1993-04-20

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
Canada is joining with the governments of Mexico and the United States in establishing and negotiating side agreements to the North American free trade agreement. They are asking that the Canadian government ensure that an agreement is negotiated which will state that nothing in the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement applies to Canada's water resource in other than bottled form and that large-scale exports of Canadian water, whether it is through diversion, pipeline or other means, shall not be conferred by any of these agreements.
Again, in terms of the North American free trade agreement and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, they want water to be excluded.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from residents of Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Val-d'Or, Senneterre and Barrante, in the riding of Abitibi, who say that films depicting violence on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they are condusive to greate violence.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee 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, without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of constituents who recognize that the Government of
The petition also says that all toys that incite children to play violent games are unacceptable and their manufacture should be banned. It is also pointed out that when reporting acts of violence, freedom of the press should be restricted, and that the repeated broadcasting of news about acts of violence on television, on all channels, and on radio may incite others to engage us similar acts of violence.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass the appropriate legislation in order to eliminate violence in our society and thus protect our children and give all citizens a better quality of life.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to introduce a petition to this House signed by constituents from

April 20, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Ottawa, but most of them from my home district of Regina, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners ask the government to not proceed with the North American free trade agreement until after the election, an election that has to occur this year. The petitioners call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in my first petition we have petitioners who are concerned about the government's tax on books and reading materials. They indicate that there has been no such tax since the beginning of this nation and they point out that there are no other countries in the world which have such a tax.
These petitioners point out that it is counter-productive to increased productivity and to literacy, which are goals which we seek in our society.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in this petition I have people who are objecting to the government's Bill C-93, the proposed merger of the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. They suggest that the government is neglecting it completely, that it is going to be wiping it out. They ask the government to rescind, to put away this particular bill, to re-think it. They point out that in their opinion the government has not proven that there will be savings to Canada and that there will be increased efficiency.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 464 and 494.


Mr. Dingwall: From 1985 to the present, (a) how many indeterminate employees did the government employ (b) how many indeterminate employees did the government have deployed in each province and territory?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: In so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned, the answer is as follows:
(a) and (b)	Number of indeterminate public servants by Province and Territory
from December 31, 1985 to December 31, 1991
1985	1986	1988	1989	1990	1991Newfoundland	5,073	4,939	4,850	4,807	4,822	5,018	5,004Prince Edward Island	1,966	1,920	1,881	1,907	1,921	1,868	1,756Nova Scotia	13,141	12,812	12,515	12,284	12,133	12,134	12,073New Brunswick	6,968	6,931	6,837	6,768	6,814	6,881	6,765Quebec (except NCR)	29,392	28,726	28,111	27,566	27,398	28,032	27,945Quebec (NCR)	15,680	16,944	16,853	16,338	16,166	16,054	15,939Ontario (NCR)	50,984	48,375	47,406	46,995	47,329	47,471	47,458Ontario (except NCR)	33,807	32,717	31,501	30,711	31,074	32,461	32,904Manitoba	9,049	8,754	8,473	8,224	8,268	8,556	8,562Saskatchewan	5,585	5,281	5,198	5,097	5,408	5,508	5,404Alberta	12,311	11,902	11,772	11,601	11,712	12,149	12,068British Columbia	19,201	18,471	18,221	17,990	17,964	18,554	18,479Yukon	846	818	828	812	765	785	776Northwest Territories	1,417	1,323	1,275	851	813	821	837Outside Canada	1,593	1,563	1,589	1,586	1,595	1,531	1,433Location unknown	11	122	161	163	146	170	69Total	207,024	201,598	197,471	193,700	194,328	197,993	197,472
Note : Statistics for 1992 will be available only after the tabling in Parliament of the annual report in mid-May 1993
April 20, 1993

Point of Order


Mr. Fee: For each fiscal year since 1968 to date, how much did the federal government spend on capital expenditures?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and minister of State (Finance)):: The answer is as follows:
Capital Expenditures since 1968
	($	millions)	
1967-68	$750.6		
1968-69	$719.2	1980-81	$1,753.01969-70	$663.9	1981-82	$2,174.51970-71	$560.0	1982-83	$2,621.71971-72	$686.0	1983-84	$3,565.01972-73	$664.0	1984-85	$4,810.81973-74	$875.0	1985-86	$4,471.01974-75	$1,116.5	1986-87	$4,432.71975-76	$1,207.5	1987-88	$4,604.31976-77	$1,375.3	1988-89	$4,654.21977-78	$1,552.2	1989-90	$4,676.61978-79	$1,614.0	1990-91	$4,647.81979-80	$1,392.4	1991-92	$4,664.3
This table represents federal government capital expenditures from Expenditure by Standard Object tables, Public Accounts. This includes all spending on construction and/or acquisition of land, buildings, works, machinery and equipment over $1,000. Minor capital expenditures under $1,000 are not included. These figures represent all capital expenditures: those with outside parties as well as capital expenditures internal to the government. These expenditures are as reported in Public Accounts and have not been restated to reflect any conversions of departments to Crown corporations.
Source: Public Accounts of Canada [Translation]


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order regarding the question of freedom of speech.
This is not the same question I raised as a question of privilege on March 11, but rather a point arising from public reaction to the actions of the majority of the members on the Bill C-113 legislative committee and to the ruling on that action.
The rules in this place are interpreted by you, Mr. Speaker, acting as judge of the court of Parliament on what is or what is not allowed according to the rules of this place. Like a judge in a court, you interpret the rules set down by the legislature. It is not within your jurisdiction to change them no matter how unfair or damaging the ultimate result may be in a particular case.
As you stated in a March 31 ruling on another matter and I quote:
The Chair is constrained in what the Chair can do by the rules which this House has passed. It is not surprising that sometimes the hon. members or even the members of the public feel that the rules we have set for ourselves may in some cases be unreasonable or even worse. However, it is extremely important, I think, that the Chair be bound by those rules until the House decides to change them.
It follows then that if there is a problem with the rules, the rules must be changed. Legislatures have consistently acted to amend legislation when courts have interpreted it in such a way as to create an outcry among the people who must live under the laws and their interpretation.
This is what I am asking you to do here today, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that there is a great deal of public concern about the possibility of future committee witnesses being arbitrarily silenced by a majority of a committee who do not like what they have heard from those witnesses.
A number of editorials and columnists have spoken out against the possibility of arbitrary censorship.
This place has been under attack from many different quarters for lack of democracy and lack of relevance. Some criticisms are more valid than others. However it is vital that we as parliamentarians pay attention to the voices of the people and do the best we can to make this place work in the interest of all the people of Canada,


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

April 20, 1993
Point of Order
not just those whose views we find soothing or acceptable.
We have a section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees the fundamental freedoms of Canadians, including freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. This right is subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Freedom of speech is no less important in this place. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 75 states:
Freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee.
Beauchesne's also states in citation 109:
Witnesses before committees share the same privilege of freedom of speech as Members.
It is vital that we as parliamentarians bring our guarantees of freedom of speech into line with those enjoyed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of speech is not unlimited but the limits on that freedom must be very explicit. That is the state of the supreme law of Canada. The supreme law of this place should also reflect that fundamental principle. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you as a parliamentarian who shares my concern for freedom of speech and respect for this place to refer this matter to the House management committee to study and recommend changes to the rules.
These changes must address the need to guarantee freedom of speech in clear and unambiguous language while balancing this right against the legitimate need for decorum and order in committees. By acting quickly and decisively on this important issue, I believe we can take a significant step toward restoring the reputation of Parliament among the people of Canada.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what the member for Timmins-Chapleau has requested that you do is to take to the House management committee a request to review the rules governing freedom of speech in committee.
I am rising on that request. We in this place have already set limits that occur for members of Parliament on what they can say.
In fact, in the presentation by the hon. member he says: "Freedom of speech is not unlimited but the limits on that freedom must be very explicit".
As you know, we in this House are bound very clearly by what we can say. Similarly, witnesses and members of committee are bound by those same rules in committee although they are under the control of committee.
I believe that the rules governing freedom of speech were appropriately applied in the instance that has caused this point of order to be raised. Any time a member of Parliament or a witness appearing before a committee levels accusations of fraud or corruption against any member of this place, that member's freedom of speech has exceeded the bounds.
I would suggest that if the member is adamant that this should be reviewed there are other methods for him to do so. I do not believe that you, Mr. Speaker, as our representative should act on my behalf to request a change. I think the rules as they stand right now are adequate.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order raised by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau, I would like to submit to the Chair that this does not constitute a point of order, as the hon. member did not refer to a Standing Order that would have been breached. In my opinion this is the same point of order the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau raised before this House on March 11, on which the Chair has ruled.
Standing Order 10 clearly states that, once the Speaker has decided a point of order, no debate shall be permitted on such decision and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
In responding to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau on March 11, you said that it is up to the committees to decide whether they want to report all of their proceedings or only parts of them.
Furthermore, I would like to submit that it is not the place of the Speaker of this House to make rulings on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; it is up to the courts to decide.
I humbly submit that this point of order is inadmissible.
April 20, 1993


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief in my intervention in support of my colleague from the New Democratic Party. He has put forward a very fair and equitable suggestion to the House.
In listening to my learned colleague across the way, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I want it to be very clear that my colleague from the New Democratic Party is not revisiting. He is not asking you to re-rule or revisit your decision of March 11. He makes that very clear.
He does raise, however, a fundamental issue of considerable importance to all members of Parliament and the public as well, which is the right of freedom of speech, including where that may not take place.
My colleague has made that argument in a very succinct intervention. He is requesting that the Chair not adjudicate negatively or affirmatively on the subject matter which is in question. That is not the remedy he seeks.
My colleague seeks to have the subject matter, which he believes to be of sufficient importance, referred to the House management committee so it can examine what the hon. member and other hon. members have to say with regard to the right of freedom of speak.
I hope that on the basis of simple fairness and equity this will in no way reflect badly on the Chamber. In fact it will reflect very favourably on the Chamber if such a subject matter can be referred to the House management committee.
I might add that this committee has representatives from all three political parties and is open to other members of Parliament who wish to participate. They may go to the committee and debate. I support my colleague in the remedy he seeks, which is to have this subject matter referred to the House management committee.


