of difficulty with creating an offence that could see these jails stuffed. Right now we have not moved to this control. Although the Department of Communications' functionaries tended to use an argument that there are 900,000 scanners out there, we know how ill-founded and peculiarly conceived those figures were.
April 26, 1993

In fact, when the department officials appeared before us we discovered that the figures they used included technology on the microwave, the oven in the home and the electronic door. They are talking about umpteen other things. It is not necessarily the scanners that you can go to Radio Shack to buy. However, one cannot, unless one deliberately manipulates it, have access to the band width which has the cellular telephone on it.
While we support the ban on scanners we want it to be a real act. We want this to have the kind of teeth that the minister said it would have to control snooping and eavesdropping.
I know at the heart of this matter is the whole question of the delicate balancing act between the right of individuals to privacy versus the legitimate needs of government or business to gather information. That is all very well and good. However, when I use a telephone, the fact that this is a radio phone has not been taken into consideration. This has been sold to the population as a telephone. Telephones over the twin copper wires that we are used to around this country have always protected my right to privacy and my conversation. The fact is that when I buy a cellular telephone it is not a normal telephone. I love this signal that they use to indicate a telephone, but it is really a radio. People are using the broadcasting airwaves.
There must be a way in which cellular telephone vendors make sure that one signs a document of consent so that one is made aware of the fact that one is buying a radio and not a telephone. One must be aware of the fact that one can buy encryption. Conversely, we may insist through the Department of Communications that they protect that telephone part of the spectrum. It is not then an acceptable first step to throw people into prison and to charge them under the Criminal Code when already they can be charged under the civil code through the Radiocommunication Act.
The other part of the amendment that I am bringing forward is a consequential amendment to the first one with respect to removing the Criminal Code. The third amendment that one sees in here relates to the fact that no person shall use any electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to radio-based telephone commu-
Govemment Orders
nications that could be readily altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies.
If we truly believe that we want to stop this kind of eavesdropping, that it can be damaging to families, to business, to industry and the stock exchange and that in every kind of way it can be mischievous if not dangerous, then I think one has to do the other things first. We do not have to move immediately into the Criminal Code. Therefore, I had recommended the other steps prior to moving in this direction.
I hope the government will listen, follow through and agree to this series of amendments and try technical solutions first. That is the reason why we have submitted the nature of the amendments that we propose to you. It is so that the use of those scanners is made inappropriate. It is not the Canadian way. We will use all mechanisms and all manners and all methods prior to going the Criminal Code route. Until we have given people the opportunity to know that they are infringing in a malicious and dangerous way, then it is not fair to apply a criminal sanction to this extent. I think we have other obligations first as legislators.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the amendments to Bill C-109 proposed by my colleague. I support them precisely for the same reasons she just gave.
We might call this bill the "Diane Wilhelmy Bill" or the "Bud Smith Bill", because there are now almost a million users of cellular phones in Canada and, up until now, that is before the two incidents involving Bud Smith, former solicitor general of British Columbia, and Diane Wilhelmy, a constitutional affairs assistant to Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, we never had any problems with cellular phone communication. Never, Mr. Speaker. Do not forget that more than one million people are using cellular phones.
In my opinion, using the Criminal Code to jail people or fine them $25,000 for listening-sorry, not simply listening-you can listen to a private conversation, but you cannot say what you heard. That is the strange part about this bill that I call the "Diane Wilhelmy Bill". If you disclose the content of a conversation you inter-

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
cepted maliciously or for gain, you are guilty of an offence.
I consider this bill worthy of George Orwell's 1984, except it is late, since we are in 1993. Nine years later, George Orwell is among us. It is shameful that we should go against a precedent in the sense that protection is already provided by the Broadcasting Act. Here we are dealing with radio-based telephone communication not hard wire telephone communication. I am sure that none of the ministers opposite sincerely believe that their conversations on cellular phones are private and cannot be heard. They know very well that anyone could be listening.
This bill does not prevent anyone from listening to cellular phone communications but it prevents you from saying what you heard. That is strange.
Moreover, sanctions provided by the Criminal Code are so severe that, first, they would be very hard to apply and, second, they would allow prosecution of a person who, as a result of poor judgment, relates to his brother-in-law, his mother or a friend the content of a conversation he heard by mistake on a cellular. Do we really want that kind of Canada?
Had I heard hundreds of complaints in committee from Canadians saying: "Listen, here are the problems I have had. They have used my credit card number. They have plotted illegal or immoral activities," but there was no evidence to that effect, except for a former minister in British Columbia who made a date with his mistress. This was published in the papers and he had to deal with his wife and face his constituency. It was very embarrassing for him.
Here is what I think about what Diane Wilhelmy disclosed concerning the Charlottetown accord negotiations on constitutional issues.
I am glad to know what Ms. Wilhelmy said. I do not feel any of it was a state secret. I do not see anything wrong with the Montreal radio station CJMS or CJRP in Quebec broadcasting the information disclosed by Ms. Wilhelmy. I do not believe such action should be punished by sending a CJRP reporter to jail for a year or making him pay a $25,000 fine. That is ridiculous. It is not right.
We must ask ourselves this: Do we want to limit the interception of calls made on cellular phones? The New Democratic Party, my party, and I say yes. We believe that people should be entitled to privileged, private conversations. But is there no better way of ensuring this than by sending people to jail for a year or setting $25,000 fines? I think there is. A better alternative would be to do what the Americans have been doing for quite a while in the United States. They have simply banned the manufacture and especially the sale in the U.S. of modified devices capable of intercepting cellular phone conversations.
I must tell you that in order to pick up a cellular phone conversation, most scanners or other devices to intercept such transmissions must be tuned extremely carefully if you want to hear anything. I can tell you that even with those devices it is not easy.
There is another way. Cellphone companies are offering their customers a way to code all their conversations for $15 or $20 a month. Members of the B.C. legislature would no longer have a problem making a date with their girlfriend. Those working on the constitutional issue in Quebec would no longer risk being overheard by CJMS, CKVL or CJRP. They could speak freely. There are ways to do it.
Finally there is another method which most companies are using themselves. They would encode conversations themselves and then sell the idea that your conversation is safe from interception by other users. This is coming soon. Conversations will be coded. Why would we pass a bill to fix a problem that does not really exist? I find that disturbing when we complain that this government is always getting in the way, is too big and is introducing a bill which, for one thing, is unnecessary and second, penalizes Canadians for something that is not worth it.
In conclusion, I support my colleague's amendments and hope that the government will reconsider this bill because it is ridiculous and dangerous.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add some comments concerning this motion by the member for Mount Royal.
April 26, 1993

There is a definite contradiction here. I frankly do not like what we are doing in using the law to market a particular product. That is essentially what is happening.
As has been said by the member for Mount Royal and the member for Chambly, this is not a phone. It is a radio. Until now the airwaves have been open. They have been open for anyone to use, and we have used them for radio and television purposes.
A cellular phone is a radio, and I think that has been stated and agreed to by the Minister of Communications. We are also saying in this House, in the ruling that has been just handed down by Your Honour, that we should not really restrict the importation of scanners. What we are really doing with this bill is allowing scanners that can pick up cellular phone conversations. That activity is all right. It is not all right in the United States but it is all right in Canada.
In Motion No. 1 we are talking about the amendments to section 184.5(1) of the Criminal Code. It says:
Every person who intercepts, by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, maliciously or for gain, a radio-based telephone communication, if the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it is in Canada, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
In Canada a lot of people are using cellular phones. Telecommunications companies want to sell cellular phones. It seems that the idea is to make cellular phones as attractive as we possibly can. How are we going to do this? We cannot say to people that their conversations on cellular phones are going to be private because we are allowing scanners to pick up the conversations. We are not telling people that anything they say on these cellular phones is not going to be used against them, is not going to be relayed to somebody else.
What we are then going to say, to step in and protect the large communication companies and the market for cellular phones, is that if people do relay the information they hear on a cellular phone through a scanner which is perfectly legal then they are going to be guilty of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code, not just a summary offence but an indictable offence for which
Government Orders
they may spend five years in incarceration. That is incredibly severe.
Why have we done that? We have done that to try to deter people from listening in on cellular phone conversations. The fact is that people are listening on scanners all the time and it will be exceedingly difficult to prove this offence. It will be exceedingly difficult to say who told whom what. It will be exceedingly difficult even to say who listened in on the conversation. We are taking airwaves that have until now been open to the public and scanners which are perfectly legal and saying that people can use them and listen in but they cannot say what they have heard. Why?
There are two reasons. The first is to try to allow cellular phones a larger share of the marketplace. The second is to tiy to ease the fears of people by assuring them their conversations are going to be private. They are not going to be private. There is nothing here that indicates these conversations are going to be private. We are going to punish people if we can prove they have listened into a conversation and relayed the contents of that conversation to somebody else.
What we are doing is very misleading. We are trying to ease the fears of people. We are trying to make them believe that everything is going to be all right if they speak on a cellular phone. We are not saying the government has to outlaw cellular phones, but I think it is vital that we be straightforward with people. It is vital they know that if they use a cellular phone what they say is subject to interception.
There is nothing horrendous about that. People are still going to use cellular phones. They are a convenience. We have them in our cars and in our homes. The amount of usage will increase. That is a given. They are not going to disappear. They are too convenient in this modem age.
There is nothing wrong in qualifying what we say over the cellular phone. There is nothing wrong with that. If there is something vital that we want to say, something of tremendous importance that we do not want anyone else to know, then we should stop our car and go somewhere else and pick up another phone, one that is not a radio, and use it to relay that information. That is not a lot to ask. It may be somewhat of an inconvenience but the fact

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
of the matter is that there is a security issue, and thereby we would not be using the law to promote cellular phones.
The use of the law is all wrong here. It is wrong. We are using it as a marketing ploy. That is not fair to Canadians. That is not fair to those who are accused. It is not fair to make that precedent. If we want to say we are going to do what we can to safeguard phones then, as the member for Mount Royal has said, we should ban scanners, at least a certain scanner. We should be aware of the technology.
There is nothing here which forces the government, the Department of Communications, to monitor the technology of the cellular phone and the scanners so that we are doing what we can to make sure we have the best technological input possible to make the cellular phone as high a grade of technology as possible so it cannot be intercepted and to make the scanners that would be able to intercept this higher technology illegal.
There must be some protection for the people we are going to accuse and perhaps incarcerate for listening in and relaying certain information. It is wrong to use the law for that purpose, I am totally opposed to this. It is wrong for the government to have the cellular phone provisions in this bill. They should be in a separate bill. This is totally unacceptable.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to stand down for the moment. I see someone else would like to make some comments.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to follow my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys on report stage of this bill.
As I was sitting here waiting for my opportunity to speak I thought of a commercial that most of us have probably seen on television. It is a commercial with regard to how Cadbury gets the caramel into the Cara-milk bar. It is a big thing about technology. There are aliens from outer space who are trying to figure out the technology that gets the caramel into the Caramilk bar.
It appears to me that the same sort of logic has gone into this bill. Instead of figuring out the simple way the technology works the Department of Communications, led by its minister, has gone the difficult route. The difficult route is this attempt to use a cannon against a mouse. It is a perversion of the Criminal Code. It is not something that we on this side of the House can tolerate.
I doubt if there is anyone, except possibly a resident alien from Mars, who is not aware of the ability almost anybody has to intercept communications on cellular phones. They are not telephones in the real sense of the word. They are radios and the radio waves are being intercepted.
Most of us in the House have cellular phones in our cars. They are a great convenience. They are a convenience because we can pick up our cellular phones, call ahead to the next meeting and say we are going to be five minutes or ten minutes late. We can call our offices to find something out. We might call a constituent to get some information. Surely most rational human beings, with the possible exception of some members of the Royal Family, know that cellular phones are not the place for communications that we would not want to read about on the front pages of local newspapers. That should be a given.
I have had conversations with friends and colleagues. One friend said to me after one such conversation on a cellular phone: "Look, will you phone me when you get home so I can find out what we were talking about?" We are all aware of the very simple way in which these conversations can be intercepted.
My colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys is absolutely right when he says: "If you are going to ban something ban the scanners or at least the specific kind of scanner that does the most damage in this particular area". We are concerned in this party about cellular privacy, but we believe that the wrong instrument has been chosen by the government in this bill.
To use the full force of the Criminal Code as a first resort is really overkill. We believe the Criminal Code should be the last resort as a method of maintaining cellular privacy. The privacy commissioner himself said
April 26, 1993

at the legislative committee he would have preferred that technical means be found to deal with cellular privacy. We could not agree more.
The general intent of our amendments to Bill C-109 is to remove the Criminal Code offences and the Radiocommunications Act offences because we believe they are the wrong instruments for dealing with cellular privacy at this time. However we are doing something very concrete to improve cellular privacy and doing so by using strong technical means, that is the banning of scanners. We believe this is supported by much of the industry. Certainly it is also supported by no one less than the privacy commissioner himself.
If we use the full force of the Criminal Code we get into a whole series of problems which we on this side of the House believe to be untenable. It is not necessary to do it at this time. Among other things-and there are times that this happens totally by accident-I have had the experience on my own cellular phone of having crossed wires and picking up somebody else's conversation through my phone. I have had the situation with the new kind of phone that I have in my car right now that suddenly something will come blaring through the speaker on that telephone when I have not even pushed a button.
If someone picks up some information with absolutely no intent and nothing other than having the equipment in the car, what exactly are the ramifications for that person if the person should use the information in some way, shape or form? The whole sense and sensibility of using Criminal Code amendments in this particular area are nonsensical. It is just unacceptable.
The privacy commissioner was not convinced by those who said that a technical approach would not work. He thinks, and we agree, that we should try it first. That is why we are so very keen on the banning of scanners. Why should we not try the banning of scanners approach before moving on to jailing people for the interception of radio-based telephone or cellular calls? We think that this is a more balanced approach and that it makes sense before this hasty move into the Criminal Code. It may be that at some point further down the road, if we discover that the banning of scanners is insufficient, we might then have resort to the Criminal Code. It would be much simpler and much better, both as an example to set for the people of Canada and a way to enforce privacy, to do
Government Orders
it by technical means rather than the use of criminal sanctions.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, George Orwell is alive and well. He is right here somewhere in the government lobby across the way directing the debate on this bill. Perhaps he is even in the House right now. What on earth is going on with the government across the way? Why would we want to have a bill that does this?
Picture this situation. The scanner is not illegal. You can sit there in front of your scanner in your underwear drinking beer, as the minister of defence would put it. We know the special affection she has for people who drink beer in their underwear. You could listen to conversations of people. If you dare say "Wilma, come and listen to this", you have committed a crime. It is a criminal offence to have said: "Wilma, come and listen to this". Is that just a trifle Orwellian or what? You do not even have to tell the next person the content of the phone call. Revealing merely the fact that such a conversation exists to your wife is a criminal act.
Where do those people across the way come from? What kind of a mindset would lead anyone to adopt legislation like that? The hon. member for Mount Royal proposed something reasonable: remove that clause from the bill. It does not make sense. It is Orwellian.
The minister across the way knows better. Heaven forbid that he would not. Otherwise no wonder our transportation industry is in a mess, if he does not know any better than that. Why can we not instead outlaw scanners if we do not want people to have them? They can have scanners. They can listen to them but to tell someone else the content or that they did listen to the conversation is illegal. To make it worse, not only is it illegal but it is a criminal offence.
Could we imagine five years later going to the Solicitor General of Canada, begging on our knees and saying: "I want a pardon. I want a Solicitor General's pardon because I have a criminal record. I told my wife that someone was speaking on the cellular phone".
How is that? Why do we want to make people criminals? Why are we doing this? It is because someone heard Mrs. Wilhelmy on her phone. There is no other reason. We would not be talking about this bill otherwise. If that is our concern, why do we need a Criminal Code amendment? We do not, and government mem-

Government Orders
bers know it. The privacy commissioner has suggested an alternative way. People across the way will not listen to common sense.


Sheila Finestone: That is the justice department. It does not know anything about communications.