Mr. Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to emphasize what was just said. This is a procedural suggestion rather than a substantive one. It has to do with referring a particular matter to the Standing Committee on House Management, which is the standing committee of this House charged with looking into matters of procedure and parliamentary rules, et cetera.
Point of Order
I think this is not innocuous because that is pejorative word but I think this is harmless. We should not worry that it is simply a way of revisiting a question that is otherwise not revisitable. I do not think that is what is going on here. I think there is a truly legitimate attempt to try to get something before the Standing Committee on House Management through you that deserves to be looked at.
It is not just a question of the same limitations on freedom of speech that apply in committee applying in this House. We are not free to say anything we like here. We can say things which will bring chastisement or perhaps even more serious measures from the Chair. We can be named. We can even be thrown out of the House for things we say.
To my knowledge things are never stricken from the record here. There is a new dimension here and, Mr. Speaker, you felt the rules only permitted a certain way of dealing with the question when it came before you in the form of a previous point of order. You do not make the rules. The House makes the rules and sometimes it makes them as a result of deliberations in the Standing Committee on House Management. That is where the House deliberates as the House with respect to the rules of the House.
What could be more appropriate when there is an obvious controversy than to have that body, which is charged by the House to deal with these very matters, look at them? That is all that is before us here, I say to members on the government side. There is no judgment involved here on a previous ruling of the Speaker. There is no judgment involved here on the previous behaviour of a majority of the committee that originally gave rise to this controversy. There is no judgment involved here at all. This is simply a matter that ought to be looked at by the Standing Committee on House Management.
I think that in all fairness it is a suggestion that ought to be supported by members on both sides of the House and I hope also by Mr. Speaker, so this can be dealt with in a way that on future occasions there will be some guidance from the House on this matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief intervention to add to the comments already made.
I support the arguments that would call for a reference to the standing committee as a way to resolve this issue. I want to add that there are others, other than members in this House, who are calling for this.

April 20, 1993
Point of Order
Many of us reading the press over the last number of weeks have been struck by the number of editorials and columnists who have written about this particular act; the fact that a record was removed of something that took place in an extension of this House.
I think the important thing is that we are concerned here. We want to maintain the integrity of this institution. More than that, the public is also now asking us to take some action on this issue.
For that reason I appeal to my friends on the government side to be open to an examination and a resolution of this issue. It is not simply being called upon by those of us here. Others across the country are now looking at this institution. They are puzzled by this type of action. I think it would be in the best interest of the institution of Parliament that we resolve this. This is a suggestion of at least one way to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all I want to remark that the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau has made it very clear that in raising this point of order in the House he is not, nor do I take it that anybody else is, challenging the ruling which I had to make at least as well as I could, given the constraints under which I am operating here. I think that is accepted.
I would not ordinarily invite a question of order on a matter like this. I did not invite it but the hon. member, out of courtesy for the Chair and to this place, let me know that he wished to raise it. This was several weeks ago and I said I would hear it.
The issue of the degree to which a Speaker ought to interfere with the workings of a committee is an important issue. Obviously if every time something did not go the way some people would like in a committee they could come and ask the Speaker to intervene, the implications would be considerable. Our jurisprudence is very clear. For the most part the Speaker should be very cautious about interfering with what goes on inside a committee and for good reasons, based on experience.
The hon. member has brought forward to members on both sides of the House a matter which concerns him and clearly has concerned some others, as other members have commented.
However I am very conscious of what the hon. member for Manicouagan has just pointed out.

-It is very important that a debate such as this one, serves to resolve the matter at hand. The Speaker is not commenting on the actions or decisions of the committee.

I understand very well the concern that has been raised by the hon. member. I want to be very careful that I do not do or say anything which is going to create difficulties for the House, committees or others.
I think we have to recognize that the Standing Committee on House Management has, according to the rules we have set for ourselves, certain ongoing powers. I know that the hon. member who is chairman of the committee knows and understands this.
I am reading from the rules: "The House management committee shall include in addition to the duties set forth in Standing Order 104 and among other matters". Subparagraph (3) says: "The review of and report on the Standing Orders procedure and practice in the House and its committees".
I am bringing this to the attention of hon. members because this is an ongoing thing. It is not something that is only there as a consequence of a motion of this House. There is no need for a motion of the House.
I would hope that at the moment anyway the better course would be that hon. members on both sides, and I fully appreciate they are always concerned about our rules and about how we conduct business on behalf of all Canadians who send us here, had a discussion. At this moment I think it would be wise if discussion took place between the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau, the hon. parliamentary secretary, the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Ontario who has spoken here, and others. It may well be appropriate that members go to the committee and discuss it. There is no harm in that. I would prefer that we approach it that way instead of putting it to a vote of the Chamber. It is a matter that has caused some distress, we all know that.
There are two sides to the matter, and I am not going to get into that. That also has to be recognized. I think that the appropriate way to deal with it, now that it has been raised in the House, would be for members on both sides to discuss it among themselves. Perhaps they would find agreement to take the matter to the committee where a further discussion could take place.
April 20, 1993

Government Orders
I think that is better than putting it to a vote of the House. This is a matter we have to deal with among ourselves and in the most civilized way that we can. I would hope that hon. members would find that approach appropriate under the present circumstances.
I thank hon. members for their representations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: There are 67 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992.

Motions Nos. 1 to 20, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, will be grouped for debate and the vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to the remaining motions.

Motions Nos. 21 to 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 to 37, 39 and 41 to 64, standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 29, 32 and 40, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface and Motion No. 38, standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Finance, will be grouped for debate and voted on according to the following pattern:
First, a vote on Motion No. 21 will apply to Motions Nos. 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 to 37, 39 and 41 to 64.
Second, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 will obviate the need for votes on Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 38 and 40 and a negative vote on Motion No. 21 will require votes on these motions as follows:
A vote on Motion No. 24 will apply to Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 29. Motion No. 32 will be voted on separately. Motion No. 38 will be voted on separately. Motion No. 40 will be voted on separately.

Motion No. 65, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 66, standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Finance, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 67, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface, will be debated and voted on separately.

I will now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 20 to the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we proceed with the debate on Motions Nos. 1 to 20,1 have read and listened carefully to your decision in terms of the grouping of amendments with regard to report stage and I accept the ruling. I must express my disappointment, however.
I am wondering whether the Chair could assist me in satisfying my concerns by indicating to me whether or not the Chair and the Table took into consideration that this particular bill, Bill C-93, affects a number of different federal statutes of the House of Commons, in particular Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, and that this goes back some years. It goes back to 1987 when the government of the day under the auspices of Bill C-103 established the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
The Chair should know that at that time in the other place there was a motion made to divide the bill which was ruled against by the majority. The Chair should know that on Bill C-103 the opposition raised that very issue and as a result voted against Bill C-103. When Bill C-93, which is the bill that we have before us today, was entered for the purposes of second reading at the first

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
opportunity members of the opposition put forward to the Chair that the bill ought to be split due to the fact that it involved a good number of different subject matters and that Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation should stand alone in terms of the furtherance of our debate.
I am wondering if the Chair has taken all of those factors into consideration. The amendments we seek here today, particularly amendments 1 through 20, go right to the heart of that particular statute in terms of trying to, as members of the opposition, re-establish Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. Although I accept the ruling, the Chair knows of my grave disappointment in allowing a mere 10-minute debate at report stage on an important aspect of public policy. I want to know whether the Chair has taken into consideration all the factors I have outlined.
It now stands, Mr. Speaker, that members on this side of the House will have a meagre 10 minutes to discuss and debate over 20 amendments which affect, and I am sure other members on this side of the House would agree, the economic life of an island that has been depressed for a considerable period of time under the administration of those opposite.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what was said to you about grouping Motions Nos. 1 to 20 presented by the hon. House leader of the opposition, but on reading the proposed amendments the House will realize that what the member proposed is simply to delete all the clauses concerning the merger of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation with ACOA. No new idea was proposed. Therefore your decision, Mr. Speaker, to group the motions together and to give the speakers 10 minutes seems to me quite justified, given the lack of substance and of ideas in the motions presented by the House leader of the opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, then to be fair and reasonable perhaps the hon. member opposite would conclude that since there are 20 amendments if one were
to multiply 20 by 10 minutes that would take us for an extended period of time.
I am wondering whether or not the hon. member would accede to my request that instead of just 10 minutes for 20 amendments the hon. member would want to allow opposition members to have at least a minimum of 30 to 40 minutes.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I wish to reassure the hon. House leader of the opposition that the Chair understands very well the disappointment to which the hon. member refers. But again, what guided the Chair in its decision is respect for parliamentary rules and traditions whereby the Speaker seeks to maintain proper control over the debate on report stage of a bill.
Since amendments 1 to 20 do not make changes in the substance of the bill but delete clauses from it, in order to exclude for all practical purposes the part affecting the region of the country represented by the hon. member, there is a common thread and that is what guided the Chair in its decision to group this kind of motions together.
Once again, the Chair wishes to reassure the hon. member that it understands his concern and disappointment very well, but that again, in full conformity with the tradition of this House, the Speaker sought to group together the amendment motions, keeping in mind that they all have more or less the same effect with respect to the impact of this bill on the region represented by the hon. member.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I interpreted you incorrectly. You are not suggesting, as the hon. member has alluded, that the doing away of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and the amendments members of the opposition have put forward to re-establish and maintain Enterprise Cape Breton are not substantive. Do I understand the Chair correctly?
Is the Chair suggesting to members of the opposition that this is not substantive? It affects a region of this country where unemployment, as demonstrated by government departments, is in excess of 28 per cent. I hope that I have misinterpreted the Chair when he alleged
April 20, 1993

Government Orders
that this is not substantive. I would like to hear the Chair's comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I just said that there was a lach of substance in the amendments in that they were proposals to simply delete of clauses in the bill. In that regard, I am sorry if some interpreted that to mean that the Chair was saying that the amendments proposed by the hon. member were unimportant. I am sorry if it was the interpretation given but it is not what the Chair meant.
All amendments are always considered very carefully by the Chair, which considers them all to be important. It is simply a matter of grouping together, as the Standing Orders provide, the clauses pertaining to a similar topic or with the same end in view. The Chair made its decision with this in mind, as I think the hon. House leader of the opposition will understand.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is becoming clear that the amendments you have before you are deemed to be substantial.
The amendments are succinct and to the point in calling on the Government of Canada to curtail its craziness in doing away with Enterprise Cape Breton, that is what all of the amendments allude to. That in itself is substantive. If I understand the Chair to be saying that or concurring with that intent, I will be happy to leave the matter there and proceed with the debate on the various amendments Nos. 1 through 20.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We could go on debating all morning but the fact remains, as the hon. House leader of the opposition who is so respectful of the traditions of this House knows full well, that you cannot appeal the Chair's ruling. In that regard, I can assure him that in making this decision the Chair was guided only by the procedure usually or normally used at the report stage of a bill.
Again I understand his disappointment but I reassured him and, this ruling having been made, I think that we should now proceed.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, recognizing the prerogative of the Chair to group motions, which I of course bow to, I do wish to place on the record my disappointment in the groupings of the motions that I will be introducing.
The intent of all my motions is to have part III of the bill deleted. Part III calls for the Canada Council to include in the future the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the International Culture Program. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the International Culture Program are two distinct organizations.
Personally I would have preferred to have seen separate 10 minute debates on each one of these measures.
Again I wish to place on the record my disappointment in only having 10 minutes to address the very serious concerns that I and all members of this House have as well as the academic and research community in this country. To see it all reduced to just a little 10 minute debate in this House I think, to say the least, is disappointing to many.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think that the hon. member's comment was duly noted by the House. We can now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 1 through 20.


MEASURE TO ENACT
David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 14,
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate and I am happy that I have an opportunity to address myself to some very substantial amendments which affect the economy of Cape Breton Island and which directly affect the people who live in that part of Canada.
The sole purpose of these substantive amendments is to stop the Government of Canada from winding up Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and transferring its functions and staff to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That is the substantive purpose of all of these amendments which affect Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
What is Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation? It is a Crown agency of the Government of Canada, put in place by the government opposite to enhance economic development on the island of Cape Breton.
There has been a long tradition going back to the late sixties of the Government of Canada taking an active role in enhancing economic opportunities in Cape Breton. We had the establishment of the Cape Breton Development Corporation which had two divisions: a coal division which is still in existence as well as an industrial development division. It is that arm, the industrial development division, which is the focus of our debate here this morning.
In 1987 the then minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency did away with the industrial development division of Devco. In its place he told Parliament and the people of Cape Breton: "We shall establish Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation which will take the place in all of its substance and consequences of that of the industrial development division, a new agency, set apart, situated in Cape Breton to foster economic growth".
It should be noted the then minister responsible for Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was none other than Senator Lowell Murray who said on May 18, 1988 on page 3431 of the Senate Hansard that it was a nation building measure.
That is what it was, a nation-building measure. That is what he said. Today in 1993, when conditions are unparalleled in that part of Canada in terms of its unemployment, in terms of the lack of infrastructure which is needed for our sagging steel industry and other resources, what do we have the government doing? It is removing a nation-building measure from that part of Canada. I express with great vigour my disappointment with the procedural aspects of this debate but more important with the substance of this debate. I find it shocking. I find it despicable that the minister responsible, the federal minister for Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Central Nova, has not said one word in defence of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. I find it more despicable that the premier of the province, the Hon. Don Cameron, has been as silent as anyone could ever be with regard to a tool that can be used for the purposes of economic development.
April 20, 1993

We know a lot about the premier of Nova Scotia when it comes to economic developments across our province and particularly in Cape Breton.
I want the record to show that the people of my province will have an opportunity to cast their judgment with regard to Don Cameron's activities in the province and also with regard to his lack of activity when it comes to supporting economic development agencies whose sole purpose and demonstrable track record has been to enhance economic opportunities in Cape Breton.
I want the House to understand that those of us who live in eastern Canada are not looking for handouts. We do not want to go cap in hand to Ontario or to Quebec looking for money, but we are looking for fairness. In seeking fairness, there is a real role for an activist government to enhance those economic opportunities. The Government of Canada could have done that if it had maintained Enterprise Cape Breton but it has decided to do away with it.
Its argument will be, as I am sure members opposite will say, that all of the functions of Enterprise Cape Breton will now be carried out by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That is just not so. A few will but most will not.
I need not share with my constituents for they know where I stand and where my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys stands with regard to Enterprise Cape Breton.
Let us ask ourselves these questions. If it were a nation-building measure in 1988 with unemployment in excess of 28 per cent, with young people migrating from our area at a phenomenal rate, with older workers with little if anything to return to or to refer to after having been displaced, with our steel industry sagging, our fisheries in a crisis, our coal industry having declined dramatically, our forestry without direction, is that not a crisis? Should we not want to maintain a nation-building measure to try to counter some of those difficulties? Is this act to do away with this corporation done out of a spirit of meanness by the federal minister for Nova Scotia and the premier of Nova Scotia, Don Cameron?
The assistant secretary for the Treasury Board, which my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys brought to my attention, said the following about Bill C-93: "Seen in this light Bill C-93 proposes to amalgamate
Government Orders
certain programs which the government wishes to continue but which can be delivered more effectively by combining with existing organizations".
It is a modest proposal if you like from a savings perspective.
It is not being done to save money. It is not being done to amalgamate and assure effectiveness. With the greatest respect, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to members of this Chamber, it is being done for solely political reasons.
It is being done because the Premier of Nova Scotia, Don Cameron and the federal minister responsible from Central Nova have determined that area of the country has Liberal representations and therefore they will choke them off.
You may think that is a cynical view. I assure you that view is real and is shared by a vast majority of the residents of the island of Cape Breton. We will see their disdain in the provincial election which has been called. We will see demonstrable signs of their disdain when a federal election is called because they will vote against the Tory administration both provincially and federally.
I urge hon. members in this Chamber, on the basis of fairness and economic opportunity to Canadians who live in a poorer region of this country, to come to their senses, re-establish and reinstate Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what was said by the opposition House leader, who gave us a good demonstration of his talents as a public speaker. It is too bad he did not use those talents to properly inform his constituents. Perhaps I may set the record straight. All services offered by the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will be maintained. What we are talking about here in Bill C-93 is the administrative integration of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation into the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Motions Nos. 1 to 20 standing in the name of the opposition House leader are dilatory, their only purpose being to waste the time of the members of this House. We saw how this strategy failed at the report stage of Bill C-63 which concerned the measures to streamline gov-

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
ernment operations announced in the February 1992 budget.
These motions propose to delete, clause by clause, part II of the bill, without offering valid alternatives. As you said Mr. Speaker, they offer no substantial changes to existing clauses. They offer no valid alternatives because there are none.
Perhaps I may take a few moments to examine the reasons for the government's decision not to eliminate the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation but to intergrate it into the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, better known as ACOA.
Since 1988, the Atlantic region has enjoyed the benefits of the economic development programs administered by ACOA to support small and medium-sized businesses. Aware of Cape Breton's special economic development needs, the federal government provided additional programs through the Crown corporation known as the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
As a Crown corporation, Enterprise Cape Breton was able to develop programs adapted to the island's changing economic conditions. With reference levels totalling nearly $10 million, the corporation has offered loans, equity participation and non-refundable grants to help various sectors of the local economy.
The corporation has always maintained a close relationship with ACOA.
As a matter of fact, the enabling legislation put the corporation under the control of the minister responsible for ACOA and stated furthermore that the president of ACOA should also be president of the corporation and chair of the board of directors.
By integrating the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation into ACOA, the government is taking steps to streamline administration costs related to economic development assistance in Cape Breton and dispelling the confusion regarding the programs available to small and medium-sized businesses on the island. What does the opposition have against maintaining the functions and services offered by the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation while cutting administration costs and making the programs more efficient? What can possibly be wrong with trying to improve the way these organizations are managed, save money and ultimately reduce the taxpayers' burden?
As you no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, part II of Bill C-93, which deals with ACOA and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, ensures that no aspect of the federal government's commitment to Cape Breton will be lost. So stop making the people of Cape Breton and the surrounding area believe that we are in the process of getting rid of this corporation. It is not true and it is regrettable that the opposition is once again playing petty politics for partisan and local reasons, making people feel insecure.
There are provisions calling for specific initiatives to meet the needs in Cape Breton, on top of those already available under ACOA. The proposed measures are in fact programs presently administered by the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. In addition, the bill transfers the functions and powers of the corporation to ACOA.
All in all this move does not eliminate any services or weaken the federal government's commitment to Cape Breton. That is probably why, unlike the hon. member who spoke earlier, Premier Cameron did not raise a fuss.
The end result of the decision will in fact be to put an end to overlap and duplication of programs. The people are fed up with us not doing what must be done to save money for all taxpayers and those who contribute to the financing of the programs. They have had it with us not making an effort to terminate and eliminate unnecessary duplication.
As the only economic development agency, ACOA's Cape Breton office will administer more efficiently the programs and services previously offered by the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The full integration of the corporation in the ACOA network will make it easier for the Cape Breton business community to access the full range of programs and services offered by the agency. What can the opposition possibly have against that?
My colleagues on the other side of this House are perfectly aware of the benefits of such an initiative and they have nothing better to oppose it than these filibustering tactics to waste our time. The next thing you know they will complain that they do not have enough time to debate NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement. They will complain about never being allowed enough time to debate. Just look at what they are doing today to make us waste our time.
April 20, 1993