Don Boudria: I do not know. There is a problem. If the justice department and others will not listen to common sense, I say to members of the House: Those who were elected here were not elected by the officials of the justice department. They were sent here by their electors to do what is right. No wonder the member for Niagara Falls is uncomfortable with this. He should be.
We look forward to having a recorded division on this particular vote. We want to know who is in favour of an Orwellian measure like that. We want to know if the Minister of Transport is going to spend his time putting people in jail for having told their friends that they listened to someone else's call on a cellular phone. If this government has nothing better to do than to propose measures like that, it is high time it stepped aside and let someone else provide some leadership for this country.
That section of the bill is offensive. There are other measures in the bill that are good. My colleague for Mount Royal has spoken eloquently in the past and today. But that particular provision is wrong.
I say to the minister and to all his colleagues: Get on the cellular phone and phone the Minister of Communications even at the risk of someone else listening, even at the risk of some criminal telling his wife that he heard you speak. Tell the Minister of Communications to remove that offensive provision and to listen instead to the constructive advice provided by Liberal members, in particular the hon. member for Mount Royal who has suggested a better way of doing it. Listen to the privacy commissioner who has suggested a better way of doing it.
Why is it that only the Conservatives think they have the right way of doing this and everyone else is wrong? It is a little bit of the mentality that everyone else is crazy except me that they have across the way. This time they are very wrong, hopelessly wrong. This is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly and it is very offensive to all of us. It is certainly a good case of overkill, as the member for Chambly puts it, but it does more than that.
I believe that by adopting measures like this we are cheapening the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a serious document. I am not one of those MPs who is learned in the law, but I have respect for that document. It identifies those beliefs that are important and those things that are to be forbidden. It is an important document. By putting nonsense like this in the Criminal Code we are cheapening the whole thing. We are making the whole Criminal Code look absurd.
Imagine being the police and enforcing this stupidity. Imagine being the police and arresting someone for doing that. At the same time that contraband is coming into this country, that narcotics are being sold, that people are being murdered we are going to interrupt that important program, set it all aside to arrest and charge someone with the criminal act of having told another person that he had previously listened to a phone call.
No, my colleagues and I want no part of it, no part of it whatsoever. I say to the minister across the way that surely he should be more reasonable. I say to the parliamentary secretary: Come on, get serious. Surely we have better things to do in this Parliament than to make criminals out of ordinary Canadians for nothing.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there are three motions before the House. Motion No. 3 is consequential on the first two. The first two are removing the offence of intercepting and disclosing radio-based telephone communications. Members of the opposition take exception to that. They use the very standard opposition technique of always giving a solution which is impractical, unworkable or impossible.
We have heard just about every opposition member indicate the way to go is to ban scanners, that we should look at the United States and that is the way to go. There are subsequent amendments proposed by the hon. member for Mount Royal that go to what they believe is the problem, the use of the scanners.
First of all I consider that proposal to be unworkable and I believe the example used to be incorrect. The United States has not banned scanners. The United States is proposing to ban the importation and manufacture of scanners. That is not even in effect right now and
April 26, 1993

it would have the effect of grandfathering all the existing scanners. At one point it was suggested the solution to this problem was the American solution. In my opinion, that does not get at the problem at all.
The member for Mount Royal also mentioned the problem as to how many scanners there are. You bet there is a problem as to how many scanners there are in Canada because it is very difficult to define what is a scanner and what is not. It is a fact for instance that cellular or cordless telephone conversations have been picked up on AM radios. Again it is very difficult to define the problem exactly. I have no problem and I am sure other members on this side have no problem with exploring what can be done in that particular area.
However, just to say it is the use of scanners that we are going to go after, we all know scanners have legitimate uses in some cases. Many legitimate businesses operate with the use of scanners, anything from ambulance services to delivery services. I do not think it is enough to say that if certain bands are used it will be outside the law. I see the definition proposed by the opposition as including those scanners that can be readily adapted or used. Just about any scanner can be adapted to pick up cellular telephone conversations.
The whole idea to take the American route and ban the scanners is not an option, as the Americans are finding out. They are finding difficulties with this and I do not think it is one that commends itself to this House.
What we have done is to go after the act we find objectionable. That act is the disclosing and the intercepting of radio-based telecommunications. The wording that applies to the first motion is that everyone who maliciously or for gain intercepts a radio-based communication, and the second one is those who wilfully use and disclose that communication. Members of the opposition find that infuriating and offensive.
There are many Canadians, including members on this side of the House, who find the interception of their telephone conversations to be objectionable. The hon. member for Chambly in talking about conversations recorded during the constitutional negotiations said he was very pleased to know about those conversations. Well we obviously have a difference of opinion. Cana-
Govemment Orders
dians have a reasonable expectation that what they say during a telephone conversation, even on a cellular telephone, should be kept private. As the hon. member for Mount Royal says, these conversations do impact on the lives of people. When they are disclosed or when individuals are intercepting them maliciously or for gain it is impacting on the lives of individuals. I for one happen to think that is wrong. That is why we have gone directly after what it is we want.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and other opposition members may portray these people as innocent, happy-go-lucky individuals who just happen to be picking up some conversations. I do not view them in that way at all. The British Columbia example, the example during the constitutional negotiations and the example of the conversations of the Royal Family, innocent individuals did not just happen to come across those conversations. These individuals are spending time, money and effort in trying to destroy other individuals. That is the type of person we are talking about and this is what these amendments to the Criminal Code are addressing.
At one point in the debate it was said that one must realize this if one of these things is being used. How about the individual who is using a land-based telephone and gets a call from somebody who is using a cellular telephone? With the technology it is very difficult and maybe impossible to tell when it is one of those conversations. What reasonable expectation does that individual have? Obviously what we are trying to do is to fill in the gaps. We are trying to make it complete so that if a land-based telephone is used there is the same expectation of privacy whether the user is speaking to someone on a cellular telephone or not. There is that.
I suggest to members of the opposition that inasmuch as there is no workable alternative at the present time to what the government is doing and inasmuch as we are going after them, I like the wording "those individuals who maliciously or for gain intercept". These are not just beautiful individuals, good upstanding Canadians; these are not the kind of people who should be protected under the present law.

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
As I say, my sympathies are with those individuals who do have their lives impacted and those individuals who do have their conversations intercepted. It seems to me that the sympathies and the support of the House should be with those individuals and not the individuals who for profit or for gain try to intercept those private communications.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
If the House is agreeable, before proceeding to consideration of Motions Nos. 4 and 7,1 would like to get back to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mount Royal and by the hon. members for Chambly and Cape Breton-The Sydneys, regarding the fact that the Chair did not allow Motions Nos. 5 and 6.
I want to thank the members for explaining their position. However, after due consideration the Chair does not feel it is necessary to reverse its ruling for the following reasons. Motion No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal, concerns use. As you
know, clause 24 prohibits the use of a telephone communication, and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mount Royal would extend this prohibition to the use of the device to intercept a telephone communication, which reflects the intent of the legislation before the House. However Motion No. 5, also standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal, concerns the manufacture, importing, distribution, lease and sale of an electromagnetic device.
This is a concept that does not appear in the bill before us today, since the bill concerns the use of a telephone communication and not manufacturing, importing, distributing or leasing. This may be an interesting concept, and the Chair would not wish to judge the content of the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal, although technically, according to parliamentary procedure, this amendment goes beyond the scope of Bill C-109.
That is why I suggest the hon. member seek other remedies under the Standing Orders if she wishes to pursue Motion No. 5. However, procedurally speaking, the Chair must abide by the principle approved on second reading of this bill, in other words, use of a telephone communication.
We shall now proceed to consideration of Motions No. 4 and 7, which are grouped for the purpose of debate.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-109 be amended in Clause 24 by adding immediately
after line 31 at page 23 the following:
"(3) Except as prescribed, no person shall use any electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device capable of
(a)	receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to radiobased telephone communication; or
(b)	readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-109 be amended in Clause 26 by striking out lines 18
to 29 at page 24.
She said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your analysis and your explanation of the reasons that prevented the Chair from allowing the amendment as proposed. I also appreciate the Chair's implied conclusion that I will probably have to introduce a private member's bill if I really want
April 26, 1993

to bring about some satisfactory changes. Thank you, and, although I do so with regret, I accept your ruling.

This second group of amendments allows the use of scanners as opposed to my recommendations on their manufacture, sale or importation which have been, in a sense, disallowed. I find it ironic and illusory that we can discuss the use of scanners in this bill when we cannot discuss where they come from or prevent their use. As I think we all know, scanners are not manufactured in Canada. They are imported and therefore we cannot control access to them. We just increase the potential for their misuse by allowing a place for them in this country.
It is important for us to know that the scanners we are speaking about are not only those capable of receiving cellular frequencies. I am not saying we should ban all scanners. We are not talking about every last scanner or every hobbyist's scanner, just those within the cellular band.
My hon. colleague from Niagara Falls said the solutions I presented were impractical, impossible and unusual. Perhaps they are unusual for this government, this member and his ministry because they have not had the opportunity to stop and realize that this bill is full of illusions with no practical suggestions.


Mr. Lewis:: I agree with him.


Sheila Finestone: I cannot imagine why. That would be amazing.
We are not talking about the hobbyist scanners. I am somewhat amused when I think about the remarks made by the member for Niagara Falls. The figures that were bandied about were one million cellular telephones, which are really cellular radios. I know the government talked about 900,000 scanners but within those 900,000 scanners are the microwaves.
I would like to point out that to my knowledge the receiver capable of reception in the cellular band is not the microwave. The moment we find the mechanism to transform the microwave to receive cellular telephone calls I will agree with the figure of 900,000 scanners. Until such time we know the figures are totally false and
Government Orders
inaccurate. They include all kinds of silly nonsense we are not referring to when it comes to the kind of serious matters we are referring to in this bill.
The government would prefer to go with the concept of malicious or for gain and forget that we are talking about those people who are going to talk about having intercepted a phone call and will say: "I heard my friend talking about her problem yesterday". It may have to do with a divorce settlement, her work or a purchase on the stock exchange. She may work for a company involved in some kind of program or project that is within the realm of secrecy. She may be interested in this whole matter and talk about it on her telephone, except it is not a telephone, it is a radio phone.
As my colleague from Cape Breton pointed out, not everyone stops to think and gets out of the car to use a pay telephone where there is safety and security and no interception. Here we have interceptions.
We are not talking about all the scanners capable of picking up calls in the cellular frequency and it does not ban every last scanner. When we refer to the use of scanners it is not intended to impede hobbyists who use them. I think my colleague talked about his dad who loves to listen to the police calls and follow what is going on in terms of safety in the streets. He has a particular interest as a retired policeman. That is perfectly legal. We can have those scanners as I understand it but we are talking about an entirely different matter.
In clause 4 I strongly recommend that we allow for the use of scanners. We talk about the disallowance of the use of scanners. Except as prescribed, no person shall use any electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device or receive transmissions in the frequencies allocated to radio-based telephone communications. Under this section I am trying to amend, scanners shall not be altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies. It bans those scanners capable of receiving radio-based cellular telephone communications.
Mr. Speaker, you disallowed and explained the disallowance of Motion No. 5 and I accept your ruling. You have disallowed my Motion No. 6 on the manufacture, import, distribution, lease or offer for sale of any electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device and you will not allow that to be considered an offence.

Government Orders
You accepted the amendment that strikes out lines 18 to 29 because clause 26 generally creates the right of civil action against those contravening section 9(1.1) of the act. I suggest that we support this section because our amendment, Motion No. 6, which I read to you, Mr. Speaker, stops the summary conviction penalty from being applied to those who intercept cellular calls. It is not possible for the proceedings of such an action to be used as part of a civil action, therefore this subsection should be removed.
I think the whole area of criminality is like using a sledge-hammer unnecessarily. We are trying to do something in the technical field because the criminal field should be considered a last resort in answering the whole question of cellular privacy which is important as this becomes more and more the tool of tomorrow.
.(1315)
The question of privacy goes beyond the scope of what we are discussing in this bill and is increasingly becoming a serious issue in our society. There is the manipulation of information from 1-900 and 1-800 phone calls. Advertisers are looking for new mediums and because advertising is so expensive they want target markets. They are moving to get more and more information.
The privacy commissioner said that people's names are manipulated three to four times or more every day. The issue we are dealing with when we talk about privacy should be done at a substantive level, not at this illusory level. This does not end the interference that is creating a serious problem in our society. I think it is very important to examine the whole aspect.
In regard to this particular bill I share the view that was expressed by my colleague from Cape Breton. This particular cellular privacy issue has been inserted into a bill that looks at the very serious responsibilities of our police forces. They are charged with the security of this country and must have certain rights under certain terms and prescriptions such as the right to have a hidden camera or body pack and to overhear and pick up conversations. All that is very important. It is a shame that this bill, which we support in the sense of the amendments to the Criminal Code, has this ridiculous, poorly conceived, illusory approach. It is quite typical of how this Conservative government answers serious issues by making pictures and illusions. It does not take a practical approach and does not answer the question.
I hope the government will see its way clear to adopting the approach I have taken which my colleagues support. The opposition and the New Democratic Party see it as a favourable move in the direction of responding to privacy.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, once again I have the honour of rising to support Motion No. 4 and others which unfortunately were not allowed by the Chair. We are hearing good common sense motions from the opposition and I think we should give them the attention they deserve.
The question of scanners is very important because Bill C-109 is putting the cart before the horse. I think we want to emphasize that those particular scanners which can capture cellular telephone conversations should be gotten rid of and made illegal but that is not what we are doing.
The obvious thing about this piece of legislation is that when we talk about radio phone privacy it is actually a contradiction of terms. The radio aspect of a phone conversation uses the radio waves on the public airways. Because radio phones or cellular phones transmit over the public airways, it is practically impossible to enforce this type of legislation. That is the first problem we have with this legislation.
It is incumbent upon the government to show a serious, urgent problem when one considers how fast this legislation has been pushed through the House to this stage. Where is the urgent, serious problem that we are faced with?
I said somewhat facetiously that we could call this the Diane Wilhelmy bill or the Bud Smith bill in reference to the Solicitor General from British Columbia, I believe, who got caught making a date on a cellular phone with someone who was certainly not his wife.
He paid a political price for that. The journalists had heard it and had printed pretty much what he had said. I am sure that everyone is aware of the Diane Wilhelmy case in Quebec. She was a woman who worked in the constitutional affairs office of Mr. Bourassa's office in Quebec. She simply said how unhappy she was.
April 26, 1993

She said that the premier had caved in. I do not think he caved in on the constitutional talks. She gave some information that I am sure the premier's office would have liked kept out of the realm of the public. It is just as here on the other side of the House when the Prime Minister of Canada wanted to keep out of public hands as long as possible the poll results during the whole Charlottetown constitutional debacle. It showed from the beginning that the Canadian public was not in favour of this Charlottetown sellout of our country.
Unfortunately, now the government is trying to protect what it considers its interests are and let the public be damned. I do not think any minister or member of Parliament in this House believes for one moment that a conversation on a cellular phone right now cannot be overheard by anybody.
We know that. All one has to do is be aware of that. If one says in private what one says in public then there is no problem. If one has two different discourses or lifestyles or stories, then one is going to be in serious trouble.
I think essentially we are looking for a piece of legislation, as far as my party is concerned, which is balanced. We can support, obviously, the aspect of Bill C-109 that deals with giving police the powers they need in order to combat crime. There is no problem with that. It is a very important part of the bill.
We also support that part of the bill that gives citizens the right to sue for damages in a civil court, of course, whenever their conversations have been intercepted and treated with malice. Perhaps they lost money or the people have earned money by intercepting these conversations. That is fine. That is not in the Criminal Code. It is in the civil code. It would be in the civil code and one could do so.
We can support that as a political party. What we cannot support are the problems that this bill would create. There are some serious problems.
First, the bill attacks what it considers an urgent situation which is not really there. There is a saying: "If something is not broken, do not fix it". There is not a hue and cry across the country coming from citizens saying: "We need this legislation".
Government Orders
I have yet to hear of anyone saying: "Our credit card was stolen" or "The stock tip I had was known by many other people because of my cellular phone transmission". We are not getting this at all.
When we asked the government to come up with some examples of where, apart from government members being embarrassed, the urgency was, we did not see it. There is no urgency, no proof and no problem.
What this does do in causing problems is the following. Let us take a look at where the government did not consider the consequences of the bill, but where it could have serious consequences.
Suppose a bank president wants to monitor some of bank employees' calls and they know they are being monitored to make sure the right information is being given.
Suppose a consumer organization wants to make sure that the counsellors in the office are giving out the right information to consumers who call with a problem.
The employees know that their phone calls are being monitored. This happens all the time in business. Phone calls are monitored to make sure that customers are being served well and that the employees know exactly what the company's policies are. What happens is that it would be a violation of the law under this piece of legislation if one listens in to that call and the person calling through a cellular phone does not know that he or she is being monitored. Only the employee knows it. I hope the parliamentary secretary is taking note of this point. This would be a violation because this party that represents small business to a certain degree and large business to a great degree has decided that it is going to have the equivalent of this blockbuster bill to treat a problem that does not exist and which is going to create a problem with business.
I ask my hon. colleague who is the parliamentary secretary, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he has ever listened in on a conversation between one of his employees and a consumer in order to see how well that employee understands the business and is transmitting what that consumer can expect from the business? Has he? I have. Other responsible businesses do. He would send me or him to jail or another business person to jail because we wanted to give good service to customers?

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
He had better go after Bell Canada, General Motors and Ford because they monitor the telephone service of their customer accounts.
Did he not know that? It is pretty late in the game right now when he has a Criminal Code violation to send these people to jail and fine them $25,000 because they want to make the service in their business competent and efficient. That is ridiculous.
Why do we have to cause people problems? Why do we have to have big government when just one easy solution is involved? That is simple. It goes back to what my colleague from Mount Royal says in her motion about restricting the use of these scanners. We do not have to ban scanners entirely. We can just make sure that the restricted use is on only those scanners that can monitor the particular radio band that picks up cellular telephone calls.
I hope and I expect the parliamentary secretary will respond to the point I raised as to what does business do if they want to listen to their employees to see how well they represent their companies. At the same time I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary looking once again at the question of those scanners that only pick up cellular telephone conversations and not all scanners as he said before.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the Speaker for his clarification of the earlier ruling of Motions Nos. 5 and 6. I can appreciate, as the member for Mount Royal has said, the position and the points brought forward by the Speaker. Most of all, however, I particularly appreciate the time and effort he took to bring forward the clarification.
Certainly I accept the ruling of the Speaker. I see no problem with that. I was just looking at it from a certain point of view. If we do not have scanners or if we feel that scanners are the problem, how do we not allow the scanners to become a factor? That was the point I am sure the member for Mount Royal was also making.
I also want to refer to the point made by the member for Niagara Falls. He said that the U.S. has not really banned scanners. It has prohibited the manufacture and importation of scanners. I think that is a fair clarification.
I think there is a distinction there. However, the importance of the distinction depends on the individual because of how people feel about this matter. It would be a subjective point as well.
This is the point I am concerned with. The point of view in the United States is that scanners per se are not banned but the manufacture and importation of scanners is going to be prohibited. I think it still provides quite a distinction between that country and Canada.
They are saying that inevitably in the United States there is going to be an improvement in the technology of cellular phones. Cellular phones are not going to be at the state that they are now. This technology is more or less in its infancy. Cellular phones are going to improve. One is eventually going to have to have a special frequency to intercept a cellular phone call.
One is not going to be able to pick it up in an ordinary scanner, a doctored radio or a scanner that picks up police calls or ambulance calls. One is not just going to be able to make a small adjustment there to pick up the cellular phone conversations.
One will have to buy a sophisticated piece of equipment to really intercept the cellular phone calls of the future. The Americans are looking at that. They say they may have a problem right now. However, the fact of the matter, marketing being what it is, is that the cellular phone manufacturing companies are going to want to say: "We are striving to make our product safer. We are striving to give you more security. When we give you this additional security we are going to give it to you in the form of the scanners not being available to intercept your calls".
I think that is significant because there is a carrot forcing the technology companies in the United States to advance, not to mention a stick beating them from behind in the form of reduced sales.
Here we do not have that. We do not have that stick and carrot at all. We are saying that scanners are going to remain as they are or they can be approved. It does not matter.