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you also that in the documents tabled with the federal budget on February 25, 1992 the Minister of Finance stated that the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation was in essence the local expression of the expanded mandate of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. In order to eliminate overlap and duplication and to streamline administration the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will not be eliminated but rather merged with ACOA. This merger will thus save the taxpayers the administrative costs of two very similar programs offered by two separate federal agencies.
Finally, the services remain, nothing has changed, but instead of having two entities there will be only one. So there will be less space to rent and lower administrative costs. What can the opposition have against trying to save public funds?
In merging these two organizations, the minister responsible for ACOA urged his departmental officials to preserve the strong points of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and maintain the flexibility of its programs.
Bill C-93, I repeat, seeks to maintain the programs of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation through ACOA in Cape Breton.
Let us recognize these motions for what they really are: delaying tactics with no other purpose than to slow down government business and disappoint the citizens of this country who have urged us to act and told us that they have enough of waste, mismanagement and duplication and demand that we do something. We are doing something and I find it unfortunate that again the opposition shows no sensitivity in managing public funds.
Therefore I ask all members of this House to join us in rejecting these futile proposals.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak on this bill.
Government Orders
I cannot believe the insensitivity of the government and the misinformation of the member for Terrebonne. He stood before the House presenting this legislation and did not even know it is not the Cape Breton Development Corporation that ACOA is going to take over, but Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. We lost the industrial division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation before the last election five years ago. The government assured us through its spokesperson in the Senate, Senator Murray and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that everything would be fine in Cape Breton. Senator Murray said this was a nationbuilding measure.
I want to tell you how nation building this has been. Today in Cape Breton the unemployment rate, as reported by the government's own propaganda agency, Statistics Canada, stands at 29.4 per cent. You know that is not going to be the maximum.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, for your benefit and the benefit of the member and the House, I want to make clear that throughout my statement, I spoke of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and not Devco. I think there has been an error in translation here in the House. Throughout my speech, I referred to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and ACOA. I made no reference to what the member is saying.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, if that is what the hon. member stated I will accept it. Certainly that must have been a mistake in the translation.
I want to refer to what the hon. member for Terrebonne said. He said this is merely an administrative change; a money saving operation. That is not true.
The fact is that the economy on Cape Breton Island is in a devastating situation. As I mentioned, the unemployment rate right now as stated by Statistics Canada is 29.4 per cent.
I want to refer to one section of this bill. That is subclause 18(b) where it states that we are now going to, and I quote:-

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
-promote and assist, either alone or in conjunction with any person or the Government of Nova Scotia or any agency of the Government, the financing and development of industry on Cape Breton Island to provide employment outside the coal producing industry and to broaden the base of the economy of Cape Breton Island.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about the Government of Nova Scotia. Since 1978 there has not been one industry established on Cape Breton Island with the help of the Government of Nova Scotia or by the Government of Nova Scotia on its own. It has not done one thing on Cape Breton Island.
Not only that, but if you were to travel to Cape Breton Island and stop at a tourist bureau on the mainland, one of the remarks you may get is "well, you do not really need to go to Cape Breton Island". In fact, the minister of tourism for Nova Scotia a few years ago, who was a cabinet minister on Cape Breton Island, had responsibility for a federal-provincial agreement on tourism, of which $14 million was to be applied to the mainland of Nova Scotia and $14 million to Cape Breton Island. This Cape Breton minister in the Nova Scotia government spent the $14 million allotted for the mainland of Nova Scotia on the mainland of Nova Scotia, but the $14 million allotted for Cape Breton he sent back to Ottawa. Imagine that. That is the co-operation we have been getting from this Government of Nova Scotia. We are being asked in this House to throw our lot in with those desperadoes. Come on. The only hope we have is that this government is going to lose the provincial election. Otherwise, it is going to be more of the same.
I will give another example. We have a university on Cape Breton Island of which we are very proud. It is in the constituency of the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. It is one of the hopes of bolstering the economy of Cape Breton. We are dependant on the innovation that we can get through this university. I want to say that the average student allotment by the province of Nova Scotia to the University College of Cape Breton is $4,300. The average in Nova Scotia is $6,800. Even if we got the average on Cape Breton Island we would have an additional $4 million of assistance for the University College of Cape Breton.
This is the treatment we have been getting on Cape Breton Island. And this government is continually eroding any assistance to this area which so desperately needs
the support of its federal government. Now it is taking away the one independent agency that was left to work for Cape Breton Island. It says there is not going to be any difference, that it is going to be an improvement. That is not so. We are losing a great deal.
Let me just give one example which is all I have time to give in the time allotted. Under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency there is no provision to own land. There was and there is at the present time under the Cape Breton agency. Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation does have the right to own land. Where is the industrial park that Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation has going to go? What is going to happen to it? The government has made absolutely no commitment or provision for that.
We have a demonstration farm on Cape Breton where we are trying to work on new agricultural methods, new agricultural procedures that are distinctive to the soil and to the climate of Cape Breton which is different from mainland Nova Scotia because mainland Nova Scotia goes north-northeast. It is colder, the soil is different and we need this demonstration farm. Because ACOA cannot own land, we cannot foresee how this demonstration farm is going to be able to be maintained. Is the federal Department of Agriculture going to take it over? No. Is the provincial Department of Agriculture going to take it over? No. What is going to happen to it?
That is another loss that is going to be factored into the doing away with Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
With regard to the fishing industry, there are no groundfish off northern Cape Breton. No groundfish. The fishing industry is in tatters and we are told you can wait, do not worry, the fishermen are not going to go on unemployment for a while. The fishermen in my riding are going to go on unemployment on May 1. This is April 20 and there is still no package for the fishermen on Cape Breton Island.
The steel industry is down from 3,700 people 15 years ago to 600 today. The mining industry is down from 4,200 people to about 2,000 today. The tourist industry has been reduced largely because of the GST which this government put in. The fishing industry is reduced because of a stupid fishing policy that this government brought in. In fact it now does not even care to subsidize
April 20, 1993

the fishermen it put out of business. It has been one problem after another as a result of the policy for Cape Breton.
Now this government is taking away the one distinctive agency that could do something on Cape Breton Island if it were allowed to function by this government, but obviously it is not. I ask the government to reconsider this idiotic provision in taking away Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise first of all in support of the amendments that have been introduced by the Liberal Party.
A lot in Bill C-93 is commendable. I think the opposition parties, both the Liberal Party and certainly my party, the New Democratic Party, have no problem at all in seeing greater efficiencies in government, in seeing government waste being reduced.
When you set about the task of reducing government waste you have to do it in an intelligent manner. You have to do it in a way that when you change agencies, when you restructure, you do it in a way that makes common sense, that uses intelligence, that involves consultation and then through a consensus process you proceed with the changes. There is much in Bill C-93 that illustrates this government has not done any of these things.
Certainly this clause that will roll Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation into the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is a unilateral action undertaken by this government without the proper consultation with the people that these agencies are supposed to serve.
We tend to think that in this day and age the message is coming out loud and clear that this type of arbitrary bureaucratic government is not only wasteful but should be ending.
We hear members of the Conservative Party who are running for their leadership talk and proclaim about a new type of democracy, a new type of open government, a government that is responsive to the needs of the people, a government that consults people.
Yet when you look at what this government is actually doing despite the lofty statements of those who aspire to
Government Orders
be the leader of this government, you know that it is business as usual.
The government claims that with this measure we are going to save jobs, that it is going to make things more efficient. We heard the spokesman for the government loudly proclaim this fact and accuse the opposition of stalling, of being opposed to these measures that would cut government waste.
The government and the government spokesperson does not understand, does not hear what we are saying. We are saying that this measure will not achieve greater efficiencies. It would not reduce the deficit of this government. That is what we are trying to hammer home to this government, that what it is doing in several of the clauses of Bill C-93 is the very opposite to the aim and the lofty purpose that it proposes in this House.
For example, under the access to information the Canadian Federation of the Humanities obtained the study by Treasury Board as to the savings of items recommended under Bill C-93. We looked at Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and what the savings will be. Over five years it will be minus $1 million. In other words, it is not going to save. It is going to cost $1 million over five years.
How many personnel reductions will there be? There will be 24 less person-years over a five-year period. It will mean that in the year 1993-94 six positions will be saved, which is true for the next four years. In a five-year period it is going to cost an extra $1 million to do the transfer and in the end it is going to save 24 positions. That again is over five years. That is the best case scenario in terms of savings.
Therefore, when this government stands up and says it is doing this to save the taxpayers money and to increase efficiencies in government, the fact of the matter is that is not so. It is smoke and mirrors that this government is introducing to us.
Let us remember that the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation was established in 1987 by separating the industrial division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation from the coal division of the Crown corporation. At that time we were opposed to the measure. We were opposed because prior to that the focus for

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
economic development in Cape Breton was an integrated form. The general economic development as well as the economic development for coal were brought together. We sensed in our opposition that we needed an integrated approach in order to focus on the tremendous problems of Cape Breton.
At that time the government justified its action by saying this would create again "greater efficiencies". Let us have a look at the record. In March of this year Cape Breton Island had an unemployment level of some 29.4 per cent. Indeed only 33.9 per cent of the adult population had some kind of job at all.
Let us compare that with 1987 before the government attempted to make things more efficient. When the corporation was created the unemployment rate in Cape Breton Island was only 19.3 per cent with a participation rate of some 54 per cent. That is quite an accomplishment to drive up the unemployment rate to 29.4 per cent from 19.3 per cent in 1987.
When we look at the projects that have been funded under the regime this government introduced in 1987, what do we find? A report in 1991 on Enterprise Cape Breton found that those projects which had a total cost of $1 million or more had a failure rate of some 71 per cent. Enterprise Cape Breton was a participant in a number of spectacular fiascos on the island, everything from Technitread, which was a $2.1 million loss, to WCN Communications which was a $4.1 million loss.
The study also indicates, and this is very important-I think there is a lesson to be learned in this-those projects costing less than $100,000 had a success rate of 72 per cent which states that those smaller efforts at economic development had a much better chance of succeeding.
We opposed the separation of the industrial division of Devco in 1987 and we are opposed to having the corporation rolled into ACOA today. In 1988 we proposed an amendment to the legislation creating the corporation and ACOA which would have required that after two years-that is in 1990-a review would have been undertaken by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to determine whether separating the industrial division from Devco had been a success or failure. Unfortunately at that time the government opposed the amendment.
.(1135)
We have heard the government spokesperson talk about the opposition being motivated mainly by political considerations. That is not true. We want to see an effective program. That is why in 1988 we introduced amendments to ensure that there would be a proper review of what Parliament had done in 1988.
The government could have accepted our proposal instead of playing politics. However because the suggestion came from the opposition the government automatically, in a knee-jerk reaction, opposed it. It could have accepted our amendment as a well-intentioned amendment aimed at allowing a review after two years to make certain that what we had done in 1988 was the correct thing, and if it was not, to allow us an opportunity to redirect and correct any mistakes we made. No, the government was opposed.
In the absence of any other alternative a full review of the success or failure of that amalgamation should have preceded the abandonment of that corporation and the rolling of its activities into ACOA. What we are asking for is a proper review.
The government is saying that we are wasting time. Is it a waste of time to make certain that the review is done right so that moneys can be saved, so that the purpose of this exercise, economic development on Cape Breton, can be done in the most efficient way? That is what we are trying to do and what we are trying to seek.
We are not trying to score political points. We want to make certain that what we do as a public body we do in the best way.
What it comes down to is local control. The people of Cape Breton Island should really have ultimate control over their destiny and economic development. They are the people who know the best. What the government is doing today is taking control further away from them. It is a pigheaded and stupid move on behalf of this government that makes no sense.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the set of motions by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, which attempt to prevent the rolling into ACOA of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. They attempt to preserve the single agency left on
April 20, 1993

Cape Breton Island that can plan the economic future of Cape Breton Island as a whole.
The provision in Bill C-93 to eliminate Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation can only be described, if one regards it in the historical context of this government's activities with respect to Cape Breton, as one of astonishing cynicism.
If we go back to the beginnings of this government, back in 1984-85, and examine the record of the government in terms of promoting development on Cape Breton Island we see a government that had a few ideas initially but has totally given up. It has decided that Cape Breton Island is a place where it has no support and there is no point in even investing a modicum of energy or resources in an attempt to create an economic future for that part of Canada. It has written that part of Canada off.
When Devco was created back in 1967 as a federal Crown corporation to run the coal industry in Cape Breton the industrial development division was added to Devco in order to promote alternatives to coal and steel and create a diversified economy on Cape Breton Island. We realized then and we still realize that it is a long-term, ongoing prospect. The government of the day considered Cape Breton Island as an economic entity that required a focus, a focused plan of development and a focused agency to promote the opportunities of the island and to try to find by trial and error alternative economic opportunities for the island.
In 1988 when this government took the industrial development division of Devco, broke it off from Devco and created the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, this party saw then that the intention of the government was ultimately to terminate that agency whose mandate and focus was to promote economic development on Cape Breton Island. We saw it in the words of the government leader in the Senate when he said in introducing Bill C-103, which was an act to create ACOA, that this was a nation building measure. Creating Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation as a separate agency from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was a nation building measure.
In another part of his speech he said that the purpose of this organization was to: "Promote and assist in the financing and development of industry on the island of
Government Orders
Cape Breton in order to provide employment outside the coal mining industry and to broaden the base of the economy of the island". That was what the purpose of the industrial development division was. He said that Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation would do this on its own and in conjunction with others, whether individuals, governments or government agencies.
We knew at that time that the government's ultimate plan was to eliminate the industrial development division of Devco, to eliminate a separate agency to promote economic development on Cape Breton Island and to roll it in with the rest of the hodgepodge of programs it has created and which have had no focus and no effect. The government has literally thrown money at Cape Breton and at the rest of Atlantic Canada but it has had no effect in terms of promoting some kind of focused economic development in that part of the world.
At the same time the fundamental resource based industries that we have, such as the fishery which is in a state of collapse all around our shores through no fault of the people involved in the industry but largely because of its mismanagement by this federal government and the coal and steel industries which have been struggling for generations and for which we are still striving to find some ways of providing some alternative, continue to be all that exists to sustain the people of Cape Breton, those who are willing to stay in that part of the island. We still need a focused agency to come up with alternatives and find the natural opportunities that exist in Cape Breton to create meaningful, long-term and stable employment for our citizens and our young people for the future.
The measures that have been created, the programs of loan guarantees, interest buy-downs and investment tax credits which the government has lobbed in our direction and then taken away, altered and changed at a whim and a moment's notice, have actually undermined more than anything the entrepreneurship and natural business acumen of the people of the island.
It had them chasing grants, loan guarantees and interest buy-downs. It had them chasing smoke stacks from other parts of Canada who have come with no reason to stay on the island. We have had to live with this over the whole period of this government.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
Here we are in the dying days of a Tory administration that has lost all sense of purpose and all sense of commitment. It has no ideas and has bankrupted any solutions for this part of the country. It is taking away the only agency which, small though it was, was trying and was in a position to focus and deal with the problems unique to Cape Breton Island.
That is what this government is doing with Bill C-93. That is why the members of Parliament who represent that part of Canada are so opposed to this bill.
In 1988, just before the last election when the government created ACOA, we had a flurry of announcements of businesses starting up all over Atlantic Canada. In Cape Breton Island the people had money forced on them. Many businesses were started up prematurely. I know because they are in my riding. They gave up their life savings to set up corporations induced by these incentives given by the government just before the election. After the election the incentives disappeared and the businesses struggled on. Many of them went bankrupt.
The life savings of some of those people went with them. We had the situation of a few months ago, and I do not want to let this go by, in which Premium Automotive Tanks Inc. in Port Hawkesbury, after five years of taking this government's money and taking the talents and dreams of the people of Port Hawkesbury, closed its doors overnight.
Yesterday I discovered three employees of that company who for some reason were not on the list to get their severance payments and are being denied their severance payments by that company. Now that the company has its assets out of Port Hawkesbury it does not need to care and does not care about the employees who are there and who are trying at least to get a severance package so they can begin to rebuild their lives.
That is the legacy of this government on Cape Breton Island. That is why it knows that it will get absolutely no support provincially or federally in the next election.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to talk about this series of amendments because this particular activity is
probably one of the worst initiatives that the government has ever undertaken.
It has been a botched job right from the beginning. In fact, ce sera appele I'operation malmenee.
I already have graduate students who are contacting me to do theses at the masters and doctoral levels. They want to do a case study of something that has been particularly badly done by government. This is the one that they are zeroing in on.
Why is Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation being axed? It raises very fundamental questions if it is going to be done away with, as it will be. What is next? The more important question is why did the government decide to do that?
I have maintained right from the beginning that it was to try to respond to the right wing of its party, the reform agenda. I suppose that because I am from this side of the House people might say that is what I would say. I would like the ladies and gentlemen in the House to cast their eyes on an article in The Globe and Mail from February 27, 1993 by a well-known writer by the name of Hugh Winsor.
He was interviewing a senator by the name of Finlay MacDonald, who is a senator from the government's side. While talking to him this is what the good senator had to say. He saw this whole exercise as the government's attempt to thin the public perception that chronic deficits are caused by waste and mismanagement as it allows the public to believe there is a painless way to solve our serious financial problems. That is one comment which the senator made. The other one is equally effective and I find it more interesting. The whole exercise might be nothing more than a symbolic act to protect the party's right flank from attacks from the dreaded Reform Party and cause sufficient pain and spill enough blood to impress the voters. If this is true it might be good politics in the short term but it is not good public policy in the long term.
I did not say that. Senator Finlay MacDonald said it. It is available to anyone and everyone. I would be delighted to carry it to them personally.
April 20, 1993

Let us look at the contentions that the government made. It is going to save money. I will speak to that later. It is going to increase efficiency and effectiveness. I will speak to that later.
I say to the government side that is why it is such a botched operation,

It was botchedry because no studies were ever made. Can you imagine the government introducing a bill of this magnitude, winding up some agencies and consolidating others, without any preliminary studies to determine whether it will save money or increase efficiency.