An hon. member:: There will always be a way.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: There may always be a way but the fact of the matter is that what we are leaving in Canada is the wherewithal for companies to make a better scanner. The better scanners will be manufactured and imported, whereas in the United States with the thrust they are taking they will not be able to put that better scanner on the market or to import that better scanner. Here we will always have that incentive to bring it in. The only

April 26, 1993

restriction is that if one passes along the information then it is against the law.
There are those who say: "Heck, now you can intercept phone calls and tap phone lines". There is a considerable difference between having a scanner that happens to pick up a cellular phone conversation and someone making the concerted and detailed effort of tapping a phone line. Certainly it can be done by police forces quite easily but it is not done by the ordinary citizen. The ordinary citizen would not do that sort of thing. It is perhaps out of fear of being electrocuted if for no other reason, but they would not do it. There is a major difference.
Perhaps the analogy about a cellular phone conversation being picked up by a scanner would be perhaps a party line where someone is called, one is speaking on the phone and someone else on the party line picks up the phone and listens in on your conversation.
I think we all know of information that has been picked up perhaps not correctly and perhaps it was immoral to listen in to people's conversations, but certainly none of these people have been brought before the law. None of these people have been charged under the Criminal Code for listening in on phone conversations. When people had party lines they knew they had to be careful what they were saying. They could not say just anything at all if they wanted their conversations to remain between the person speaking and the intended recipient of the phone call. However a party line was different in one significant way. If a person did not want to speak on the party line he or she could not go to another room and use another phone. He or she might have to go to another county and use another phone. If someone has a cellular phone in a car or home and wants to say something and have security, he or she can go into the other room and use the other phone.
If we are talking about service to the public, it was more of a crying need in the time of the party line than it is now with the cellular phone. The security is now there but the government is not trying to increase that security as the United States government is. That does not necessarily make what is going on correct even with what
Government Orders
the United States is doing. I think it recognizes the shortcomings and is trying to compensate.
This government is either ignorant of the shortcomings or does not care about compensating. I think that is wrong. It is not doing the best it can for the people of Canada. I think in that regard there is a problem with the law. I hope this is challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada because I am very interested in the determination of the ruling of the Supreme Court. I do not want to give any hypothetical situations but so many come to mind it is hard to say where it would go. I am interested in the challenges of this particular legislation and these particular provisions.
I agree with the member for Mount Royal that it is unfortunate these provisions on the cellular phone are included in this bill because there are some very good things in this bill as far as the security of the public is concerned.
I would like to deal with them without having to deal with the marketing aids for these communications companies. These technological advancements make it more convenient for the public but there is a security problem. I think the public should be made aware of this. There is a real danger of telephone conversations being picked up and this is not being addressed. We are trying to use the law to market these products and I think that is wrong.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, again we on this side of the House concur with the general suggestion of the privacy commissioner that we need to try a technical solution. My hon. colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys agrees, the hon. member for Mount Royal agrees and I agree for the second time today that the Criminal Code is not the place to go. We must go to the amendments and use technology to deal with technology.
The problem of cellular interceptions can be dealt with by banning the kinds of scanners that can intercept these transmissions. We believe it is only sensible to at least attempt to deal with this by-law in this manner before introducing the Criminal Code and the full force of such amendments. It is important to note that this particular amendment deals only with scanners capable of picking up calls in the cellular frequencies and does not ban every scanner. This is particularly intended to not impede the use of scanners by hobbyists. Obviously we do

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
not want to interfere with those people who use scanners for a hobby and do not intercept various communications with any nefarious intent.
I really cannot believe that anyone who has access to the technology of cellular phones is not fully aware of just how easily interceptable they are. I go back to a particularly unhappy experience that the Nova Scotia Liberal Party had with technology when we were electing our provincial leader.


Philip Derek Lewis: He is going to make a heck of a leader of the opposition.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I say to the Solicitor General that we got a good leader out of it. He is going to make a very good premier come May 25 as you will all see.
I did not realize I would have an opportunity to do a free time political broadcast but I thank the Solicitor General for the opportunity.
We had what was known as "dial a Grit" in Nova Scotia. It did not work the first time but the second time they got the glitches out. Someone within the phone company bureaucracy made a phone call on a cellular phone and allegedly said what the totals were for the various candidates at that point in the election. A person intercepted that call, sold the tape to CBC and the next thing we knew it was on air. This created a certain amount of consternation in the ranks. It created a lot of consternation in a lot of ranks. But when those of us who were waiting to see if the day would ever come to an end heard that story our first response was to wonder how someone, and particularly someone who worked for the phone company could be so stupid and not realize this would happen, I go back to an adage that I learned in my convent school days: "God helps those who help themselves".


Philip Derek Lewis: There goes the phone vote.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The Solicitor General never had any training like that at all.
We cannot protect people who do not wish to be protected. We cannot help people who are going to do stupid things. That should be some sort of basic axiom. It certainly should be an axiom of the Solicitor General.
People are going to use cellular phones and we should hope they are intelligent enough not to have the kinds of conversations they would not want to read about in the public press, particularly if they happen to be public figures. We have all seen enough horrendous examples of this interception to be aware of it.
As I said in my previous comments to the other amendments, the cellular phone is a convenience, particularly for people like us in this House. It is a convenience in communicating with our office, with the people we are dealing with as we go through a series of functions in our constituencies or here in Ottawa. It is clearly not the technology to use to have an in-depth discussion about your own private thoughts, your own private political thoughts or anything else you would not want to be made public. That is only sensible.
Consequently, to talk about using far too severe methods to regulate the privacy of cellular phones is both on the face of it and in depth a ridiculous response. The response of this government and the response of this bill should be to deal first and foremost with the technology. If, in banning scanners as our amendment calls for, we discover down the road this has not been a sufficient deterrent, then the government may want to look at Criminal Code sanctions. It is far too early, far too soon in the development of this technology to call upon the resources of the Criminal Code to deal with this matter.
As the privacy commissioner said, it would obviate the necessity of going around with a lot of people. If they could not do something in the first place because the technical means did not exist for them to do it, we would not require the criminal aspect.
It is only sensible that if the scanners are banned they cannot be used and calls cannot be intercepted. That is much simpler, much better and everybody has a chance to maintain his or her privacy.
April 26, 1993


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few minutes on these particular amendments.
The over-all intent of a lot of the changes is very positive. The government is trying to put in a regulatory regime which will solve a lot of the problems that have been identified by users and people in the industry for quite a long period of time. However when the government starts talking about using the heavy hand of the law to solve every problem that comes along, people should be concerned.
To bring the Criminal Code into force to stop people from eavesdropping or stealing a person's private conversation is a problem. I am not saying it should be open to everybody and there should not be a law against it. But it bothers me that the amendments which were proposed by our party are probably not going to get the support of the members opposite.
The amendments quite clearly take the lead from the United States because the cellular radio technology is shared equally by Canada and the United States and indeed by most developed countries. In the United States they have recognized that this is a problem. They have recognized that most individuals who have cellular telephones do not think of them as radios. We have heard that time and time again in the debate on report stage today. That is exactly what it is. It is a radio. It is different from a hard-line phone where individuals can only listen in if they break the law and wire-tap or eavesdrop through electronic means.
Because of the advent of cellular technology, today almost everybody in business has a cellular telephone. Almost everybody who is a professional has a cellular telephone.
A few years ago everybody had a beeper. It is just about as inexpensive today to have a telephone as it is to have a beeper. People who used the old radio phones with the whips on the backs recognized that there was a problem. Most of them were used on construction sites and places like that and people realized that their transmissions could be picked up.
Because of the type of marketing that has been employed to sell cellular technology with its cheap price and availability, people think it is just like a hard-wired telephone. They are not as careful as they should be about their conversations.
Government Orders
Many instances of interceptions, some even dealing with the Royal Family have been reported. Some have involved ministers in British Columbia where private conversations were picked up on scanners. Once they were picked up they were related to the media and caused a great deal of embarrassment. It is almost as if the mind police are there. No matter what you say somewhere somebody may be listening.
There are a number of things we can do. Although it is probably not practicable in the short term, we should try to communicate to the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have cellular telephones in their cars, pockets, briefcases or at home that they are radios and their transmissions can be picked up. They should therefore be very careful.
It is not in the interest of those individuals who sell cellular technology to tell their potential customers to be careful. The reason people buy cellular technology is to make it easier to communicate. If they are told it is easier to communicate but everybody can hear them maybe it would not be as easy to sell the product.
The amendments put forward by my colleague for Mount Royal and seconded by my colleague for Cape Breton-The Sydneys simply say to just hold it now. Maybe we are using too big a stick at this point to solve the problem because we are dealing with stealing private conversations. We should put it in the context of theft. We are imposing on people's privacy in their private conversations. One of the things we proposed in the amendment is that instead of saying we are going to make it illegal and once it is illegal that will compel people not to do it, we will deal with the technology. What we are dealing with here are scanners, some of which are capable of picking up the band waves on which cellular phones are being used. If we want to get at the problem should we not first indicate clearly in law that the manufacture, importation, distribution and sale of those types of pieces of equipment are illegal, that one cannot do it?
It seems to me not to deal with that problem first will mean that we basically have a law on the books which is not enforceable. What are we going to have? Are we going to have the cellular police? How many people is the government going to have? Will there be a policeman in the back seat of everybody's car monitoring to see

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
if there is some static on the line or will there be somebody in everybody's basement that has a scanner in their living-room? How in the name of goodness does this bill put forward a reasonable solution to the problem?
We do not have 10 scanners or 100 scanners. There are tens of thousands of scanners out there and tens of thousands of scanners on the shelves in Radio Shack and other places that have the capability to pick up those bands on which cellular conversations take place. It seems to me that the first thing we should do is make sure that those pieces of equipment are not available in the marketplace and that we make the distribution, sale or ownership illegal.
I think if we do that, we will find that we are not putting the cart before the horse; we are putting the horse before the cart. The government for some reason has not chosen to do that.
I really do get concerned. In a political science class, I think it was at Prince Andrew High School about three years ago during the abortion debate when we were talking about the various proposals that were put forward, they asked the question is a law that is unenforceable really a law. If law makers pass laws knowing that they cannot be enforced, have the law makers not been negligent? Do we simply wash our hands, saying we have dealt with the issue knowing that the solution that has been proposed is not enforceable? I think we do a great disservice to the Canadian public when we take that type of approach. I think we do a great disservice.
I have heard no compelling evidence from anybody that the solution proposed in this bill is actually workable. I cannot figure out for the life of me how just by making the use of these things illegal and putting them under the Criminal Code and all of a sudden having some enforcement in some way will make people comply with it up front.
Indeed if we look at what they have done in the United States at the Federal Communications Commission there are pieces of legislation going forward prohibiting marketing radio scanners capable of intercepting cellular phone conversations. They have decided the way that one deals with this problem is to nip it in the bud. You make sure there is not a problem by making sure that
these types of equipment cannot be purchased, imported, sold or owned, rather than just saying: "Everybody can have it but we are just going to make it illegal".
It is like saying to everybody: "You can all have a gun, but it is illegal if you put bullets in it and we are going to have people going around to make sure you do not have bullets in your gun". It is the same type of thing. Maybe if we have a problem with bullets and guns we should deal with the guns first.
I support the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague from Mount Royal. I think she makes eminent good sense. She normally does when she speaks in this House. I dare say that there is no one in this House, probably including the minister-yes, including the minister-that is as knowledgeable in the field or has worked as hard in her official capacity as the communications critic, as does the member. She does not put things forward just to be divisive or to cause debate. She puts them forward to try to better the legislation.
I would have thought by this point in time that the members opposite would have recognized that and seen the pearls of wisdom that she does put forward on pieces of legislation like this and would have accepted it.
In conclusion, it is not just the Liberal Party that is saying that perhaps the government is putting the cart before the horse and is proposing solutions that may not work. Indeed the commissioner himself indicated very clearly at the committee hearings that he would have preferred that technical means be found to deal with cellular privacy rather than using that big blunt instrument of the Criminal Code and we in this party concur.
As a result, we agree fully with the suggestions of the privacy commissioner that we have to try to find technical solutions to this problem first before using the heavy hand of the Criminal Code and the jail system which is already under great strains to deal with what otherwise might a problem more easily arrived at by adopting the amendments to clause 24 on page 23.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the hon. member for Mount Royal on one thing. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define how many scanners are in Canada.
April 26, 1993

She was quite correct when she said that the figure of
900,000	scanners was bandied about several times during the committee hearings. It seems to me that what she was saying lends itself to what the government is trying to do. Because it is impossible to just state what exactly is or is not a scanner or what is or is not capable of picking up cellular conversations, it is better to do what the government is doing. We will make it illegal if one is the kind of individual who wants to sell other people's conversations.
I think the proposal suggested by the Liberal Party is completely unworkable. The Liberals want to ban any device capable of picking up a cellular telephone conversation. UHF receivers, including tens of thousands of older televisions, are capable of picking up these conversations. Many ordinary radios are capable of picking up those conversations. Much of the sophisticated equipment used anywhere from airports to businesses is capable of or can be adapted to picking it up. That is why the so-called solution of the Liberal Party, supported by the New Democratic Party, just cannot work. It cannot work and they know it cannot work.
That is the part of the argument by the member for Mount Royal with which I completely agree. Yes, she is right, I do not know whether there are 500,000 or 900,000 or 20,000. However, we are trying to get at what we think is wrong. We are getting at the electronic eavesdroppers. I am surprised that the hon. members would find that so offensive.
They suggest that we have to keep looking for a technological solution. They say that if one does not like people overhearing one's conversation then get a better encrypter or put in a more sophisticated encrypter. I can say with respect to that we are losing the war in electronics. The electronics are always going to be ahead of us. I think we are being short-sighted. We are doing ourselves a disfavour by not supporting the amendments that we have here because privacy affects all of us.
I suggest to the hon. member for Chambly that he should not be so worried about the businesses that want to listen in on their employees' conversations. They will be able to look after their own interests, I am quite certain. It is not necessary for him to take up their cause. They will do just fine.
Government Orders
The other individuals in the Liberal Party say: "Just get a technological solution". We are losing the war to the computer. Our privacy is being threatened every day. We heard evidence on that. We have less and less protection. That is why the government says: "If you are in the business of being a peeping Tom with respect to this sort of thing, if you are a professional snoop, if you are in the business of selling other people's conversations, then you are the kind of person who we do not like". These are the kind of people who are affected by legislation such as this. I say not to buy the argument that somehow we will just stay one step ahead of the computers and the technology. We have been losing that battle for a long time.
There are people in the United States now who, contrary to the suggestion that we should be looking at what they are doing, are looking at the route that we have taken on this because they realize that this is a threat to the privacy of their citizens as well. It is one that I believe commends itself to the House.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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

April 26, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, it is the wish of the government to defer the divisions to the same time as the deffered divisions of last Friday will be held.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government is asking me to defer the divisions to a later date. Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the taking of the divisions on the question now before the House is deffered until tomorrow at 6 p.m., when the bells will sound for not more than 15 minutes.
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I raised questions in the House concerning the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and President Judy Rebick's selection of the lobby group's new president.
I raised the issue because surely there is a Canadian woman from Newfoundland to Yukon who could lead NAC. There are many Canadians who would like answers from Ms. Rebick on her exclusive manners. There are many taxpayers who would like to know where their tax money is going.
Beyond this, I find it highly insulting that Ms. Rebick would hide in the shadows of political correctness and not answer to the concern many Canadian women have: Who is representing them?
To throw labels and insults at people is not responsible. To ask about a person's work status in Canada when she is in our country only on a student visa is a legitimate question.
I maintain that Canadian women's concerns and interests are best represented by a Canadian, a citizen who has lived here and understands the issues facing our country's women.
Even more important than this, Canadian women should be given an opportunity to choose who will represent them.


CROATIA
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I recently spent one week in Croatia and my visits to those Canadians involved in the situation, be it through the International Red Cross, refugee camps, the civilian police, the military or the European Community monitoring mission, revealed that all are conducting themselves admirably. All Canadians should be proud and supportive.
Our Armed Forces personnel, in their own words, are well trained and well equipped and, in the words of others, they are well respected. There is imminent
April 26, 1993

danger, even death, but Canadians are prepared to do what is necessary.
They do wonder if the people back home are aware of the gravity of the situation. They wonder why there is not more debate in the House. They wonder why there has been no official political delegation to see first hand the situation. They wonder why the deluge of mail at Christmas has been followed by months of little correspondence.
Let us support these people who are performing most difficult tasks in an unspeakable environment.


CLAM FISHERY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the minister of fisheries and the department officials in Ottawa, Moncton, Anti-gonish and Halifax for responding to the needs of the residents along the Northumberland Strait and the Five Island shore who had expressed their concerns about the future of the clam fishery on both shores.
The minister and the officials addressed the situation in a timely and appropriate manner which appears will resolve the concerns of the people involved. Under the new regulations recently announced DFO officials are now able to take the necessary action to protect the clam beds and conserve the resource for future generations.
DFO officials in Moncton, Antigonish and Halifax have taken a key interest in this issue and have met with the clam fishermen involved to hear their concerns and listen to their advice.
The quick action taken by the department has resulted in the defusing of a very controversial subject in my area and has gone a long way toward conserving the resource. I would like to thank the minister and his officials involved for their co-operation and assistance.


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the matter of peacekeeping, which is of growing importance and concern to many Canadians.
We are among the best in the world when it comes to this task, with some 4,500 Canadian peacekeepers stationed around the globe. However it is dangerous and the results are often frightening. This past Saturday in the former Yugoslavia two Canadian soldiers were injured when their armoured personnel carrier hit an anti-tank mine.
Canada has never refused an invitation to join a mission. Right now we can meet our current duties but we do not have the resources to join new peacekeeping efforts. Not surprisingly, the government has no plan for Canada and its peacekeeping role. This lack of planning will result in more accidents, more wounded and sometimes more killed.
More often in the new world of peacemaking our troops have been sent in to what can only be called hot spots. More often we are asking our forces to risk their lives during these operations.
Is it too much to ask this government to make a commitment to our forces by creating a solid Canadian policy on peacekeeping? I should say not.


NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, National Consumer Week starts today. With its theme It's Everybody's Business, it focuses on raising public awareness of issues affecting consumers and the marketplace.
The government is repeating last year's theme because it is convinced that all economic partners in this country should be consulted on measures dealing with consumer issues. All groups in our society must take an active part in these consultations.
The theme focuses on generating public interest in marketplace issues and highlights the important role consumers, educators, businesses and government play in addressing marketplace issues.
This week, all Canadians are invited to rediscover the benefits of being informed consumers and thus helping to develop a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace.

April 26, 1993
National Consumer Week will give Canadians an opportunity to become better informed on issues that concern all consumers and on their own rights and responsibilities.


ABORIGINAL YOUTH
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the government's attention to the continuing high rate of suicide among aboriginal youth. Within the last few weeks several more young people in the Northwest Territories have taken their own lives and several others have attempted suicide.
Earlier this month a special meeting was held in Iqaluit. The high school guidance counsellor is overwhelmed by the number of students who have told him they are thinking of killing themselves. In the words of the counsellor: "The numbers are staggering". Throughout Canada, from the Arctic to the east and west coasts, aboriginal youth are trying and taking their own lives at horrifying rates.
Miles Morrisseau, an aboriginal writer, talked in his column last week about how the will to live has been drained from many aboriginal youth by hopelessness and the sense that no one cares. He suggested calling off 1993 as the year of the indigenous peoples until there is something to celebrate. He said it is a tragic year when the words "succeed" and "native" are most often put together when the story is about suicide.
I do not want the government to forget amid its current preoccupations this terrible crisis in aboriginal communities. The government must now show it cares.