Where is the proof? Give me the proof and I will reconsider my position. I contend it was nothing but a blatant political act.
In the interest of fairness I want to quote from some of the testimony that was given by those representing the government. Bill C-93 is a modest proposal if you like from a savings perspective. In one particular case they point out that the changes will cost government additional money. Can you imagine that? That is what they say.
Let me quote again from one of the government witnesses: " But we have no particular studies on costing on the savings". When I asked where the increased effectiveness would be they said it may well be possible by putting organizations together that work well together to find better ways of delivering services in addition to the strict cost economies that are provided. Those are not estimated in the numbers, of course. That is what they have done.
I wanted to get that on the record and make sure people understand that whether we happen to be talking about Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation or the removal of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council by consolidating it with the Canada Council, or any number of features of this particular bill, we are not talking about saving money. We are not talking about increasing efficiency or effectiveness. We are tallung raw politics.
Why am I saying that? I gave a quote and pointed out there are no studies. There will be no money saved. There will be no additional effectiveness. If the government was really serious about saving money and doing
Government Orders
something to increase efficiency and effectiveness it would have called those organizations together and told them how much it needed to save. It would have told them the effectiveness or efficiency it wanted to realize.
Did it do that? Oh, no. There are brave soldiers on the government side. We have to admit that. They sent their civil servants to the slaughter house. It was terrible. I felt very bad. In fact I went in there angiy and finally had to back off because those poor souls had been sent by those insensitive politicians on the government side. Now those elected officials on the government side are doing their best. They have been sent out of the trenches without any protection. There are no savings. There is no increased efficiency. This is a political act. The government is trying to get close to its kissing cousins, the Reformers.
I am going to wager any odds that it is not going to work. Find me one responsible person who says these are good ideas in terms of saving money and increasing effectiveness, besides elected Conservative officials who may be under tremendous pressure to do what their political masters ask them to do, and I will reconsider my position.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

April 20, 1993
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
In accordance with the Chair's ruling made earlier this morning, we will now proceed with consideration of Motions Nos. 21 to 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 to 37, 39 and 41 to 64, and Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 29, 32 and 40 and, finally, Motion No. 38.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion No. 42.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 44.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 51. Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 52. Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 53. Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 54. Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 55. Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 56. Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 57. Motion No. 51.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 58. Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 59. Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 60. Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 61. Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 62. Motion No. 56.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 63. Motion No. 57.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 64. Motion No. 58.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 65. Motion No. 59.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 66. Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 67. Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 68. Motion No. 62.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 69. Motion No. 63.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 70. Motion No. 64.
That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
April 20, 1993

Government Orders


Ron J. Duhamel: Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 3 to 5 at page 14 and substituting the following:
"to be known as the Arts and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, consisting of a Chairperson,".
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 26 and 27 at page 14 and substituting the following:
"portance of maintaining a representative membership that reflects each of the distinct".
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 38 by adding immediately after line 28 at page 14 the following:
"(4.1) A person is not eligible to be appointed as a member of the Council if the person does not have a knowledge or experience that will assist the Council in fulfilling one of its functions."
Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 40 by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 15 and substituting the following:
"support of artists in Canada and abroad; and".
Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 42 by striking out lines 29 to 34 at page 16 and substituting the following:
"42. Section 14 of the said Act is repealed and following is substituted:
14. An expenditure made for purposes of this Act may be paid,
(a)	in the case of an expenditure for purposes under paragraph 8(l)(a), out of the return on investments made out of the Endowment Fund;
(b)	in the case of an expenditure for purposes under paragraphs 8(1 )(6) or (c), out of any money appropriated by Parliament for the work of the Council in respect of such purposes;
(c)	in respect of any expenditure for any purpose under this Act, out of money, securities or other property received by the Council by gift, bequest or otherwise, if available for that purpose."
Motion No. 40.
That Bill C-93 be amended by adding immediately after line 28 at page 18 the following new clause:
"47.1 (1) As soon as practicable after the fifth anniversary of the coming into force of section 40, 42 or 47 of this Act or of any provision of the Canada Council Act as enacted under section 40,42 or 47, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Canada Council Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the
House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for such purpose.
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within ayear after a review is undertaken under the subsection or within such further time as Parliament may authorize, submit a report on the review to Parliament including a statement of any changes the committee recommends."


Hon. Frank Oberle (for the Minister of Finance) moved:: Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 18 the following:
"47. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
22. (1) In the sixth year after the coming into force of this section, the Council shall, in consultation with the artistic and social sciences and humanities research communities, undertake a comprehensive review of the operation of this Act and shall submit a report thereon, including a statement of any changes that the Council would recommend, to the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada designated under subsection 21(1) and that member shall forthwith cause the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) The report laid before both Houses of Parliament pursuant to subsection (1) stands permanently referred to such committee of the Senate or of the House of Commons or such joint committee as is designated or established to review matters relating to the arts and to research in the social sciences and humanities."


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the motion for the amendments that have been moved in my name, let me at the outset point out to the House that we have worked very closely with the Liberal Party as well.
The amendments that stand in my name that were dealt with in the legislative committee that considered Bill C-93 I suggest and suspect represent the feelings and the thinking of a lot of members in this House from all parties.
Basically what does it do? What my amendments ask for is that part III of Bill C-93 be dropped entirely. This is the part that attempts to fold the Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council and the International Cultural Program into an expanded new entity consisting mainly of the Canada Council.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
We heard in committees members of the academic community, the arts community, the research community, university administrators, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the whole academic, research and arts community of this country totally and unanimously condemning this section of Bill C-93.
As well in committee we heard from members of the Treasury Board, the finance department and even from the PCO that there will be no savings at all in this measure. If anything it is going to cost the government money.
Here we have another example of where in the name of deficit reduction the government is actually going to increase its deficit. Here we have an instance in which the government claims it is going to increase efficiencies. We have the officials of Treasury Board, the finance department and PCO admitting that it is not going to increase efficiencies. In fact what we hear from the academic community and arts community is that it is already creating increased inefficiencies.
The attempts to bring the people who work in SSHRC and in the International Cultural Programs into the Canada Council is causing a whole host of problems. There are financial costs and personal costs. This makes no rational sense whatsoever and government members know it.
They say it is to increase efficiencies. Let us have a look. The Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council administrative cost in 1978-79 was 13.1 per cent. Now it is 8.7 per cent. Great efficiencies.
What else does this motion do? Without any prior consultation with the academic community, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and other research bodies, absolutely no consultation whatsoever, a small group of bureaucrats decided that they were going to unilaterally move the clock back.
Up until 1978 the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council was part of the Canada Council. The Lamontagne committee report on sciences in this country still stands out as one of the best reports ever produced on science policy. It recommended that the Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council be recognized as a separate entity to receive funding for research. It was important to the social sciences and to the humanities to be recognized as a body of scientific research, that it was a legitimate forum of scientific
research on its own, that it was not part of the arts but that it was a scientific research entity on its own.
When SSHRC was separated from the Canada Council it was an important and fundamental recognition for the social sciences and the humanities. This government, through the actions of a few bureaucrats, has decided that this is now not the case and it is going to roll the social sciences and the humanities right back into the Canada Council. The arrogance of it.
It is the arbitrary nature of this that is the most disturbing of all. What is happening to democracy here? In committee I kept asking why the government was doing this. I kept asking government people and bureaucrats from the departments why they were doing this. Nobody was able to come up with a rational answer in front of the committee. I suspect the government is doing it for entirely political reasons. It wants to show the right wing nuts in the Reform Party that it is macho and tough and that it is cleaning up government when in fact it is doing the opposite.
What has happened to the whole notion of rational policy making? What has happened to the whole notion of appropriate and intelligent actions? When you are attempting to reduce the deficit and increase efficiency the first step is to study the situation, consult and then take appropriate common sense actions. In this case of course none of this occurred.
In the leadership race for the Conservative Party we hear all of the contenders talk about the new type of politics, the politics of inclusion and politics that allow ordinary members of Parliament to function more independently and effectively in committee. Here is the test.
I challenge all of those leadership contenders and their supporters to stand up in this House today and vote against part III of Bill C-93 because it is not the politics of inclusion. It is arbitrary politics. It is politics that has totally upset all of the researchers and social scientists across this country for no valid reason whatsoever. There are no savings, there is no inclusion and there is of course no consultation.
If the government is going to have the new politics then let us see it demonstrate it today. Otherwise those members who talk about new politics, aspiring to be leader of their party, will demonstrate clearly that all they are talking about is a bunch of smoke and mirrors and that they have no intention arid no idea what real, new, inclusive politics is all about.
April 20, 1993