THE LATE GUY CARIGNAN
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday the people of the municipality of La Sarre paid a last moving tribute to their mayor, Guy Carignan, who died on Ibesday, April 20.
Elected mayor of La Sarre not long ago, Guy Carignan leaves us with the memory of a man who was kind, honest, very generous with his time, trustworthy and totally dedicated to his community.
Guy Carignan was always ready to defend a just cause and the interests of his region.
To his wife and children, I wish to extend my sincere condolences and hope they will find the strength to face this ordeal. I would like to add that Guy will always be an inspiration to our community, and especially to its younger members.
To Guy Carignan, one last word: Thank you.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced his much delayed assistance package for groundfisher-men in Atlantic Canada. Unfortunately the government intends to provide income support for only one year.
Does the minister expect a crisis that was over eight years in the making to go away in just one year? Some fishermen in my riding are looking at reductions of over $100,000 because of the quota cuts. Despite this the government is providing only $406 a week in assistance. How can the minister expect fishermen to make their boat payments, pay their mortgages and still put food on the table?
Conservative fisheries mismanagement has extended itself into a half-baked plan to help fishermen. Fishermen deserve better government than they have been getting, and come this fall they will get that in a Liberal government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. David Bjorason (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I have become aware of a situation in which nonunionized workers of the federal government are being denied their UI benefits.
During the last PSAC strike many non-unionized workers at the taxation centre in Winnipeg crossed the PSAC picket line and went to work. Shortly into the strike these workers were sent home because of equipment failure. As a result many applied for UI benefits which I believe they are entitled to receive.
vl / '>
* rY-:'n '*
April 26, 1993

These workers should not be penalized because of the position taken by their unionized co-workers. They came to work and through no fault of their own were not able to perform their duties. These people deserve UI benefits and I will continue to pursue this matter to ensure that their benefits are reinstated.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago when there was a Liberal federal government Canada's Catholic bishops called for alternative people-oriented economic and social policies. In particular they urged the government not to fight inflation by creating more unemployment.
This month the bishops restated their concerns and pointed out the social crisis created by widespread and sustained unemployment, including the fact that thousands of young Canadians have little hope for the future.
The bishops reminded us all that in the 1980s the Liberal government put control of inflation above job creation and "forced wage-earners and the unemployed to carry an unfair burden". Today they point out that the Conservative government is "forcing the unemployed to carry a disproportionate burden".
They conclude that "as long as job creation is not a firm priority the current social crisis will only worsen". They propose that Canada needs "new economic strategies that will create decent jobs and revitalize social programs". They stress the need for close co-operation between governments, business, labour and other groups in society in working out a new vision for Canadian society.
The similarities between the ethical approaches to the economy proposed by the Catholic bishops and the New Democrats' job strategy are striking. On this budget day I know the government will not listen to the NDP but why will it not listen to the Catholic bishops? Can it be because these church leaders have labelled their economic policies and those pursued by the Liberals as unethical?


S. O. 31 HEALTH
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear that the Nova Scotia government is prepared to follow the lead of the federal government in providing compensation to victims of contaminated blood or blood products.
However I was very disturbed to hear the Ontario health minister admit that the provinces had agreed to hold a united front to stop any such assistance to these unfortunate victims of the system, many of whom have already died, are dying or will die. I cannot believe the callousness of this action.
I was also very annoyed to hear the health minister of B.C. say that the subject needed more study. This subject has been studied to death. What is needed is some immediate compassionate action to assist these innocent people who are facing horrendous mental, physical and financial problems.
Provincial health ministers should be meeting right now to prepare a plan for such assistance before more victims are dead and their families are destroyed both emotionally and financially.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, few issues have raised such passion as the question of public signs in Quebec. Overzealous, restrictive legislation has not conveyed images of an open, respectful society. Bill 178 is repugnant. Its message makes nonfrancophones feel like second class citizens and has become an embarrassment for Quebec. Majority rights must never be obtained through the suppression of minorities.
This weekend we noted with encouragement and a sense of justice that the Quebec Liberal council proposed amendments to Bill 178 which will create greater linguistic expression. Now the government is to act. Hopefully in the forthcoming draft of the law not only free expression but the important issue of access to English language education for Canadian children without having to prove their eligibility will be addressed.

April 26, 1993
Oral Questions
The right to bilingualism for communities like Rosem-ere should also be preserved. The English language hospitals and health networks should be protected, as should the travelling public in the matter of road and resort signage.
While I support the promotion of the French language for all of us we should never have reached a time in our society when the right to express one's self inside or outside in either official language has become an issue. It is urgent to correct this unnecessary policy which ignores minority rights.


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, although one of the few areas with more money in 1993, the Challenge program will not be able to fulfil the need for student summer employment nor gain the potential the student work force offers. That is why it remains important for every business and institution in Canada to stretch as much as they possibly can to help temporary employment, particularly for those students who need it to continue their education.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I am very pleased the minister has changed her mind and has come back to Parliament, because I believe Canadians are very deeply concerned about the status and safety of our forces in Bosnia.
Contrary to what the government House leader said in answer to questions last Friday, we have heard the following kinds of statements made. The UN commander in Yugoslavia said the order is that Canadians "protect Srebrenica". The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that having declared Srebrenica as a safe haven it is important that the UN live up to its commitments. An official at external affairs said there is a line being drawn for the first time.
Canadians want to know what line is exactly being drawn. What mandate is being given to our troops? Are they being asked to defend the civilians in Srebrenica? Are they being given the proper equipment to fulfil that task? Will reinforcements be given to them? Does the government have a contingency plan to rescue these troops in case of a serious attack?
Possibly the Challenge program could also change its focus so that more funds are used on a matching basis with employers to create the greatest number of jobs. For example, if the $2.50 base rate were allocated to a larger portion of the program on the basis of matching or higher sharing by employers, the total number of students employed would likely increase.
That is not to discount institutional or non-profit employment where Challenge pays a higher share, but perhaps even those budgets could be stretched on a large sharing basis so as to create an ever larger number of student jobs. The Challenge program is a good one but will not fulfil the need alone.
Canadian employers in all sectors should strive to tap the student work potential this summer. It is a good investment in the future of our nation.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Simmons:: General McDougall, Corporal Campbell.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -I thought the hon. member might want to hear a response from myself since I have been in very close touch not just with our own military but also with our international allies on this subject.
First of all we, as others do, recognize the risks in Srebrenica which exist also in other parts of Bosnia and in other parts of the former Yugoslavia. They are obviously doing a superb job. I think all Canadians would applaud the job they are doing there.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

April 26, 1993


Barbara Jean McDougall: I had a lengthy discussion with our military this morning. They are confident in the professionalism and in the leadership of our own troops on the ground in Srebrenica as elsewhere. Obviously we recognize the extra sensitivity in Srebrenica.
As always there are contingency plans. There are UN plans for any kind of change in what happens on the ground whether that should be some kind of attack or whether there is a need for a withdrawal. Should the situation change in any way there are contingency plans that have been established by UNPROFOR of which our people on the ground have been a part.
Both the Minister of National Defence and myself are fully confident in our military and the actions they have taken in this regard.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, seeing as the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not answer the question I put, I will repeat the question for the Minister of National Defence.
No one is questioning the professionalism or the competence of our troops. We are questioning the mandate that has been given and whether in fact the troops, about 120 in number, very lightly equipped, are now being asked to protect civilians in that endangered outpost, whether the Government of Canada has agreed to that, and if that mandate is in fact in place whether we are giving them the proper equipment, ensuring they will have reinforcements and primarily ensuring the safety and protection of the troops in a very vulnerable, sensitive position.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to underline that the UN mission going on in Srebrenica is under UN command. It is worth carrying out and it is being well carried out. It is a success because the shooting has stopped in that region as a result of the Canadian presence there and as a result of the actions that have been taken by describing that as a safe haven.
If there is any change in the situation then there will be action taken. There are contingency plans to ensure that there are reinforcements available, including air cover that has been specifically and explicitly promised by our allies, and other contingency plans that will assist our people on the ground to know exactly what to do should the situation change.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we are still not getting an answer to a very serious question.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Tory government may laugh about this but it is not a laughing matter. It is not a laughing matter to be given the mandate to provide for the protection of our troops at the same time that they are not being given the kind of equipment or back-up they need. We want to know exactly.
The minister talks about change of conditions. We had today the imposition of a new sanctions program. Serious discussion is now being looked at in terms of air strikes. We do not know what the government's position is on that because clearly it will bring about retaliation.
Can the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or somebody tell us exactly what is the Canadian position? Do we support these air strikes? Do we support a mandate where Canadian troops have been given the mission to defend civilians in Srebrenica?
When will we have a full and proper debate in this House so that the Parliament of Canada will find out exactly what is going on and we can have the consent of the Canadian people through their elected representatives?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I think Canadian people, from everything they have been telling me, are strongly supportive of what we are doing in Yugoslavia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That mission as well, but there is a very explicit mission for the Canadians who are in Srebrenica, that is that it is a humanitarian effort and it is the evacuation of the wounded and of other civilians who may be ill. That is what the mission is all about.
The Canadians like others are in a position of making a determination as to what is the extent of their capacity to defend the town. If the town requires defending then

April 26, 1993
Oral Questions
there will be reinforcement of the Canadians in order to defend it.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of National Defence said that the beating incident in Somalia of March 16 was not conveyed to headquarters in Ottawa and so Canadians did not find out about it. Since then we all know otherwise. We know that the minister was briefed the next day.
I want to ask the Minister of National Defence: Why was this House given misleading and inaccurate information?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be making a statement on this and other events in the period allotted to ministerial statements immediately after Question Period, but the House was not given incorrect or misleading information.
With respect to the event to which the hon. member refers, I was briefed the next day that a death had taken place. It was not until March 31 that it was communicated to me that death had now been characterized as a homicide or as a murder. The press release was released, and I had it in the House the last time I was here, in Mogadishu. It is the custom of the armed forces to make those releases on the spot where the events have occurred.
I indicated that in my view there should have been better communication between Mogadishu. I am sorry, I think it was actually posted in Belet Huen. There should have been better communication between Somalia and the Department of National Defence. I have taken steps to ensure that kind of communication is now in place so that there is full understanding in Ottawa of all press releases and all information that have been made available throughout the world where our forces are in theatre.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, the point here is that Parliament has had to find out about these incidents in Somalia through the media, through private letters and through questions in the House. We know now that the minister has had the knowledge and information but she failed to disclose them. As a result unfortunately unnecessary confusion
and speculation have added to a serious and sensitive situation.
Will the Minister of National Defence undertake a full-time commitment to regularly and openly brief Parliament on the conduct of Canadian peacekeeping operations without delay as they occur?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is already the practice of the Department of National Defence to make public all the events that occur around the world. These have been well covered.
As I said, I will be making a statement in the House this afternoon, but I am not aware of any events that ought to have been disclosed to Parliament that were not disclosed to Parliament. If that hon. member has an example of something that should have been communicated I will be more than happy to take it under advisement.
We have been fully communicative of all the events that have touched on the particular activities of our peacekeeping forces.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence.
In respect of the death on March 4, the early reports were that it was the death of a Somali and there was no hint of any allegation of homicide in that case until just last week.
Was the minister similarly kept in the dark by her own department, as she now says she was in respect of the March 16 incident and, if so, where did the cover-up begin and end? Was the minister herself the victim of a cover-up? Finally can the minister tell us what she did when she discovered she had not been told the full story by her own department?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, there was no cover-up and no effort to withhold information.
I have made every effort since the beginning of these events to ensure that they are disclosed to the public, but that they are disclosed to the public in a way that does not compromise my obligations under the National Defence Act to remain scrupulously neutral as to the interpretation of those events in light of the possibility that I may have to play one of my roles under the
April 26, 1993

National Defence Act in a quasi-judicial capacity, which is why I have instructed General Reay, the Judge Advocate General and others to meet publicly to disclose all events and all facts that relate to these particular circumstances.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the minister's answer that the people in the field who appear to have kept that information from the minister are still there and are still responsible for the command of our forces there.
In February the minister was interviewed in Halifax about a proposal that Alexa McDonough and others have made about having a peacekeeping centre in Cornwallis. The minister then said, and I quote: "The idea of a peacekeeping training centre is a wonderful idea for most people who do not know anything about peacekeeping, but I have had discussions with senior members of the Canadian military who are a bit perplexed as to what you would teach people about the normal skill of a good combat-ready military".
Is the minister, in light of what we have now heard about events in Somalia, still as convinced as she was in February that she alone knows that combat readiness is all the skills that are necessary to deal with as difficult and complex a situation as our forces are in in Somalia?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, there is a broad variety of skills and preparation required in deploying our troops wherever they are in the world, whether it is on humanitarian issues, peacekeeping or peacemaking operations. This training is carried out in the course of the training of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is for that reason senior members of the Department of National Defence were perplexed as to what additional kinds of things might be provided in a separate institution that are not provided now.
It is important for us always, and I as Minister of National Defence responsible for the direction of the armed forces take the responsibility seriously, to ensure that training which is part of the normal training of the Canadian Armed Forces is in fact carried out to the highest standard.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 a human rights organization called African Rights will be
Oral Questions
issuing a report in which it reports that our country is not the only one with these kinds of problems in Somalia, that in fact 230 Somalis have been killed by the multina-tion9zal forces who are there under Operation Restore Hope. They have also said that the Somalis have been marginalized and Operation Restore Hope has achieved little or nothing of substance.
I wonder if the minister would agree that it is appropriate in a sense of priorities that we are spending more this year on our peacekeeping operation in Somalia than the entire CIDA budget for development assistance in all of Africa.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone who has seen the reports of the work that has been done by the Canadian forces and others in Somalia would for a moment think that anything was being accomplished there other than the alleviation of human suffering in enormous quality. That is what our people have been doing and that is what they will continue to do.


HELICOPTER PROGRAM
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence. This is a time of record unemployment. One million Canadian children are living in poverty and 700,000 Canadian children have used food banks. It is no time to spend close to $6 billion on the EH-101 cold war helicopters.
In the January 19, 1993 Victoria Times-Colonist the minister had this to say: "I am convinced the helicopter decision was the correct one".
I want to ask her today, in view of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, does she still think today that that decision was a correct one and, if so, why?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a correct one because I have seen no compelling evidence to the contrary.

April 26, 1993
Oral Questions


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this minister and this government put cold war helicopters above unemployed Canadians and hungry children in Canada.
The minister in The Ottawa Sun on February 2 said: "I", the innocent Minister of Justice at that time, "posed the question about the helicopters but I was persuaded it was good policy and that the cost of cancelling it would be unacceptable".
Four out of five Canadians tell the minister and tell the government they do not want these helicopters bought at this time. Why are the minister and the government refusing to cancel this decision today?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, first of all with respect to the question of the unemployed, there will be 45,000 person-years of employment for Canadians as a result of this particular contract. I do not think that is insignificant.
I would also say that I have spoken on this subject across the country and every time I have had a chance to answer questions which are posed across Canada, as I pose the question myself as a member of cabinet, about the validity and about the merit of this decision, every time I have had an opportunity to explain that decision I have found that the people who heard the explanation were overwhelmingly supportive of the decision. That is why I believe in its intrinsic merits.


POVERTY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
While his government promised that economic prosperity would trickle down to all Canadians, the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country have been both excluded and forgotten.
I ask the Prime Minister: Given that the number of Canadians living in poverty has increased every single year that this government has been in office, how can his government possibly condone its vicious shell game of trying to redraw and lower the poverty line? When will the government actually get around to trying to eradicate the root causes of such poverty in this country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that the government promised that prosperity would trickle down. That is a false statement. The government never said any such thing. If my hon. friend begins his question with an inaccurate statement, then one can only conclude that the rest of the question is also seriously flawed, as indeed it is.
How does one deal with poverty? By creating jobs;
48,000	last month. There were 1.4 million new jobs created since this government came into office, the highest job creation record of the G-7 countries. The government has done this by keeping inflation low. Inflation is now at a 30-year low at 1.5 per cent or thereabouts.


Sergio Marchi: What is the price of that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says what is the price. There are costs to be paid. Obviously there are costs to be paid. Productivity has increased. Inflation is low. The IMF and the World Bank say that Canada will lead the industrialized world in terms of economic growth and our exports are at record highs.
The Royal Bank and most international institutions have now just predicted a decade of strong economic growth. I think that my hon. friend will see why when the Minister of Finance arrives shortly to present another budget that will secure Canada's economic growth and prosperity and deal with some of the important matters that my hon. friend has just raised.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the price of that government's policy is 1.5 million unemployed, 3 million on welfare, increased line-ups at food banks, poverty, misery and the list goes on.
Given that a sad face of this chronic poverty in Canada is the hardship faced by the increasing number of one-parent families led by single women, 50 per cent of whom are unemployed and over 60 per cent of those who are actually employed earn, according to Statistics Canada, low-income wages, and given that this group is among the most economically disadvantaged and most vulnerable of Canadians, how can this government think itself responsible when it allows the chair of the poverty subcommittee to turn a blind eye to these Canadian families and in the process pretend that their problems have simply gone away?
|
.if-
|
i',:
April 26, 1993


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the serious problem raised by my hon. friend, I would draw his attention to a study recently published by the University of Chicago's School of Social Work, a highly respected group, where it indicates that the policies pursued by the Government of the United States when compared over the last decade with the Government of Canada have been very seriously wanting.
They urge upon them policies like those pursued by the Government of Canada which has had the reverse effect of that suggested by my hon. friend with the exception of the recession, which has been tough for everybody, particularly those to whom he refers. The number of people on welfare, the number of people who need help at this time has been reduced, which indicates that the policies, for example, in favour of children, in favour of single families, in favour of targeting the resources of Canada to those families that need it most, are having a very significant effect.
I urge my friend to read this analysis from the University of Chicago which will indicate that he ought not to be disparaging what has been taking place in Canada but speaking of it with pride because other jurisdictions like the United States admire and envy the results that we have been able to secure in Canada.


PEACEKEEPING
Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from one week in Croatia. I came away most impressed with the training, the equipment and the esprit de corps of our Armed Forces.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Steve Butland: I know that all members of the House would want to express support of these peacekeepers performing admirably in a most dangerous environment.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the situation in Srebrenica. At the invitation of Serbian officials we heard General MacKenzie, now a private citizen, on national television negotiating the status of Canadian forces. Is the minister in dialogue with General MacKenzie? What is his mandate? Is it
Oral Questions
appropriate that he be the spokesperson for the Canadian government?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think that it is important to know that Mr. MacKenzie stressed that he was going as a private citizen to see the the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs in the area because of earlier relationships that he built up with them.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for taking an interest in this and for going himself. I should point out to the House that I shortly will be going to Croatia, Bosnia and also Somalia.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments, but I suggest that General MacKenzie's actions have led to a direct impact on Canadian troops. I am just wondering if that is appropriate.
My supplementary question is as follows. Given the fact that economic sanctions are now in place and some type of military intervention is imminent, will the minister indicate to Canadians if she is prepared to commit further Canadian support to any military escalation that might occur? More important, will she commit herself to a full debate in the House of Commons on this critical issue before any such action is taken?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first of all in terms of the particular situation of Srebrenica, the cease-fire there and the demilitarization there, that was a step that was agreed to by all the parties in the region.
It was not something that was imposed on Srebrenica by UNPROFOR.
The sanctions indeed go into effect at midnight tonight. This is something that Canada has been advocating for a long time, including the sanctions and their enforcement on the Danube as well as the Adriatic. We are very pleased that this action is being taken.
It is not inevitable that there will be an escalation. I want to underline that. In the question there was an implication that this was automatically coming. Obviously we are all concerned about that.
Remember, our objectives were to prevent the conflict from spreading, to provide humanitarian assistance and

April 26, 1993
Oral Questions
peacekeepers and monitor cease-fires wherever we could do that. That was the objective of the international mission there under UNPROFOR.
Should anything change, Canada will do its part as it always has. At the moment there is no inevitability about that.


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend, the Minister of Fisheries.
He made his announcement on Friday concerning compensation. That was certainly a step in the right direction. Yet the amount of money allocated, given the massive need in the five easternmost provinces, can only be called pitiful in that context.
The minister said that an estimated 2,000 fishermen and 5,600 plant workers would be eligible. He must be aware and I am sure he is that about 20,000 people need help in those five provinces because of the massive quota cuts and the job losses.
I ask the minister: Is it his intention to try to compensate only about one-third of the people in need? Who is going to qualify for this program?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to even get a grudging admission from the hon. gentleman that there is a program that was announced last Friday. This is indeed a step forward. The amount devoted to the program will never be enough. If we had the resources then I would certainly like to see more money allocated.
This is an amount that is reasonable. Our best estimate is that about 5,000-odd plant workers and about 2,000 fisherpersons will need assistance because they will not be able to qualify for unemployment insurance. They will not be able to get jobs this year as a result of the reduction in the quotas.
This is a $191 million program to assist with $18 million for job creation programs so that they can qualify for UI if they have not. There is $92 million over three years for training. They can become more professional as fishermen if that is what they wish, or there is other training
for work outside the fishery for plant workers and fishermen.
There is a transitional fisheries adjustment allowance totalling up to $19 million so that they will receive at least the average of their last three years' UI once they have agreed that they will go into training. This will support a program for those in really dire straits.
The Plant Workers Adjustment Program for early retirement will be extended to the fish plants throughout the region that are affected by these TAC reductions. This $191 million program is to be added to in excess of $1 billion that the government allocated to meeting this situation in the last two years. I think this is reasonable and generous. It is all that we can afford in the present circumstances. I hope it meets the bill.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been aware for many months now of the problems in the gulf fishery, the Scotia shelf and on the south coast of Newfoundland.
Yet, on Friday he indicated that it is going to take nearly another month, May 151 think is the date he used, to work out the details. Surely there is a way to speed up the process. I ask him, can he do that? Is there some way to avoid stalling further on this? There are a lot of people out there hinging on this announcement and its details. Can he speed up the process somehow?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to speed up the process for the last two or three months.
If I could speed it up more speedily, I would certainly do so. There are certain formalities that have to be met. For example, there is the institution called the Treasury Board. It is positively not safe for anyone or any department to do anything that has not been vetted by Treasury Board first. We have the criteria worked out. I am hoping it will go to Treasury Board this week and that we get a quick response.
Basically this will apply to fish plants where at least 25 per cent of their throughput has been groundfish and to fishermen, 50 per cent of whose landed catch has come from groundfish. This is because the problem is with groundfish and not other species.
April 26, 1993

I will pass the hon. gentleman's suggestions on to the Treasury Board for quick action. If so, I do not see any reason that we could not announce criteria at the end of this week. It would be a miracle, but we could do it.


ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment who probably knows of President Clinton's announcement that the United States will stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 and will produce a plan by next August. The Government of Canada announced its intention to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions three years ago, but still has no plan other than a shopping list of options in the National Action Strategy.
Why after three years has the government still to produce a comprehensive and specific plan to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions to hopefully prevent global climate change?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say as Earth Day was last week we were very happy to acknowledge and to hear the news that the present American administration would commit itself to stabilizing its greenhouse gases at 1990 levels for the year 2000 as they had committed to doing during the election campaign. That is exactly what Canada committed to doing three years ago. We were also very happy to hear the news that the American administration had taken the advice of our Prime Minister and decided to sign and ratify the biodiversity convention.
On my hon. friend's specific question, Canada has made a commitment to a quick start agenda to having not only signed but also ratified the convention on climate change. We intend to produce our national plan which requires very close co-operation with provincial and territorial governments in Canada for that purpose. We intend to produce our commitments to the climate change convention by June. As of this morning, the information I have from my department is that we will be able to meet that commitment.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. However, it does not give the reasons for the three-year delay.
Oral Questions
As he quite rightly said Canada has ratified the biodiversity convention. However, the question is: Why the delay on Canada's part in introducing the needed legislation to protect endangered plants and animals and the spaces they depend on for their survival? Why the delay in introducing this legislation?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, there is no delay. Canada is able to meet most of the commitments to the biodiversity convention, the commitments we made to the green plan and also the commitments that are made through different provincial legislatures.
For example, on the protected spaces side there are very clear commitments. Real progress has been made over the last two years in meeting our commitments as expressed and articulated through the green plan. On endangered species, we brought forward Bill C-42 which was the last piece of legislation to be approved by this House in 1992. As per the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on the Environment we are ready to look at any other suggestions on protecting species in this country that the House may deem as being appropriate.


AIR SAFETY
David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
I raised in the House the issue of aerobatic flying in the air space of St. Andrews airport. I have yet to receive a formal response to my inquiry on the status of aerobatic flying at St. Andrews.
Can the minister please tell the House how she intends to deal with this very public issue of concern?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to confirm for the hon. member that I have directed officials that no aerobatic flights will be allowed in the air space over St. Andrews airport. The only exception will be one day a year for the aerobatic competition. I understand that is acceptable to both the member and his constituents. At the same time, Transport Canada officials in the region are working with the Manitoba Air Flying Club to make sure that they can find a suitable arrangement for them to do their practising in other air space in the Manitoba area.

April 26, 1993
Oral Questions


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On Friday during Question Period and also earlier today the member for Timiskaming-French River made a racist and unjustified attack of the incoming president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may be concerned about a remark but I have said before in this House that to accuse an hon. member of making a racist comment is unparliamentary in this day and age. I would ask the hon. member if she wishes to refer to something that the member said and if she wants to enlarge on that in such a way that it is a matter that the government can answer, I will certainly let her do so. But I would ask her to withdraw the word "racist".


Lynn Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the record, Ms. Sunera Thobani is not an illegal-


Some hon. members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not stopping the hon. member from pursuing the question. I wM listen very carefully to it. But I do want the word "racist" withdrawn.


Lynn Hunter: I withdraw the term "racist".
Let me give the background. Ms. Sunera Thobani is not an illegal immigrant, has never been an illegal immigrant and I suspect the reason the comments were made was because of her skin colour. I ask the Prime Minister-


Some hon. members:: Withdraw.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry but I am going to have to move on. I am prepared to discuss it afterward with the hon. member. The hon. member for Sudbury.


PHARMACEUTICALS
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of industry.
While this government talks about competitiveness it has implemented a drug patent policy that will cost
Canadian companies such as INCO millions of dollars because of increased costs for employee drug plans. In a recent memo to its employees and pensioners INCO promotes the use of lower cost generic drugs as a cost saving measure.
Why has this Conservative government implemented this uncompetitive, detrimental and costly policy for Canadians?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's description is totally inaccurate. In terms of patented medicines-remember the distinction, not all prescriptions but patented medicines-the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has kept the prices of those drugs at less than inflation for the last five years. Those drugs not on patent, which represent 80 per cent of the drugs purchased by Canadians, have in fact gone up more than inflation. The control measures on those are entirely provincial through their formularies and so on.
The hon. member is distorting the facts when she says that Bill C-91 has had anything but a veiy beneficial effect on drug prices and of course profoundly in bringing forward hundreds of millions of dollars of investment and jobs in this important high-tech sector.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from a memo which INCO sent out to its employees. This same memo states: "When you get a generic drug you are getting a drug that is exactly the same quality as the brand drug but you are getting it at a saving. Another plus is that when you use generic products in Canada you are buying Canadian".
Why has the minister implemented a drug patent policy that places profits in the hands of foreign multinational corporations at the expense of Canadian jobs, Canadian innovation and the Canadian generic drug industry?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might have been in Mississauga last week when Astra invested $150 million and the president said that this was new research due to Bill C-91. Even Premier Rae had to praise the investment and acknowledge that it came from Bill C-91.


Mr. Dingwall:: Who?
April 26, 1993


Sergio Marchi: Now you like Rae.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps the hon. member could ask her colleagues not to interrupt. The hon. member should recognize that once a drug is off patent, one can produce as many generic copies of it as there is approval for.
What that memo says is that ASA costs less than aspirin. That is because aspirin is the brand product and ASA is the generic product. For anything off patent there can be as many products as there are producers out there for it. What that memo says is that people should shop. If people did shop according to that memo the prices on all of the off-patented drugs would probably increase less than inflation as has been the case in terms of the patented drugs as a result of this government's legislation.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
It was recently reported that Sheik Omar Abdel-Rah-man, an Egyptian militant and spiritual leader of the extremists who are charged with bombing the World Trade Centre in New York, was granted entry to Canada last fall and attended certain meetings here.
Could the minister explain how this individual was granted entry into Canada when thousands of others who are not dangerous are denied entry every day? Was the sheik's visit to Canada illegal and if so, why was it not prevented?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I feel vindicated. This is the member who opposed the modification of the Immigration Act to prevent the entry of undesirables to Canada. Today he stands up and asks how this could have happened in the past. I do not know if it did, but this is exactly why we modified the Immigration Act, to prevent the entry to Canada of criminals.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this is the usual red herring raised by the minister.
Oral Questions
Our law has prevented the entry of these people into our country for years and years. That has been on our law books for years now. The difference is that we need sufficient trained officers at the border to enforce that law.
The law was enforced last fall against these types of people and they have been turned down for years. But they were not turned down last fall because there are not enough trained people there to enforce this law.
This sheik has been associated with groups that espouse political terrorism. If his entry was illegal, I ask again how he got by the border officials when our law did say that type of person should be prevented entry at that time. I want to know if there has been an investigation into this matter and what the results of that investigation are. Let us not have any more nonsense.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about red herrings.
The hon. member is talking about there not being enough officials to enforce Canadian law. I remember not long ago in this House I introduced the reconfiguration of our offices in Canada. Then we could place more emphasis on enforcement. Again, the Liberals opposed it. Now he complains again. The Liberal Party of Canada must make up its mind. It cannot have it both ways.


ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister.
The budget of the Canada Council for the arts has effectively been decreased by some 30 per cent since 1981-82. A recent study by Vanderhoof and Associates demonstrates after an analysis of some 60 performing arts organizations that the cuts by the Canada Council in fact increase the deficit rather than decrease it. This is because of the increased payments to UI and welfare, and the decrease in GST and tax revenues.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he, as leader of this government, will review the cuts to the arts organizations since it seems as though they are counterproductive. Cuts to arts in fact increase rather than reduce the deficit.

April 26, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that in these times of fiscal and financial constraint everybody must contribute. The actions being taken by the Minister of Communications are to make sure that we respect the very difficult financial situation we are in, and the decisions that have been taken are along this line.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I prefer going to the Prime Minister.
The Independent Film and Video Alliance represents
7,000	independent film and video producers in Canada. Its budget has also been cut because of the cutbacks to the Canada Council. Most of the independent producers live well below the poverty line and the cutbacks will force many on to UIC or welfare.
Can the minister explain to the House what is the economic sense in cutting funding to the arts if the net result is greater cost to the public Treasury in UI and welfare payments?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think this government has done very well for the arts and culture in Canada over the past few years.
I would like to remind the hon. member that this government has adopted many pieces of legislation such as:

-the Broadcasting Act and the Radiocommunications Act. It instituted public lending rights, adopted laws to protect authors and artists and passed the Status of the Artist Act.
I think that in the last nine years this government proved that it cares for arts and culture, and it has no lessons to be taught, particularly by the NDP considering the recent decisions made by the Ontario government.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Youth.
Since the establishment of the summer employment portion of the Challenge program in 1985, thousands of young people have gained valuable summer employment as a result of wage contributions by the federal government to their employers.
The funding criteria have varied since the inception of the Challenge program and separate formulas are now in place for the private sector, for institutions and for non-profit organizations. The goal remains as many student jobs as possible.
I would like the minister to describe the categories by which the Challenge program is presently organized to allocate funds for creating the largest number of those jobs. Could we not increase the number of those jobs by allocating a higher portion of the Challenge budget to matching arrangements at the $250 base rate?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I assume from a very strict interpretation of the question of my hon. colleague, and if we were guaranteed to get the same amount of employers from the private sector, that he would be correct. Unfortunately that is not the advice I get.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 36 petitions.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
April 26, 1993

Routine Proceedings



NATJONAL DEFENCE


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue which I know has been of concern to the Canadian people.
A series of incidents has taken place in Somalia which casts a shadow on the fine reputation of the Canadian forces. In the search for truth, for justice and to reassure the men and women of the Canadian forces and their families, these incidents must be addressed.
Four incidents are of particular concern. First, on February 17, 1993, 30 soldiers at a bridge in Belet Huen were confronted by a violent demonstration involving about 300 Somalis, some of whom were throwing stones. After shots were fired by Canadian soldiers, one Somali was killed and one was wounded. The incident was investigated by the local commander.
On the night of March 4, 1993, two Somali citizens approached the Canadian compound. Shots were fired and one Somali was killed and the other wounded. After staff at national defence headquarters examined the report of that incident, they ordered a military police investigation which is now in progress.

On March 16, 1993 a Somali was captured in the Canadian compound. He was later found dead as a result of a beating suffered while in Canadian custody. Subsequently, a member of the Canadian Forces who had been placed in closed custody for his alleged involvement in the incident attempted suicide. An investigation into the death of the Somali was instituted, and subsequently halted when it was determined that a military police investigation was warranted. This investigation is now under way.
On March 17, 1993 when an aid convoy arrived at Belet Huen from Mogadishu a fight broke out between the Somali drivers and local Somali residents, in which shots were fired. A member of the Canadian forces was directed to return fire and one Somali was killed. An investigation was conducted by the local commander.

After the first incident there was a press briefing in Mogadishu. It was reported by American press writers and Canadian press.
After the second incident the Canadian commander briefed the press and the story was carried in most major Canadian newspapers.
After the third incident, a press release was posted in Mogadishu and it was first reported in Canada by Radio Canada on March 30.
In the fourth case there was a press release in Mogadishu on March 17. The story was then carried by wire services and newspapers.

As I stated in the House, there was an apparent problem with communications between the theatre of operations and national defence headquarters. I have given instructions and measures have been taken to correct this problem. Nevertheless, the investigation and reporting of these incidents demonstrate the Canadian forces commitment to openness and their desire to see justice done.

Broad concerns have been voiced. There is a concern over secrecy. There is a concern about the Canadian forces and the units sent to Somalia. There have been press comments about violence and racism exhibited by Canadian troops in Somalia.
Over the past few weeks I have been confronted by two imperatives. Under the National Defence Act I am responsible for the management and direction of the Canadian forces. I also have quasi-judicial responsibilities in the military system of justice. In order not to prejudice the ongoing investigation and the rights of individuals involved, I have been careful not to discuss the details of these events. In these capacities I must balance the need to inform the public and Parliament with the need to ensure that the military justice process is not prejudiced.
In weighing all these responsibilities I have sought advice on how best to address these concerns within the context of recent legal developments concerning the

April 26, 1993
Routine Proceedings
holding of public inquiries. I cannot allow a situation to continue which could undermine public trust or the morale of the Canadian forces.
I have received the considered advice of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, which is the legal department of the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Justice and now believe that I have found a way to address this situation.

I have, under section 45 of the National Defence Act, directed the chief of the defence staff to convene a board of inquiry at the earliest possible opportunity. The terms of reference of this inquiry will allow it to conduct an effective and timely investigation while at the same time respecting the most recent jurisprudence. To provide for participation by independent civilian members on a military board of inquiry, I am amending military regulations to allow civilian membership.
The purpose of the board of inquiry is to provide insight into the problems experienced by the Canadian forces in Somalia. Principally it will inquire into whether any of the concerns arising from this Canadian forces operation are the result of systemic problems, particularly in the Canadian Airborne Regiment. I hope to have the report of this inquiry by the end of July and it will be made public.

I have, under section 45 of the National Defence Act, directed the chief of the defence staff to convene a board of inquiry at the earliest possible opportunity. The terms of reference of this inquiry will allow it to conduct an effective and timely investigation while at the same time respect the most recent jurisprudence. To provide for participation by independent civilian members on a military board of inquiry I am amending military regulations to allow civilian membership.
The purpose of the board of inquiry is to provide insight into the problems experienced by the Canadian forces in Somalia. Principally it will inquire into whether any of the concerns arising from this Canadian forces operation are the result of systemic problems, particularly in the Canadian Airborne Regiment. I hope to have
the report of this inquiry by the end of July and it will be made public.
The membership and the terms of reference will be made available to members of this House and to the public by the chief of the defence staff on Wednesday, April 28. In the meantime I have also instructed the department to make public whatever can be made public within the law on these issues.

Finally let me assure you that we are treating these events with the utmost seriousness and are taking all measures possible to resolve them. These incidents do not reflect the outstanding over-all performance of the Canadian Forces in Somalia as well as in the former Yugoslavia, in Cambodia and, indeed, here at home in Canada.