What we are finding is an abuse of power and macho politics, the worst type of politics that the people of this country are sick and tired of.
I and most Canadians assume that six months from now this group will be gone and that the arbitrariness of this government will be gone. I would suggest to all those who are responsible for implementing part III of Bill C-93 treat this as an academic theoretical exercise, that they keep track of where every desk, file, typewriter and computer comes from so that when the political reality of this country is changed in six months we can unscramble what is being done today and we can restore the Social Sciences and the Elumanities Research Council to its proper role as a separate, scientific organization administering itself on its own so that the international cultural program can again be put back in external affairs where it properly belongs. Let me advise all those who are in charge of implementing this policy that it is not going to be a policy that will last for more than six months. Both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are on the record as being committed to restoring the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the International Cultural Program back to where they are now.
Let it be a suggestion to all those involved in implementing Bill C-98, part III, to do it with a fair amount of care and to keep track of where everything has come from so that we can unscramble this mess that this government has created in the most efficient way possible.
I make an appeal to government members who do believe in the politics of inclusion, who do believe not in arbitrary government bureaucratic action but action based on consultation and common sense, to stand up for those principles in the House and vote in favour of the amendments I have introduced today.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his address that I thought to be very thoughtful and in fact very useful.
I had considered motions to rescind, which means having the whole section deleted. It may be of interest to know and I certainly will not put the finger on anyone but at one particular point in time we entered into discussions with members of the government side who understood how vulnerable they were and how badly the work had been done here. There was the fact that there
Government Orders
were no studies or consultation, there would not be any money saved and there would be no increased efficiency or effectiveness.
We thought there was an opening or a possibility that we might co-operatively work together to rescind that particular section of the bill. It was coming along well but the big hand of some particular minister no doubt came down: "No, one must not do that because if one did that then obviously what will those naughty Liberals and New Democrats do next?"
Of course what we would have done next would have been to simply look at the bill in an objective kind of way to tiy to determine if there was something worth saving.
I was hopeful on that particular day that we might have had an agreement so that we might have been able to rescind that.

I had high hopes, when I saw some members who are experts on the subject, that we would be able to rescind this section.

Unfortunately it was not possible. I deplore the fact, as do my colleagues, that there was no consultation. None. Can one imagine? We are talking about all of these national organizations that are staffed with some of the finest people in the land and that represent some of the major groups who keep this country together and make it work. There was no consultation. There were no studies to show that what the government was contending would save money. Can one imagine that? There were no studies to show increased effectiveness or efficiency. Can one imagine that?
I cannot believe that a government would be so insensitive, that it would be so gauche as they say in French.

I think that is a very apt expression. It made a monumental mistake with this bill, and it will pay a very high price for doing so. My hon. colleagues know it is too late. The government had its chance. If it had been willing to rescind this section, it would have been perceived as a government that can listen. However, because it was uncomfortable about the whole thing, it said to itself that it would go ahead, even if it was a bad bill. Well it will pay the price.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
There is another point I would like to make, and I want my hon. colleagues to listen very carefully. Just try and find someone who represents these agencies, someone who has credibility, who will tell the government:

"We think that this merger is a great idea". Find one credible individual. We heard testimony from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, social scientists and the Canada Council, et cetera. There was not one individual who thought this was a good idea.
In fact the government was so badly prepared that it was embarrassing. It was even embarrassing for me as a member of the opposition who normally likes to see the government get what it deserves, particularly when it has done a shoddy job.
It was so bad that I wanted to say to people: "Please back off". It cannot find one single person in the whole land who would say: "This is a good idea". That is how bad this project really is.
What were these people asking? Were they saying: "Stop it."? No, they were making a very reasoned response. They said: "Delay the decision. Defer that decision. You do not have to stop what you are doing if after consultation and after study you still believe that this is a good decision. However, please consult, study and reflect and then make your decision".
What an approach.

I would have thought that the government would welcome this proposal with open arms.

Therefore, that is why I am really quite disappointed today. I think my colleague's motions to rescind, obviously, would have been the best. I had hoped as I said earlier that this would have been possible. Unfortunately it is
not. The government has chosen to go forward in spite of all the evidence that this is going to go down in the history of this Parliament as one of the worst, if not the worst blunder ever made by this government.

I never thought this government would have been so shortsighted, so clumsy that it would have stumbled so badly.

Once again I want to extend a word of appreciation to those brave civil servants who went out knowing that there was nothing there to protect. They knew there was nothing there to protect.
There are the politicians who still today in spite of the evidence will stand up for the government. If nothing else, there is loyalty there.
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I think you will agree with me, that loyalty without reflection and common sense is extremely dangerous. This is what we are faced with today.

This is a bill that should be withdrawn altogether and completely revamped, instead of being pushed ahead regardless of the consequences.

I am sorry that this is happening. In fact we could all redeem ourselves if we were to say that this series of amendments makes so much sense that we are going to accept them. I see a smile on the face of one of my colleagues. We could set aside partisan politics, study this and then decide what is the right thing to do.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr
Speaker, I welcome the oportunity to join the debate at report stage on Bill C-93.
April 20, 1993

Since the bill was reported back to the House on February 25th, the government has had the opportunity to reflect on a number of additional proposals which members opposite have put forward and has also observed the need for certain technical amendments to facilitate implementation of the bill at the appropriate time.
I will be dealing with these matters in detail in a few moments. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some of the mischief which has resulted from the efforts of my friends opposite in the legislative committee and the subsequent media coverage and editorials.
The opposition has tried, I believe, to characterize Bill C-93 as a smoke and mirrors exercise, not worth the candle from the perspective of the small savings it will generate over time. In this regard, a significant amount of their efforts and the media follow-up have been focused on part III of the bill, the proposed establishment of a reconstituted Canada Council for the arts and for research in the social sciences and the humanities.
In the legislative committee the hon. member for Mount Royal adduced a February 20, 1992 Treasury Board document dealing with forecasts of savings related to the wind-up and merger measures announced in the February 1992 budget. The reference to dollar savings for a "new single cultural agency" showed a figure of zero for 1992-93 and the four outlying years.
This document was also included in the public submission to the legislative committee from one of the cultural organizations which testified on February 22, 1992. Although officials attempted to explain that this figure merely represented the fact that no firm targets for savings here had been established, my friends opposite have been successful in persuading the press at least that the figure means that no savings would result and that the merger is therefore not a sensible idea.
It must be said that before 1974 these two bodies were combined. The government in the 1974 Speech from the Throne announced the creation of two new granting councils: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, separate from the Canada Council, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, separate from the National Research Council.
Government Orders
It is interesting to review this development because the split between the Canada Council and SSHRC in 1978 was criticized for mostly the same reasons for which the merger is now under attack.
There were concerns about the independence of the new council, dissatisfaction with administrative costs related to the separation, anxiety over inadequate funding and nervousness about the impact on the humanities.
In fact at second reading in the other place, Senator Hicks said, and I quote: "I am very much concerned that this bill, rather than helping the problem of underfunding, will only add to the administrative costs and diminish the sums of money that may be available to carry out the purposes for which the councils are being created".
I believe he was right, since the information on hand indicate that the administrative rate of this body increased by 200 per cent between 1978 and 1992.
I would remind the House that part III of Bill C-93 proposes to consolidate three existing organizations with a combined annual appropriation for fiscal year 1993-94 of $217 million and a combined administrative overhead of about $35 million.
You will appreciate that with an undertaking of this size it is difficult to be precise in anticipating savings over four or five years. This merger is unlike that of smaller agencies in the bill where the smaller size of those entities makes it possible to be more definitive.
Nevertheless, I am pleased to advise the House today that once the transition to the new organization is complete, it will result in ongoing annual savings of about $5 million, probably as early as in the third year of operation of the new Canada Council for the arts and for research in the social sciences and humanities.
As announced by the Canada Council in its March 13, 1993 press release, the Council will be undertaking as part of its strategic planning process a comprehensive organizational and program review in order to increase administrative savings through a streamlined program structure, simpler procedures and reporting obligations and more flexible financial management primarily through the creation of a multi-year assessment and funding process.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
In general terms, we would expect savings to result from colocation with the use of less space at lower costs, from grants awarded on a three-year basis rather than annually, from the reduced costs of the combined council and from streamlining of the financial, personnel and information systems.
There will be some technological improvements to data bases and we expect that some functions might be cheaper to perform in-house which are currently contracted out.
Allow me to comment briefly on Motion No. 40 tabled by my colleague from the opposition.
Of all these amendments to part III of Bill C-93, Motion No. 40 is the one which the government is most ready to accept the spirit of. It is desirable to provide for a review of the new council's activities after a reasonable period of transition and stabilization. On the other hand, the government believes that a mandatory legislative review of the new council by Parliament at a prescribed date in five years is not necessary. In fact, such a review might not be appropriate for the government in place then, which will have its own agenda and which will have to face the pressing issues that the future may hold.
For this reason, the government proposed instead Motion No. 38, which provides for a review during the sixth year of activity of the council. This review would be conducted by the council itself in consultation with the concerned communities and would be independent of Parliament's activities, albeit in conjunction with the latter. The results of these reviews would be presented in reports tabled before Parliament, which would follow up on these as it would please. For these reasons I sincerely hope the hon. member who tabled Motion No. 40 will take into account the government's motion and withdraw his own motion.
In conclusion, it is important to remind ourselves that we are dealing at present with an established Crown corporation and that will be the organizational form of the new council once Bill C-93 is adopted. Therefore it is not for me or for the government to tell you precisely how these savings will be realized.
Indeed it would be inappropriate for me to venture to do so if we are to respect the arm's length relationship to the government that Crown corporations enjoy. Suffice it to say, management has given us its best forecast of the prospects for savings at this early stage of the reintegration.
We on this side of the House accept that. It will be up to the board of directors and management of the new council to determine precisely how these savings will be realized. However, I do think that roughly $5 million annually is a significant amount of money to be generated from a government streamlining measure.
I hope that will put an end to the line of nonsense my friends opposite have been spouting that there are no savings to be achieved from part III of Bill C-93.
In concluding, I must deplore the fact that my colleagues from the opposition, both Liberals and New Democrats, show so little concern for a healthy management of public funds and the fact that we can make relatively important savings for Canadians who these days must make their own budgets and constantly try to make ends meet. In that context, $5 million is an important amount.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. We just heard the government member make all sorts of claims in this House about savings. We also heard him say that the administrative costs for one of the agencies went up some 200 per cent. I heard him say this measure is going to save $6 million. Later I heard him say it is going to save $5 million. He is referring to figures and studies that we as members of Parliament do not have access to.
Is the hon. member prepared to table before this House any studies whatsoever that he or the government has that show any savings?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: To my knowledge, the member did not read a document here in the House. Therefore I am rather puzzled by the member's request.
I do not believe that his request is in order. In any event, this is not a point of order but a matter of debate on which opinions may differ.
April 20, 1993