We are all justifiably proud of our armed forces and in particular I would like personally to express my support for their families at this difficult time. Finally let me assure that these events have not diverted our attention from our responsibilities with respect to our engagements throughout the world.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I acknowledge the minister's statement. I understand what she has said. I regret that this could not have been done five and half weeks ago. I believe if this had been done earlier in the House a lot of the speculation and unnecessary confusion surrounding the specific events to which she referred, the confusion about the conduct of peacekeeping operations and other more serious issues involving how we do peacekeeping at this time in our history may well have been avoided.
The incidents described in the minister's statement and the conduct of the department after these incidents were conducted were addressed. What the minister did not address was the major question I have been asking since the knowledge of the March 16 Somalia incident became known to the Canadian public.
There are four specific concerns that I have with the minister's statement. My first concern is with respect to the apparent problem with communications between the theatre and national defence headquarters. I am aware,
April 26, 1993

Routine Proceedings
as indeed is the House now, there is a requirement for the commanding officer to issue a significant incident report on incidents of the nature the minister described. There is a requirement that the chief of the defence staff be briefed on this and indeed that the minister be briefed shortly after, as soon as possible.
The minister attends or should attend regular sessions of defence council. The forum is there for the minister to have been made aware certainly within 24 hours of these events that have occurred. We are only finding out about it today, five weeks after the occurrence. The details have not been addressed and that is another aspect.
I can understand that perhaps the minister does not want to address the details, but that does not avoid the major point, that the minister in her responsibility for the direction and management of the Canadian forces as a corollary of that is responsible for informing the Canadian public, the House of Commons and Parliament on the conduct of these operations. This was not done and perhaps would not have been done for some time unless the questions were raised by the Official Opposition in the House to cause the minister to return and attend to her job in a full-time manner so that the issues could be dealt with properly.
There is also my concern in the area of the details of the terms of reference in the board of inquiry. I must say I do welcome the board of inquiry but the details itself bother me. The minister in her statement singles out the concern arising from the Canadian forces operation and any systematic problems, particularly to the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
I am somewhat concerned that any unit in the Canadian forces involved in peacekeeping would have to be singled out so specifically in the terms of reference of a board of inquiry. I believe the investigation terms of reference should include a broader concern over the conduct of information and specifically into the conduct of ministerial responsibility and the knowledge of Parliament of how Canadian peacekeepers are conducting their operations. This should be done in such a way that would avoid speculation and rumour and the necessity for private correspondence, media disclosures and other clandestine or not overt matters to be the subject of rumour and speculation and indeed questions in the House of Commons. I believe that has to be included as well.
Third, I am concerned as are my colleagues on this side of the House that the conduct of peacekeeping operations in Canada at this time in our history is not being done properly. There has been question after question in this House. There has been testimony to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
There has been testimony by experts to the defence committee. Their logic and chronology follows the same items. They acknowledge that Canada has been involved in as many peacekeeping operations in the last four years as in the whole 46-year history of our immaculate record of peacekeeping operations.
We have reduced the army by 4,000 troops, yet we have more peacekeepers in the field now than ever. We have 4,700 in 18 different locations.
In the testimony of the external affairs minister she says that we are being stretched thinly. She is concerned about it. Experts, including two generals in uniform, have had to speak out about the conduct of the operations and the fact that we are being spread too thinly.
Experts in the defence committee have given convincing and compelling testimony about the size of regular force units and about their concern that the number of militia soldiers far exceeds what is normally expected in the total force concept. They have expressed concern about the equipment and the mandate that our Canadian forces peacekeepers are given and the whole manner in which it is conducted.
I am reluctant for reasons that would be obvious to everybody in this House to raise this, but as a member of the Official Opposition and as an associate defence critic I feel compelled on this occasion to take notice of the alarming statement of the chief of the defence staff in a recent Maclean's article. It indicated that there may be some difficulties with leadership and discipline.
For the chief of the defence staff to make that admission is a very serious concern. I raise it in the context of this minister's statement on this occasion because it was in the same context that it was raised in the article to which I make reference.
There is only one way that the Canadian people will be satisfied in this area. We need to address these concerns that I have just chronicled. We need a full, open and

April 26, 1993
Routine Proceedings
specific debate involving the considerable expertise on both sides of the House so that we can once and for all put the conduct of Canadian peacekeeping operations into the proper perspective. Then it will be done with the full knowledge and approval of the Canadian public and indeed of Parliament.
In closing, I would be less than adequate if I did not mention the fact that we in the Official Opposition have always been very laudatory and rightly so on the conduct of our Canadian forces peacekeepers. We have had, over 45 years, more than 85,000 young men and women participating in every United Nations operation that has been under way.
We have nothing but the greatest respect. There has been nothing said in this incident or at any other time that would reflect anything but the deepest and greatest respect and honour for our young men and women. We will continue to do so.
In summary, I look forward to the findings, conclusions and recommendations of this board of inquiry. However, I would once again ask the minister to keep a close watch on what is happening and to immediately implement a full and proper debate in Parliament on all aspects of our current peacekeeping undertakings.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, first let me begin by congratulating the minister on coming to the House finally with a statement. It is a good thing that she has done and we appreciate it. It does in fact provide us with an opportunity at least to have a mini-debate, if we can call it that, on the situation with our forces in Somalia.
Let me also say at the outset that I welcome the idea of establishing a board of inquiry. That is a positive step. I further welcome the idea that there should be civilian representation on it.
I would ask the minister this. I am sure we could give her unanimous consent to do so. Will she stand in the House and say that she would agree to consult with the other parties in the House on the make-up of it so that the people of Canada can have confidence that it is truly a non-partisan commission that has been set up to get to the truth of what has happened?
Having said those things, let me voice some concerns.

What the minister tells us today in her statement is nothing new. She is only repeating information that we were able to get mainly from the press. She does not say anything about how she as Minister of National Defence has assumed her responsibilities.

The statement that the minister has given us today barely outlines what is already known by some of the initial press statements and leaves far more unanswered than she has answered. Let me just take them incident by incident.
Look at February 17. The account she has given to the House today does not include information which is already public. The commander of the troops facing that demonstration ordered his troops to fire two shots at the Somalis who were unarmed. One of them was then killed.
The statement about the March 4, 1993 incident says nothing about the serious allegations that were outlined in the House last week.
The incident on March 16, 1993 barely touches on the information that is already public.
In the account of the incident on March 17, 1993 the minister's statement makes no reference to the fact that the Somali who was killed was an employee of the International Red Cross and was trying himself to deal with the disturbance that was occurring at the time. There is no reference here to any investigation of that incident having been launched by the Minister of National Defence.
The minister goes on in her statement to outline the so-called press briefings leaving the impression that those briefings were full and complete. The fact is that they were so terse as to be misleading. When it came to the accounts of the incident on March 16, the third incident, the local commanders actively misled the local media from what was happening. They refused to answer their questions and turned them away from the story.
The minister has refused in this statement to give any accounting whatsoever for her particular response to any of this information. We are not asking her to breach her responsibilities-
April 26, 1993


A. Kim Campbell: Yes, you are.


John F. Brewin: The minister says that we are. Let us just test that.
How does it in any way intervene with her responsibilities if she could tell this House what instructions the Government of Canada gave to our forces in Somalia in respect to the use of force? How does that in any way impinge upon the investigation? She could at least tell us that.
In December when the government sent the forces there it did not have in place any rules of engagement. I asked the minister this on Friday. The government House leader in her place refused to give any information in the House as to whether there were any rules of engagement now in place and the minister has refused so far to answer that question in the House.
Let me say further that she has put it down to a problem of communications between the theatre and national defence headquarters. Let us give her that. Let us say that information did not reach her or national headquarters for weeks after these incidents. That still leaves the minister with a question to answer that has nothing to do with her responsibilities under the prosecution or the judge advocate side of her responsibilities.
This is the question. Once she heard of all these incidents what did she do about it? What action did she take? Are the same commanders in the field? Are they operating with the same instructions? What is being done to assure Canadians that the reputation of our peacekeepers will not be further tarnished? The minister has answered none of that.
Then we come to the conclusion or the terms of reference that she has set out in this board of inquiry. The finger is pointed at the Canadian Airborne Regiment. However, there is nothing in here inviting the board of inquiry to ask questions about the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence for what has happened or for the senior officers as to what has happened.
What has happened is that there are far more questions left unanswered in this statement that the Canadian people are now entitled to.
We have a situation that my friend referred to. The chief of the defence staff has said that discipline has broken down among our forces there. Let me say this. We all understand that it is a very difficult situation in Somalia. There can be no doubt about that. I repeat that we all understand it. We have all supported our peacekeepers for years. We see this as a very important
Routine Proceedings
responsibility for Canadians. However, it is the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence for the operations of our peacekeepers to ensure that they are operating under proper restraint and if they fail to do so that she take immediate action to deal with that situation.
Even in today's paper there was reference to a press gag-as it was called-of the forces there in telling them that they cannot talk to members of the media. Yet the deputy commander was allowed to talk. What did he do? He blamed the opposition and the media for carrying on some vendetta against them in the interest of protecting the Minister of National Defence. Clearly that is not a fair and proper thing.
This is a very serious situation. We again congratulate the minister for at least going as far as she has. However, we would ask the minister at the earliest opportunity, which is tomorrow, to come forward with a more detailed statement and to account in this House for her responsibilities as the Minister of National Defence.


PETITIONS
David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of Manitobans in asking the government to increase grain shipments by way of the Port of Churchill to a point where it equals 5 per cent of the export sales of the Wheat Board.


David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians. They are requesting by way of this petition that the government withhold funding to the planned parenthood project because there already exists a group called the Alliance for Life which is not dependant upon government support.

April 26, 1993

Question	Approximate	Question	ApproximateNo.	Cost	No.	Cost414	92	451	760415	97	453	131416	332	456	75All	281	457	215418	147	458	147419	48	462	148420	138	463	176424	232	468	90425	65	470	746426	46	471	158427	170	474	89429	65	475	94430	176	487	196Total Cost:	$44,941	
(c) $30


Routine Proceedings
{Translation}


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 511 will be answered today.


Mr. Shields: For the period of February 1, 1993 to April 2, 1993, what has been the (a) total cost (b) cost per question (c) cost for this question, to the government for answering Order Paper Questions?


Charles A. Langlois: (a) & (b) Questions answered during the period of February 1, 1993 to April 2, 1993:
Question Approximate Question Approximate
No.	Cost	No.	Cost203	$7,045	431	$85204	7,045	432	233207	1,958	433	332286	82	434	187303	266	435	126313	3,967	436	65325	3,190	437	99338	51	438	233367	10,726	439	656389	791	440	493396	198	441	230402	164	443	233405	433	444	158406	429	445	199408	128	447	87413	94	449	44


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was outside the House when you called for motions. With the consent of the House, I would have a motion to propose.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we understand the duties of a very active and very learned parliamentary secretary and in view of the fact that we have given prior consent to the motion which he is going to move I do not think there is any difficulty in getting unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

April 26, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: There is unanimous consent to return to motions. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.



TRANSPORT


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the representatives of the New Democratic Party for giving me their agreement to this motion. I therefore move:
That 8 members of the Standing Committee on Transport and 9 staff persons be authorized to travel to Vancouver, B.C., and Winnipeg, Manitoba, from May 10 to 11, 1993 and to Saint John, New Brunswick and Halifax, Nova Scotia, from May 27 to May 28, 1993 in order to hold public hearings on the National Uanspor-tation Act Review Commission Report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52(1) from the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 52 to make a motion to adjourn the House for an emergency debate concerning the situation confronting Canadian troops in Srebrenica, Bosnia.
Circumstances surrounding the situation change as we speak. However, I certainly think everyone would recognize that they are in a critical state. It is very precarious for 150 men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. Under a cease-fire agreement with the Bosnian Serbs Canadian troops were to evacuate and disarm Bosnian Muslims.
Yesterday morning they were told that the Canadians must leave immediately as it was claimed they had failed to adequately disarm the residents.
Routine Proceedings
At the same time the Serbians have rejected a peace proposal. General MacKenzie today, on behalf of the government although a private citizen, supposedly has been making decisions on behalf of Canadian troops, which is unacceptable.
I realize this may be seen as ill timed. I believe Canadian lives in a foreign country are more important than a budget and could take precedence over any budgetary discussions and presentations we would have today.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the hon. member said and I would simply remind the House that the Minister of National Defence made a statement a few moments ago in which she-



SPEAKER'S RULING

['Agreed.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am informed that in this situation, the Chair can make a decision immediately, since the motion is not debatable.
The hon. member has raised a matter that is of tremendous concern to all members of this House, and the Chair is therefore very much aware of the importance of the hon. member's request. However, as the hon. member knows full well, the criteria in the Standing Orders for emergency debates under Standing Order 52 are very strict. The Chair is of the opinion that the motion does not today meet all the criteria in the Standing Orders for an emergency debate. However, that should not prevent the hon. member from raising the matter again some other day, if he thinks that would be appropriate.



David Charles Dingwall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that at approximately 4.30 p.m. or thereabouts the Minister of Finance will be tabling his budget in the House of Commons, I understand that we will now be proceeding to report stage on Bill S-17, an act to amend the Copyright Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act and other acts in consequence thereof.

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
My distinguished colleague from Dartmouth will be giving the position of the Official Opposition. I do not know how many members from the New Democratic Party will participate or whether my learned colleague from Nova Scotia will participate.
Perhaps we could suspend until 4.30 p.m. when those debates are completed so that members can have a few moments to prepare themselves with regard to the anticipation of the Minister of Finance's budget.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in the House and I must point out that consultations were held last week. Opposition parties, that is the Official Opposition as well as the NDP, were informed of government agenda for this week.
We wish to proceed with Bill S-17 as quickly as possible, and then move on to Bill C-72.
Therefore, I simply want to mention that we on this side of the House want to proceed with the order of business as established.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to debate this much longer. All I can say to my hon. friend is that these matters were raised. If he will reflect and check upon his notes it was quite clear that members of the government would not get all of the bills it has listed, which include Bill C-109, Bill C-72, Bill S-17, Bill C-107 and Bill C-90.
I think I made that abundantly clear to the government House leader as well as to the parliamentary secretary. What I was hoping to do by my suggestion was to facilitate and have an understanding that when we complete Bill S-17, which I would hope would happen before 4.30 p.m., only a few moments, we could then adjourn the House until 4.30 p.m. when the Minister of Finance is to table his budget.
If members do not wish to co-operate and cannot see their way to co-operate with that kind of suggestion then we will have to debate Bill S-17 until 4.30 p.m. today, and perhaps we will have to debate it on Friday and again next week.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. House leader of the Official Opposition can give us, and the NDP also, a guarantee that we will be able to complete Bill S-17 before 4.30 p.m. then we would certainly be pleased to consider the suggestion he just made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I take it, and please correct me if I am wrong, there is agreement to the effect that once Bill S-17 is disposed of the House will suspend its sitting until 4.30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-17, an act to amend the Copyright Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


Philip Derek Lewis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure - Iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to rise in the House on a memorable day for all Canadians, budget day, and speak to Bill S-17.
*f [DOT] 

w- - -v - .	1
April 26, 1993

Bill S-17 amends various provision in five pieces of legislation: the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act, the Copyright Act, the Industrial Design Act and the Integrated Circuit Topography Act. Each of these acts is concerned with specific aspects of intellectual property. The government has tried to take a different approach here. We are putting together in one comprehensive bill a number of technical amendments concerning each of the acts I just mentioned. The procedure is comparable to what is done through the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act.
To my knowledge, this is the first time Parliament has tried to deal with administrative and technical changes to all legislation governing a specific field like intellectual property.
This use of framework legislation may set new standards for dealing effectively and appropriately with the business of Parliament.
This is a time of rapid technological change. It is absolutely essential, in a very competitive world economy, to keep abreast of the latest developments with respect to intellectual property. Outdated legislation is costly for Canadians. It restricts innovation and creativity in developing new products and industrial processes.
It is difficult to amend legislation as complex and sensitive as the provisions on intellectual property. Over the years attempts to do so have caused considerable controversy. That is why we are delighted with the way all concerned have co-operated in getting this bill back to the House for third reading this afternoon.
The bill was the subject of a very useful analysis in committee, and I had the privilege of sitting on the legislative committee in question. The bill was amended to reflect proposals made by members of all parties here in the House of Commons. Most of the provisions of the bill remained unchanged.
The Patent Act will be amended to permit the deposit of a sample of biological material with a patent application. Further amendments will allow for electronic filing of documents and correcting a number of technical problems.
As a result of amendments that will be made to the Trade-marks Act, the requirement to record licensees as registered users will be abolished.
Government Orders
Administrative amendments to the Copyright Act will improve the operation and administration of the copyright office.
According to the Industrial Design Act, the validity of a registration will no longer be affected if the registration was filed in the wrong name.
These are only a few of the amendments the bill contains. It makes sense to deal with such technical and administrative details in one comprehensive and flexible bill.
Those who work in the field of intellectual property view many of the amendments proposed here this afternoon as critically urgent. We have the support of those who will be affected by this bill as well. Among other things, we benefitted from the expert advice of the intellectual property advisory committee.
What will be the effect of these amendments? The bill will reduce fees for users of intellectual property by eliminating a number of technical obstacles. It will promote a more efficient administration of the five acts governing this field. Bill S-17 clarifies the wording of certain sections of our legislation on intellectual property. It also simplifies some regulatory procedures. It allows the implementation of technological changes but, more importantly, it promotes a better use of intellectual property in Canada by making it more accessible.
These changes do not aim at replacing the in depth review of Canadian laws on intellectual property. The government modernized and streamlined a good number of acts affected by these amendments, and it will continue to improve them. The measures in Bill S-17 are a necessary complement to the more important changes which have been made and which will continue to be made.
In the high-tech economy of the nineties, prosperity depends on creativity and innovation. Bill S-17, which eliminates the technical and administrative obstacles preventing us from being fully competitive at the international level, will benefit all Canadians.

This afternoon on third reading of Bill S-17 I am happy to be able to mention the importance of the collaboration the government has received with the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party of Canada. As I mentioned earlier, I was honoured to be

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
able to sit on the legislative committee, an important committee. The good co-operation of all parties involved enabled us to proceed rapidly with these changes so essential for Bill S-17.

I urge all members of this House to support Bill S-17 and pass it as soon as possible.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as we get to final reading on this particular bill, it is important to review a little bit of process.
As my hon. colleague who sat on the committee and sits on the consumer and corporate affairs committee with me rightly indicated, this bill is most aptly described as a bill that is corrective surgery. It seeks to try to make a number of amendments to a number of acts dealing with intellectual property. Indeed five acts are covered by this particular bill. This bill was initiated in the Senate which although is within our rules of procedure does not happen very often.
The bill amends the Copyright Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act. Most of the amendments that have been put forward in this bill are of a housekeeping nature. Most of the amendments seek to streamline some of the regulatory mechanisms within those various agencies that administer these acts to try to ensure that there is some continuity of regulation in how intellectual property is dealt with in Canada.
When we started debate on this bill after it came over from the other place, the government indicated it wanted the bill passed very quickly. We on this side of the House said that we had read the bill and had looked at the debate that had taken place. We did not see that there was anything so special in the bill that it should not have the scrutiny of a committee.
The reason we did that was not because we thought there was anything terribly contentious in it, but because as a matter of practice we believed it was important, no matter how minor or how unanimous the consent on certain aspects of legislation, that the process be followed through in order to ensure that any individual who wished to provide input had the ability to do so.
I am not going to repeat the very good overview my hon. colleague gave on the various amendments and how they affected those particular five acts that had been alluded to. However, one of the concerns we on this side had was on this new direction that seems to have been forged in the last few years where parliamentarians give far too much of their authority to legislate and the responsibility to review legislation to the Governor in Council.
In short, what happens in many cases is rather than get a lot of the cumbersome matters for full and thorough debate on the floor of the House of Commons, the government simply delegates the responsibility to the executive branch through Governor in Council.
My colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I indicated at the time that we wanted to ensure when this bill went forward that we had the benefit of listening to the officials. We wanted to find out what was the full and total impact of a lot of this regulation-making authority that this bill seemed to be taking out of the hands of parliamentarians and giving to the Governor in Council.
Indeed, during the committee hearings most of my fears were put to rest. Most of what is being done is not so onerous that we should be concerned, even though there are one or two little clauses in the bill that allow the Governor in Council to set or prescribe fees. That always gives us some concern over here. On far too many occasions we have seen the bunch opposite take the opportunity of making a little tax big. That way they can fill their coffers with additional revenues. That being said and done, we believe the bill is worth supporting.
It is interesting to note the different way that this bill came about. The bill came about after a fairly rigorous examination of the five acts by a special committee. That special committee was made up of various stakeholders in intellectual property that would be covered by the five acts. Before this bill came forward there was a tremendous level of consultation. Indeed, many other aspects of standardization and harmonization of intellectual property regulation were on the table. However, the advisory committee did not believe there was enough consensus to go forward with those, so it did not. Therefore, there
April 26, 1993

Government Orders
are still a lot of issues that have to be debated and dealt with.
One of the acts that has been amended is the Patent Act. It is interesting to note that the government in this case sought the advice of an advisory committee before it went forward. A very high degree of consensus was required before it came forward with the bill. However, in November and December of this year when we last did amendments to the Patent Act, this government believed it was not important to consult or to go through any advisory committee. It was simply going to succumb to the pressures of the multinational drug companies and the U.S. trade negotiators during the Reagan-Bush era to basically cash in the rights of Canadians to have access to generic drugs, lower cost prescriptions and to have some competition in the work place.
The reason I raise this point is that it is interesting that within three months the government seems to have done two things. First, when dealing with patent acts and patent law it came into the House with a bill that was universally panned by provincial health care ministers, by private insurers and by the health care industry in general. Anybody who knew anything about the health care system and pharmaceuticals in Canada said that that was a horrendous bill. Last fall they said that those changes to the Patent Act could well cost the Canadian health care system anywhere from $7 billion to $12 billion, that it would drive up the cost of prescription drugs.
Did the government consult these people? No, it did not. That is something we have to look at. The government did not consult at that point in time. As a matter of fact the government was so hell-bent to get that piece of legislation through it imposed closure every step of the way in the House of Commons.
The people and their representatives, the people who sit on all sides of this House who are responsible to the Canadian public, were not allowed to have a full airing. When it was sent to committee, it is interesting how differently that Patent Act change was dealt with from this one. The government sent it to committee with a loaded gun at the temples of a lot of the opposition members. We were told before we heard one single individual say one single thing about those changes to the Patent Act that we were allowed to have eight or ten hours of committee hearings. If we did not like it, the government would shut it down using the big, blunt instrument of closure.
Those amendments to the Patent Act had the potential to devastate our health care system in Canada. We know they will cause higher drug costs. We even had a report a few weeks ago from the government's own Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. INCO is a very large important industry in Ontario. We found out today that its health care costs are going through the roof primarily because of rising drug costs. It would have been nice if the government had decided consultation was as important as what it obviously deemed it was for these technical changes when it set about making those fundamental changes to the Patent Act back in the fall.
In conclusion we on this side will support this initiative. The bill itself will do a lot to tidy up many of the regulations in place. However, we implore the government to be consistent. When it feels technical regulations have to be changed it has to consult with the stakeholders in the industry.
Surely to goodness when it goes into things like the Patent Act to change patent protection and kill the generic industry in Canada it should not use a back door approach to consultation saying: "We will tell you once we make up our mind". It should have done the same thing. It should have slowed the process down and brought in the health care ministers the users, the private insurers to what the impact of those changes would be, just like it did when it was dealing with technical amendments to these bills, but in particular the Patent Act.
The Liberal Party and I support not only the clauses in this bill, but we also support the process which brought it about, the process of consultation, a process that we see used far too seldom by this government in this Parliament.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, again it is my honour and privilege to raise certain issues dealing with this bill before us.
I will start by saying that I support Bill S-17 which originated in the other place. The speed of its passage up to now in the House of Commons has been remarkable. If the passage of other bills were as quick as this we would certainly have a bit more faith in this place. This bill was dealt with very quickly. It is essentially non-controversial and is one which has as its chief impact, I

April 26, 1993
Government Orders
would say, a housekeeping purpose. It does that very well.
This bill amends five pieces of intellectual property legislation: the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Copyright Act and-hold on to your boots for this one, because it is not that easy to understand-the Integrated Circuit Topography Act. For all of us who are computer buffs what that means is that it is essentially dealing with computer circuits and software. Someone actually putting that software on the market has the right to expect a certain amount of protection.
This is a kind of technological nouveaute, it is new. We have been behind in this type of patent protection for many years and now we are trying to step on board and protect makers of all kinds of computer circuits and software. Generally it is house cleaning and it is very good house cleaning at that.
The bill in general sets forth different administrative practices and procedures so that Canada can come into the 21st century on the same wavelength as other countries as far as patent protection is concerned. This bill provides for a quid pro quo, reciprocity between countries as far as patent protection is concerned.
The five different intellectual property acts I was mentioning earlier are all related. Collectively they provide framework legislation that governs innovative activities of Canadian industry and research organizations and businesses.
The bill is very technical. It is very difficult for people who are not in the patent protection business or industry to really understand at first glance. Even the French translation sends one to Le Petit Robert on many occasions. It is very interesting. Some of the words actually look like they have just come on the scene for the first time.
It is interesting to note that the impetus for this particular bill comes from the private sector. We as parliamentarians have been asked by the private sector to give it the guidelines and the protections it seeks in order to know on which foot to dance in the realm of patent protection.
I would say that the amendments to the intellectual property patent system have been a long time in coming. They have come about through a consultative process that has been most exhaustive. Several dozen private, public and quasi-public organizations and government organizations have been consulted. The fact that the bill is non-controversial right now shows the value of broad consultation before starting to put things on paper. At least before starting to translate things into both official languages people should generally agree on the terms and definitions. That is why I think this bill is moving along so rapidly. Once again, it is a bill that receives wide political support.
Bill S-17 will encourage more accessible and effective use of intellectual property in Canada without a doubt. It will contribute to efficiencies in government and hopefully reduce costs to intellectual property users by eliminating a number of technical problems and improving the administration of the various acts.
Some of the amendments proposed in the bill will correct some serious technical problems with respect to a patent on a particular seed that has been developed. We are into bioengineering now, and when we try to describe what, the seed does, what is different and why there should be a patent on it, it is very difficult.
The bill allows the giving to the government of the biological specimen and for others to examine and analyse it, in addition to describing what it does, what is different and how it came about. It removes one of the problems we had in the past in a Supreme Court decision where under the law as it existed prior to this bill coming into force, or as the law now stands actually, there had to be full disclosure as there always was. In addition to disclosure of what it does and a written description, the biological specimen could not be put as a deposit to meet the requirements of the Patent Act that way.
If this law is passed it will give researchers and people who want to look into the whole patent field in biological engineering several pathways with which they can check the patent they are looking forward to obtaining or how their product differs from a particular biological product, whether it is a seed or any other biological product.
I would like to make clear however that we are not talking about patenting life forms or new life forms. We are not going to have a particular cow that is going to be the property of Merck drugs, for example, which farmers
April 26, 1993

will have to buy if they want the particular cow. We are not going to have life forms patented. On the question of limited specific senses of bioengineering we are going to have a certain amount of latitude where researchers can patent their discoveries, but it will be very limited.
In reading what the government has already said, before we get into life forms and patenting life forms in a general sense we are going to have very exhaustive debate because there we are dealing with a very serious issue.
If there is a better seed developed which is similar to what has been developed in the past but is one that has specific properties then a company can withhold permission for this particular seed, and the properties of the seed, which may be able to feed the entire population of one country in terms of the way it does its cultivating. Then we have a serious problem. This country would perhaps have to pay some very high royalties in order to obtain something which it should be able to have if not for free then for very little extra money.
We have to discuss very carefully this question of patenting life forms. That is why I welcome the fact that the government is looking at it very carefully before it proceeds in a legislative sense.
I would like to mention the Copyright Act, as it is the main piece of intellectual property legislation which permits the deposit of biological specimens or products. Under the Copyright Act there is another problem and that concerns the fixing of fees.
One of the problems with the government's Patent Act and other acts we have had prior to the Patent Act is that when the government fixes fees, whether it is for a patent application or a patent that is actually given to a particular company or researcher, it uses these fees as a system of taxation and they become very onerous. They actually become very self-defeating. In many cases they are much more than they should be because of the government's desperate desire to raise revenue.
It is funny that I am saying that today on budget day. In an hour we are going to see how the government is going to increase other fees.
Government Orders
On the question of the Patent Act and the intellectual property pieces of legislation which are involved in Bill S-17, we are allowing the government to fix the fees whether or not they happen to be in keeping with inflation without coming back here to Parliament. The court cases we have seen in the past show that the government cannot fix fees far in excess of what the normal cost of the administration of the act is.
That is the job of Parliament. If we are going to tax people we should tax them and say this is a tax. We have to vote as representatives of the people and say that we believe we have to increase taxes by 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent, and then we as representatives go back to our ridings and are judged by what we have done.
We cannot do it in a back-door way by letting the government establish a back-door mechanism for increasing fees and levying fees that may or may not be suitable or may be in excess of what it really takes in order to administer the act.
Probably the most serious caveat I have with regard to Bill S-17 is the fact that it gives this power to the government that I do not think it should have. When this legislation comes to the committee on statutes and regulations it may run into trouble for precisely that point.
Other parts of this bill deal with house cleaning. For example, clause 4 of the Copyright Act eliminates the requirement that entries in the copyright register be personally signed by the Registrar of Copyright or the Commissioner of Patents. That is a sound idea.
I have already mentioned clause 8 of this bill, which I disagree with, which would give the Governor in Council the power to make regulations and prescribe fees to be paid to the copyright office for anything required or authorized to be done in the administration of the Copyright Act. That is giving a little too much authority and that concerns me.
In general, if we look at the efficiencies that are gained and if we look at the fact that from now on people wishing to have applications filed and treated by the patent granting authorities of the government-and I should say that we certainly do need efficiency because there is a huge backlog. I understand there are thousands upon thousands of applications pending. Part of
April 26, 1993



The Budget
this legislation will allow the electronic filing of these applications, which will increase the efficiency as well.
It is important to note that although there is a serious reservation concerning the question of fees this is a piece of legislation on which we feel that the New Democratic Party, and we are happy to see that the Liberals are also on board on this, can agree with the government that it is something that is long overdue.
I hope the government will take note of this because this is not a rare occasion in which all parties say they agree with a bill, with a certain legislation. We hear constantly from the government that the opposition is always in opposition and never says that the government does anything right. It is against the law of averages that this government could do everything wrong. Now and then it is going to stumble upon something which needs doing and which is done right. This is one of those rare occasions.
I wish the government would learn the lesson from this piece of legislation and in the future have a great deal more pre-consultative exercises in which it meets with the actual people concerned with the legislation.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is inclusive.


Philip Edmonston: One of my friends, the hon. minister, talks about inclusiveness. Perhaps the word is inclusiveness but I think it is just consultation. We need to talk to the people of this country, not at the people of this country. We need to make sure that what we are doing here is absolutely necessary and improves the situation. I think this does.
I am proud to be a member of this Parliament in which we can all agree upon something. I hope that in the future we will see other pieces of legislation that allow us to do the same thing.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In accordance with the agreement reached earlier today, I now suspend the sitting of the House until 4.30 p.m.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.14 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), the House will now deal with Ways and Means Motion No. 30 which derives from the financial statement.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the thousands of Canadians who have communicated with me in the preparation of this budget. I would also like to thank the many who participated in the pre-budget consultation process and all those who gave me the benefit of their thoughts, ideas and suggestions in the preparation of the budget.
I also want to say thank you to my colleagues on this side of the House, and indeed to all members of the House of Commons who have from time to time offered suggestions, sometimes in the crossfire of debate. Excellent suggestions have come from the House and from my cabinet colleagues. I want to thank them very much for their support. Most of all I want to thank the Prime Minister for his constant support and guidance and particularly for the confidence that he has expressed in me in discharging this very important position. I want to thank him very much for his ongoing support, advice and good counsel. I hope that it has been put to good use in this particular budget.
The House resumed at 4.33 p.m.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
April 26, 1993
[Stage Direction]
Today I am presenting a budget that will deliver: no new taxes; no tax increases; more than $30 billion in spending cuts and other measures; zero real growth for federal spending on programs and services; the lowest federal program spending as a share of the economy in more than 30 years; the elimination of all new federal borrowing within five years and a strong, positive initiative for a co-operative national attack on all government debt.
Since my hon. friends across the way did not get it all let me repeat it in French.
[Stage Direction]
Speaker. No new taxes and no tax increases. More than $30 billion in spending cuts. Zero real growth for federal spending on programs and services. The lowest federal program spending in 30 years. The elimination of all new federal borrowing within five years and a federal-provincial attack on the public debt.
[Stage Direction]
The goal of this budget is to free the economy for more job creating growth by steadily reducing the burden of deficits and debt. Today I will also outline a process to bring federal and provincial governments together to work toward that goal.
There is only one taxpayer. Canadians want a national solution to the national debt problem and they want their governments to act now.
This budget sets out a responsible, achievable course of action. It builds upon the actions in previous federal budgets but recognizes that a problem that began two decades ago cannot disappear overnight.
It also underlines that by working together as governments and as Canadians we can make an immediate and fundamental change for the better in the prospects of our economy, our country and our people.
This budget is presented at a time of unprecedented concern about the collective spending and borrowing habits of our governments. Canadians are justified in their concerns. They know that a household cannot keep running up credit card bills and borrowing to pay interest. They have seen what happens when govem-
The Budget
ments act as if they are exempt from the same basic rules of common sense.
Here is what happens: Taxpayers pay more and more for less and less service from government because interest eats up a growing share of the tax dollar. Those higher taxes act as a break on the economy. Less economic activity means less growth and fewer jobs.
Home owners pay higher mortgage rates because government borrowing drives up the price of money. Higher interest rates discourage investors and consumers and that too means less growth and fewer jobs.
Finally, in an effort to maintain a standard of living that we no longer earn, we rely more and more on foreign lenders. This leaves Canada with less and less control of its own economic future and the income that we do earn goes increasingly to pay interest to foreigners.
Canadians want to keep control of their future. They want their governments to have the means to maintain vital social support services and the flexibility to respond to emerging priorities. Less borrowing, lower taxes, more jobs and more choice: that is the direction in which people want to go. That is the direction in which this government is going.
This government has been and is fully committed to helping Canadians build a stronger economy that creates jobs and that can adapt, compete and prosper in a new more competitive and rapidly changing global economy.
That is why we have continued to move forward on policies such as bold trade initiatives to secure and expand access to markets; innovative job training measures to help Canadians adapt to a changing work place; tax reforms to increase incentives for work, investment and prosperity and regulatory reform and privatization to reduce the burden of government and improve efficiency.
Most of all, we must and will continue with our firm, responsible spending control policies. That is of fundamental importance as we set forth on this debate. Since 1984-85 we have made real progress in a changing, uncertain world economy. We have cut the average annual growth of federal program spending from 13.8 per cent to 14.1 per cent. We have cut the federal deficit from 8.7 per cent to 5.1 per cent as a proportion of our national income.
[Stage Direction]
April 26, 1993
The Budget
We have turned an operating deficit into an operating surplus. This means the government now spends less on programs and services than it raises in revenues and has done so for the last six years.
Over the past few years, a persistent and painful global economic slowdown has repeatedly forced governments, businesses and households in Canada and indeed around the world to adjust their plans for the future. This has hastened the basic restructuring of our economy in response to global economic change.
To help Canadians cope with the economic downturn and adapt to global competition, we took firm action in the February 1992 budget and the December statement.
We cut personal income taxes. We enriched and restructured the child benefit system to help families with low or moderate incomes. This is injecting $1.7 billion into the economy this year alone.
We introduced the Home Buyer's Plan to help Canadians buy or build homes using funds from their RRSPs. More than $1.4 billion of these funds have been invested in homes by 148,000 Canadians.
We increased our already substantial support for small businesses, the prime source of new job creation in Canada. They are now creating more new jobs.
We substantially improved access for small business to financing by overhauling the Small Businesses Loans Act. Indications are that banks will lend more than an additional $1 billion to small businesses this year.
We increased to $3.8 billion our investment in Canada's most important resource, the knowledge and skills of its people. This will benefit more than one million Canadians this year alone.
We announced major new strategic capital investments in Canada's national transportation and communication networks. A start is now being made on infrastructure projects creating 15,000 person-years of employment with an additional 15,000 to come from further projects to be announced in the weeks and months ahead.
We provided tax relief for manufacturers and since August manufacturing shipments have grown at an annual rate of almost 15 per cent. In February unfilled
orders increased 5 per cent, the largest increase in almost five years.
These measures are being funded out of savings from last year's budget and the December statement. They have been implemented and they are working. The bottom line is jobs; 200,000 full-time jobs created since last August.
In December, following on the Prosperity Initiative, we set aside an additional $400 million over five years for further tax changes in three areas which are important to economic growth and job creation.
Today I am proposing tax changes to improve the treatment of rapidly depreciating new equipment; strengthen the ability of Canadian firms to access new technologies and improve the effectiveness of incentives, particularly for small innovative companies. The details of this initiative are contained in the supplementary information which I will be tabling.
In response to representations on the equity capital needs of smaller knowledge-based firms, we will also explore ways to develop mechanisms to encourage investors to support local companies and at the same time lend their expertise to help the companies succeed.
In 1992 we broadened and deepened the Expenditure Control Plan which was introduced in the 1990 budget. We did not increase taxes for Canadians, but we did cut departmental operating budgets. We cut cabinet ministers' salaries and froze salaries for MPs and all public servants. We reduced grants and subsidies to most organizations by 10 per cent and we streamlined government by eliminating or restructuring agencies, commissions and boards. We also took action to control unemployment insurance costs.
We have delivered. Program spending in 1992-93 is on target with the December forecast and $500 million below the target in last year's budget.
As we all know, during 1992 the world economy grew more slowly than expected. The result for Canada was lower than expected growth, lower revenues and higher deficits. For 1992-93 revenues were more than $9 billion lower than forecast in February 1992. Regrettably these lower than expected revenues have brought the deficit for 1992-93 to $35.5 billion, $1.1 billion higher than forecast in December. I am disappointed by this setback and share the concern expressed by the moans of the

* *
April 26, 1993
[Stage Direction]
members opposite. We must take action and we are taking action.
We are taking corrective action to keep the 1993-94 deficit on target at $32.6 billion and we are tackling the medium-term deficit challenge with aggressive new action. I hope I have the support of hon. members across the way.
This budget sets out a five-year plan to eliminate new borrowing by further cutting back spending and by making government leaner and more efficient. The key to the plan is this: Federal government program expenditures will be held to zero real growth, that is growth no greater than inflation.
The measures in this budget extend and reinforce the actions in the December statement. They will yield combined savings of $3.8 billion in 1993-94, rising to $7.9 billion in 1997-98. All told, these measures will save $30.7 billion over the five-year period.
I want to emphasize again there are no tax increases in this budget. We believe that there are only two ways to reduce the deficit: higher revenues and lower spending. The right way to get the deficit down is by cutting spending. The right way to get revenues up is to encourage more economic growth and we cannot do that by raising taxes.
The first priority in reducing spending cuts is to cut the operating costs of government. Since 1984-85 these costs have been tightly and repeatedly restrained. As a result, operating costs have declined to just under 15 per cent of total program spending in 1991-92. The real cost of delivering programs has been cut by a full 14 per cent.
To further reduce the cost of government, I am announcing the following actions:
Departmental operating budgets, including reserves for contingencies and new initiatives, will be cut by an additional $300 million in both 1993-94 and 1994-95, rising to $1.2 billion in 1997-98. Including the wage freeze and the operating budget reductions in the December statement, the reduction by 1997-98 will amount to 10 per cent. Total savings will be $7.5 billion over the five-year period.
These are significant cuts. They will force increases in productivity but will also result in reduced service levels
The Budget
and the closure of offices and points of service. To improve efficiency while cutting costs, the federal government will have to employ fewer people. These are very challenging and difficult circumstances, but clearly it is in this area that we must extract greater efficiencies.
Defence spending will be frozen in real terms beginning in 1994-95. Together with the actions taken in December, this will generate savings of $361 million in 1993-94, rising to $2 billion in 1997-98, for a total of $5.9 billion over the five-year period.
Funding for the research councils will be held to 1.5 per cent annual growth rate after 1994-95.
The same constraint of 1.5 per cent annual growth will be placed on government spending on international assistance. Canada's efforts in this area will continue to compare favourably with those of other major industrial countries.
Most of the grants and contributions already reduced by 10 per cent this year and next will be reduced by 15 per cent in 1995-96 and 20 per cent thereafter. This measure underlines the need for greater self-reliance on the part of advocacy groups and other private sector organizations.
We must also ensure that we obtain maximum value for the money we spend by reducing economic distortions and ensuring that we meet the global competitive challenge. Working closely with the affected parties, the government has begun a process of reform in the area of western grain transportation; and it intends to pursue reform in the application of Atlantic freight subsidies and in the dairy industry. To facilitate reform, the government is prepared to direct back to these sectors savings from the deepening of the cuts in grants and contributions.
In the December 1992 statement, funding for regional development was reduced by 10 per cent for both 1993-94 and 1994-95. This reduction is now being extended. In addition, this funding will be reduced by a further $90 million in 1993-94, rising to $100 million per year beginning in 1994-95. Over time there will be a shift from grants to repayable contributions. This will provide a pool of funds for new regional development projects and reduce the need for government financing. By 1997-98, the yield from the repayment of contributions will amount to at least $100 million per year, and that
[Stage Direction]
April 26, 1993
The Budget
will be available for projects for funding in all regions of Canada.
In addition, the government will not renew economic and regional development agreements in both forestry and mining as they expire over the next few years. We will also review the future of ERDA agreements in other sectoral areas.
With respect to major Crown corporations, operating subsidies will be reduced by $50 million in 1995-96 and by $100 million per year thereafter for both the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and VIA Rail Canada.
As well, the unemployment insurance benefit rate will be extended at the current level.
With respect to social housing, the government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will not increase its current support of about $2 billion a year for social housing. CMHC will no longer fund housing through 35-year subsidy commitments which impose most of the costs of today's housing support on future taxpayers. Funds to maintain existing housing in good repair, and scope for new commitments, will be found through increased efficiencies in program financing and delivery. CMHC's special purpose funding for shelters for victims of family violence, for housing on Indian reserves and for the integration of persons with disabilities will continue as planned.
There are two major areas representing about $50 billion in annual federal program spending, or about 40 per cent of the total, which have again been exempted from reductions.
Income security benefits for the elderly, programs specifically for the disabled, veterans' pensions and allowances, selected native programs, the Canadian Jobs Strategy and famine relief are all exempt from cuts in this budget.
Second, in recognition of the national nature of the fiscal problem, no additional restraint is being imposed on major federal transfers to provinces. These transfers will continue to grow at a rate greater than all other federal program spending.
Because the major federal transfers to provinces are expected to grow by 4 per cent over the next five years, provinces will receive about $9 billion more than they
would have if these transfers were to be restrained to the same 1.5 per cent rate of growth as all other federal program spending. As an example, for a province like Newfoundland, allowing this higher growth rate in transfers means over $400 million more. That is almost twice the size of Newfoundland's deficit this year and it is equal to $700 for each Newfoundlander.
With respect to the Spending Control Act, as promised in the 1992 budget the government will act to reduce the control program spending limits under the Spending Control Act to reflect the impact of legislating the full funding of pensions and restructuring of the child benefit system.
In addition, the limits under the act will be further reduced by law to bring them into line with the low inflation environment and to ensure a permanent lowering of government spending. The new lower limits will also be extended to the end of 1997-98.
I turn now to the business of government operations and the need for streamlining. Like Canadian businesses, governments must reduce costs and operate more efficiently. The measures in this budget have been designed to encourage continued improvement.
To provide managers the flexibility to do their jobs and make more effective use of shrinking resources, the government will seek basic changes in the work force adjustment directive when it meets with the unions this summer for the scheduled triennial review.
The government will continue to streamline its operations and improve the cost effectiveness of its service delivery. We will make government smaller, simpler and more accessible to Canadians. Building on the streamlining actions in the 1992 budget, an additional 12 government organizations ranging from large departments to small agencies and advisory bodies are being eliminated or restructured.
We will complete the organizational merger of the two Departments of Taxation and Customs and Excise into a single new Department of National Revenue. This will provide for more effective administration of the tax system, including better use of resources to combat tobacco smuggling and to improve compliance generally. Efforts will be stepped up to ensure the taxes owing are paid and paid in a timely way.
April 26, 1993
[Stage Direction]
Eight advisory and other bodies whose functions are no longer needed or can be carried out in another way will be eliminated. Two other advisory bodies, the National Advisory Council on Aging and the National Council on Welfare, will be merged.
With respect to privatization, since 1984 the government has privatized or dissolved 39 Crown enterprises and other holdings and improved operations for the remainder. The number of full-time Crown corporation employees has been reduced by nearly 90,000. Building on these initiatives, a number of organizations in various areas of government will be considered for privatization or commercialization. Details are in the supplementary information.
In the eyes of the business client, a bewildering array of federal, provincial, municipal and private sector services are being offered, leaving the impression of complexity, overlap, duplication and all-around inefficiency.
In response to these concerns I announced in the February 1992 budget several initiatives aimed at improving service. As part of this effort three pilot business centres have been established to provide a single point of contact for business services. They are now in operation in Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax. The government will be working with other levels of government to provide one of these centres in at least one major urban area in each province. The result will be better service for business and cost savings for governments. I am pleased to advise that at the present time there are current discussions under way with respect to the establishment of one in Vancouver, in Toronto and in Montreal.
The excessive regulatory burden has long been an obstacle to business and enterprise. In the 1992 budget the government launched a major review of regulatory programs. This initiative is well advanced. Preliminary analysis of more than 700 regulations suggests that one in four will be struck from the books. An equal number will be modified. These actions will result in substantial cost savings to the private sector and the government. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, will provide an update on the progress of this review later this week.
The Budget
The federal government will encourage all governments to review regulatory programs with the goal of reducing overlap and duplication and ensuring maximum efficiency and benefit for all Canadians.
Reducing the compliance cost for taxpayers remains a high priority. On December 10, 1992 the government introduced a simplified system for calculating GST input tax credits. Since then we have continued to work with the small business community. We will be announcing improvements to the quick method of GST accounting which will simplify the tax for hundreds of thousands of small businesses.
Today I am also proposing measures to streamline government and improve cash management. The quarterly instalment income tax system will be modified. The result of this will provide for some 300,000 persons owing relatively small amounts of tax who will no longer have to make instalments. An additional 500,000 higher income taxpayers will now be required to pay on a quarterly basis. As well, beginning in 1994 the GST credit for individuals will be paid twice a year, in April and October, instead of quarterly. This will save $7.5 million in administration costs while delivering the same benefit to the recipient.
I turn now to the economic outlook for Canada. With the help of the measures I have described and the growing benefits of the government's wide range of economic renewal actions since 1984, the Canadian economy is improving and is poised for strong performance in the years ahead. For example, the OECD has forecast that Canada will have the strongest economic growth among the G-7 industrial countries this year and next.
In the past few months we have seen an encouraging pick-up in the pace of economic growth, employment, retail sales and a number of other key indicators. Strongest of all has been our export performance, currently the main force behind the recovery. Our export strength has been underpinned by the dramatic improvement in our cost competitiveness and our increased access to the U.S. market under the free trade agreement. Strong export performance will continue to help the recovery through 1993 and 1994.
I expect real growth to average close to 3 per cent for 1993 and to increase to more than 4.5 per cent in 1994 as
[Stage Direction]
April 26, 1993
The Budget
the recovery becomes more broadly based. Domestic demand will be spurred by low interest rates. I expect a strong rebound in both residential investment and business investment.
Job prospects will improve steadily. I expect employment to increase by about 300,000 from the fourth quarter of 1992 to the fourth quarter of this year and more than 400,000 during 1994. These gains will be accompanied by strong growth in labour productivity resulting from extensive restructuring and the structural policy reforms we have put in place. In the near term the unemployment rate will decline slowly because of an expected increase in the labour force participation rate, but employment will grow by 1.7 per cent in 1993 and by 3 per cent in 1994.
Inflation will remain low. I expect inflation to average 2.5 per cent in 1993 compared with 1.5 per cent in 1992, which reflects the recent depreciation in Canadian currency and some provincial indirect tax increases. I expect inflation to decline once again to below 2 per cent in 1994. This sustained low inflation will help keep interest rates low and I expect further declines in long-term rates.
For the period from 1995 to 1998 our fiscal projections are based on the following economic assumptions: economic growth at an average of 4.25 per cent; a decline in the unemployment rate to 7.5 per cent by 1998; inflation averaging 1.5 per cent; and interest rates remaining low.
I believe that these are indeed prudent assumptions. They project real economic output rising over the medium term but still remaining somewhat below the economy's full potential by 1998.
Indeed there are uncertainties to be faced, but I believe that Canadians can look forward to several years of solid growth in job creation in an environment favourable for confidence, investment and business expansion.
I turn now to the fiscal situation. The expenditure control measures in this budget will restore the fiscal balance of the federal government over the medium term. Federal program spending will be reduced to 13.9 per cent of Canada's national income in 1997-98. That is the lowest level in more than 30 years. Excluding transfers to provinces, program spending will grow at an
average annual rate of only 1.5 per cent. That is below the projected average inflation rate.
The last time that program expenditures were held at or below this level of growth was in the early fifties, 40 years ago. Furthermore this low level has been achieved on only five different occasions since Confederation. This indeed is an historical breakthrough. It is an historical plan and it is a reasonable plan.
There will be substantial year-over-year reductions in the deficit. As a result, by 1997-98-it is really amazing when you start getting to them over there they start squirming-the government will end all new borrowing in domestic and foreign financial markets and will begin to reduce its publicly held debt.
Interest payments on the debt will be reduced from a peak of 36 cents for each dollar of revenue in 1990-91 to 26 cents in 1997-98. The deficit will be reduced to less than 1 per cent of national income, down from the current level of 5.1 per cent and 8.7 per cent in 1984-85. This is the lowest level in more than 25 years.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I say to my colleagues across the way: Good fiscal policy is good economic policy and sustained fiscal progress is essential for sustained economic growth and job creation.
I now turn to the issue of the national challenge of dealing with the deficit and the debt. We all know that all governments in Canada face similar financial problems. It is worth repeating once again that there is only one taxpayer.
Decisive action is required now to protect our collective ability to make choices in the future, to preserve our social programs, to create jobs and to ensure a prosperous and competitive economy. For that is the ultimate challenge that we all share.
More than ever, Canadians want all governments to work together on the challenges confronting the Canadian economy and particularly on the national deficit and debt problem, for this is truly a Canadian problem.
I meet regularly with provincial and territorial finance ministers to review the state of the economy and the country's finances. These meetings have led to a greater understanding of the fiscal situation which each of us faces. We have worked together on the costs of government and expenditure management, a review of pressures on government spending and experience in addressing these pressures. It has underlined the need for a lasting
April 26, 1993
[Stage Direction]
commitment to spending restraint by all levels of government.
I believe it is now time to go further. I note that a number of provincial premiers have emphasized the need for greater federal-provincial co-operation on practical solutions to Canada's fiscal problems. My conversations with provincial finance ministers have underlined this interest.
Consequently, I have invited my provincial and territorial colleagues to a special meeting in Ottawa on May 30 and 31 to begin working on a co-operative approach to the debt problem. I have spoken to each of the finance ministers personally.
The Prime Minister has written a letter to all the premiers supporting this initiative. Together we will discuss Canada's national debt and deficit problem and ways to develop practical approaches and practical solutions to the problem. This should be seen as a welcome initiative.
There are many possible areas for better co-operation: better sharing of information, ideas and experience; finding more efficient ways to deliver services to the public; eliminating wasteful overlap and duplication; improving harmonization; and collecting revenues more efficiently to reduce the compliance burden on Canadians.
In each and every one of these areas we can do better and I call upon all governments to join in this effort. I call upon all Canadians to support us in this very important effort.
In conclusion, Canadians want less government borrowing, lower taxes, more jobs and more choice for the future.
That is what this budget is all about. It charts a responsible, achievable course to increase the job-creating potential of our economy and to secure the financial health of government.
All governments and all taxpayers share that goal. But to achieve it will require national co-operation and sustained, concerted effort.
Canadians have faced some difficult times together. Time and again our people have pulled together to overcome adversity and build a stronger country.
The Budget
Today as a country we face major economic and financial challenges. But let us remember that we are solidly on course for success. The signs of progress are growing: Canadian businesses are becoming more competitive and Canadian workers more productive; exports have surged and employment is rising again; inflation is near its lowest level in 30 years; and the deficit/debt problem is increasingly being addressed.
The foundation for growth, jobs, and prosperity in the newly emerging economy is being put into place. It is there to be strengthened and built on for the greater benefit of all Canadians.
Realism tells us that it will not be easy to win the battle against high deficits and rising debt. But experience does show us that Canadians have what it takes to succeed.
With discipline, courage, and co-operation, we can achieve success, the kind of success that will make Canada a stronger, more prosperous country for the balance of this decade and the new century to come.
Before I sit down I would like to table the appropriate budgetary documents for the House and for all members.
Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more than a stale, warmed over budget from a tired Conservative government whose members have run up a white flag in the face of this jobless recovery, surrendering 1.5 million unemployed Canadians to more years of despair and hopelessness.
This budget is a fairy tale when it comes to the debt and the deficit.

It is a fairy tale, like all other Tory budgets, when it comes to dealing with the deficit and the debt.

All the Conservative budgets have been fairy tales on this subject. This Conservative Minister of Finance and his predecessor were always wrong in their forecasts of what they would achieve in terms of the debt and the deficit. Why should we believe that this minister knows what he is talking about when he says Conservatives can deal with the deficit in five years?

April 26, 1993
The Budget
That is what he and his predecessor have been saying every year for the past nine years. They have been wrong every time.
The government's own budget papers today say that at the end of five years the public debt will go up from $450 billion this year to $563 billion.
When it comes to the debt and the deficit this Conservative government is like a pyromaniac being asked to be left in charge of the fire department.
After the additional pain to Canadians spelled out in this budget, by the end of the next five years, 1997-98 the deficit will still be $8 billion.
Of the two main Conservative leadership candidates one said she would get rid of the deficit entirely in five years. The other one said he would get rid of the deficit entirely in four years.
Today when the Minister of Finance said that at the end of five years there would still be an $8 billion deficit he is saying in effect that these two candidates do not know what they are talking about. Or they are saying to him that the Minister of Finance is an incompetent.
By the way, the Conservative government has set a new record today. The budget papers say that after nine years of its government Canada's foreign indebtedness has reached a new record since the last record of foreign indebtedness.
Guess when that was? It was back in 1961 under the last long-term Conservative government when John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister seems to doubt that. I ask him to look at the budget papers where that 1961 date is spelled out. If the Prime Minister does not agree with this then he is saying he does not think his Minister of Finance knows what he is talking about.
The Minister of Finance admits that Conservative policies will still mean 11 per cent unemployment this year and about the same next year. He says that at the end of five years jobs and the economy will still be below Canada's productive capacity.
What an admission of defeat and surrender. The Conservatives now and in the future are condemning 1.5 million Canadians to more years of misery and despair.

Nothing but despair for our youth, for a whole generation of Canadians.

Canada can and must do better but it will not come from this budget. This Conservative government's message of despair, defeat and surrender is not the plan for economic growth, jobs and progress that Canadians need.
Liberals have begun presenting such a plan. We have been talking about it and we will be talking more about it in the course of this budget debate and all around the country.
One thing that is missing in this budget is anything about the helicopters and the $5.8 billion for them. There is money for helicopters but the Conservative government is cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the GST rebate cheques for poor Canadians. We have money for helicopters but not for poor Canadians.
I want to move:
That the debate be now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2) the motion is deemed adopted.
Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 27, 1993