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in assuming that since the hon. member did not quote, the figures he introduced in the House are unsubstantiated?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think it is a matter of debate and not a point of order.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the interesting remarks made by the parliamentary secretary. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, who noted the interesting group of figures presented in this very emotional and historical recall of the history of the Social Sciences and Humanities Council and Canada Council, forgetting the fact that when they were brought together it was not an harmonious marriage. That particular relationship could not even be saved through marriage counselling. Two mismatched organisms had been brought together, so the divorce took place. Then the forced remarriage was brought about by this government through poor rationale and reasoning. Part of that poor reasoning was the supposed saving of money.
There were never any new facts brought into those committees for which I did not have documentation. I wish I had the documentation here in the House to refute those kinds of observations as I did in committee. I was quite fascinated to see that the documents which had been received at that time through access to information did not seem to stun the bureaucrats who were in the committee at that time. If the various groups who were concerned with this particular matter reacted and accepted the materials which I tabled in committee it is because the source seemed to have been right.
They say they bought my information. I am sure the members of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities looked into it. I know that various other groups examined it very carefully. I have before me a press release from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities that was released on February 17 1993. It stated: "For a year we have been led to believe that the government's decision to collapse the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council into the Canada
Government Orders
Council had everything to do with a desire to save taxpayers' dollars. This merger, we have been told again and again, is a necessary part of the streamlining of 46 federal agencies that will net the taxpayers $22 million annually".
I talked to the few mergers that were intelligent in there, on copyright and other issues, but most of them were very poorly thought through. The first 20 amendments that were debated earlier today are a perfect example of the ACOA situation. Certainly the amendments my colleagues, the member for St. Boniface and the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, have brought in here add to the intelligence of the need for some change.
Dr. Robert Nadeau says, and I quote: "This is ludicrous. It has become clear to us that the Canada Council merger saves us no money at all. The only saving indicated in the document dated February 20, 1992 is a minuscule 10 person-years. The government's decision to throw research in the humanities and social sciences into the chaos of wholesale reorganization for the sake of 10 person-years in our view is completely irresponsible". If the government is trying to tell me that by putting these three groups together it is going to save $5 million on 10 person-years, I would like to know what kind of salaries it is referring to.
"The deficit made us do it" is the other thing the government has been saying in its defence from the start. Now it is perfectly clear that the government embarked on the SSHRC and Canada Council merger with absolutely no concern for either real savings or real cost to the taxpayers. We already have the lean, mean machine the government says it is busy creating. It is really taking it apart. The Canadian Federation for the Humanities urges the government to excise part III of Bill C-93 presently being studied and now before the House because the merger does not save money. It is likely to waste both time and money and should not be part of this bill at all.
I remind this House that I put a motion before this House on December 4, 1992 which would have suspended this bill. It would have read that an act to implement certain government organization provisions be not read now a second time but be read a second time six months hence. That was defeated by this government. It was a votable motion and this government did not care

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
to listen. This is the government that says we must be more caring, more concerned and listen to the people. It did not consult with Canada Council. It stripped, cut and hurt Canada Council and paid no attention to the needs of the artists. It actually has shown little concern for the fact that this is one of the most fundamental organizations we have in Canada. Its financial clout has been able to develop cultural activity and growth in Canada.
I suppose that is not of interest because certainly this government's rhetoric has been displaced by the kind of cuts it has administered to Canada Council. It was not interested in the Canada Council's side and it certainly was not interested in the science and humanities research side because if it was, it would not be cutting this right now. It would be doing everything in its power to find answers to what is going on in Montreal, for example. It would be looking at the questions of the fundamental problems with employment, schools and the drop-out rate of our children out of high school.
It would be looking at the reasons why people now have to use food banks and why youth are sleeping in the streets. That is the kind of research it could be doing. It could be coming up with some creative answers in terms of the debt, deficit and the other balance on the scale; fair, proper, social policies that could answer the crying needs of the everyday people out there, not the people who have been designing these disastrous kinds of policies that are of no avail to either the Science and Research Council or Canada Council.
I asked for a six-month hoist to give the government the opportunity to consult which it did not do. Now the government has the nerve to come in here and say I misquoted certain facts and information in committee. It said it is going to save $6 million and then it is going to save $5 million-a little correction in the middle of the text. It is going to be done in five years-no, now it is going to be done in three years. Then the government praises the Science Council because it is going to do some very careful and creative work to make this merger a far less costly organization, administratively. It talked about $217 million and the potential for saving $35 million in its operation.
The Canada Council has no choice because the government has cut its grants. What do you expect it to do?
It has to chop, chop, chop. It does not know where the budget is coming from or what the extent of the budget really is. It only knows this government is not committed to the well-being of the scientists and the research that needs to be done. It is not committed to supporting the arts and artists. It would be best if this section were totally removed-that would be the real world. That is what I expected the government would do if it had put this aside for six months and consulted, which it did not do.

Stubborn as the government is, it continues on the road to ruin. I believe it is a mistake, a serious mistake. The comments and options put forward by the member for Regina are very sensible. I was hoping that the government would listen but unfortunately I do not believe that it did.

With respect to the sunset clause which was referred to, I asked for a sunset clause. I am delighted that my colleague, the member from Winnipeg, placed a sunset clause in for debate. If the minister feels his sunset clause at six years is better than our sunset clause at five years, I will leave it to discussion around this table on the floor when we get to my colleague's Motion No. 40. Then we will look at which is the better option; six and five, yes or no. It is a matter of at least going back with a sunset clause because this is a ridiculous motion in the first place.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the amendments put forward by my colleague, the member for St. Boniface.
I think it should be stressed here this morning that I think the government is in error by not going along with the suggestions that are being made. What we want here is the best result possible. There are some things that have more or less fallen between the stools as far as this legislation is concerned that could be corrected.
As I said earlier, I am opposed to the doing away of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. However, leaving that argument aside, I want to see some areas that are strengthened here.
April 20, 1993

One thing that bothers me and has obviously bothered the member for St. Boniface is that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is going to be losing its designation. That is why he made Motion No. 24. He is suggesting that the name of the organization to be created not just be the Canada Council but be known as the Arts and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It is important to have this designation so we can indicate to people that we have an organization whose activities are reflected in the name. To do otherwise really gives short shrift to the arts and social sciences and to the humanities. I think this can be corrected by changing the name as suggested by the member for St. Boniface in Motion No. 24.
I also think it is important to look at the composition of the board of directors. The board of directors, according to this legislation, really does not have to have its membership from any particular designation of the sphere of influence that this board is to oversee. All the members could be from one area as opposed to another area. There could be those from the arts but not enough from the social sciences or the humanities. I think there should be something in this bill that designates that all of the spheres of influence of this new board are to be represented properly by adequate representation on the board of directors. These people should not be political patronage appointments by the government. They should be people with the proper, requisite knowledge to do the job that is required to be done.
I think we have a tremendous record in this country in the area that is going to be taken on by this new board. The fact that they have a tremendous history to live up to is going to require them to have the proper representation.
It is also important that the areas involved be reflected. In these various areas of the arts, social sciences and humanities, the only way we can show appreciation and convince the Canadian people that each area is getting the proper attention is by giving each the proper representation on the board of directors.
It has been very short-sighted of the government to say that the funding for this board will be reflected in one vote. I think that is wrong. I think what we are doing is really cutting the legs out from underneath this board
Government Orders
by doing that. I think the government, upon reflection, would have to agree to this. For the sake of a minor change, frankly, we can have the proper accountability, the proper reflection of the activities of this board by saying that instead of the one vote there would be three votes. There would be a vote for the social sciences, a second vote for the arts and a third vote for administration. I think it is in the interest of all members of the House, certainly in all the areas and spheres of influence reflected by this new organization, that the actual allotting of financing be reflected properly. I ask the government to consider that very carefully.
I think the member for St. Boniface has made an excellent point by saying that we really should not include in this new board the academic relations section of external affairs. This is to me totally incomprehensible. Why would we be bringing this group into this new organization? I do not understand it. Certainly there is no cost saving involved. In fact, there may be additional expenditures as a result. We are talking about Canadian students studying abroad. We are talking about foreign students studying in Canada.
With the present arrangement, when they are part of external affairs these students have the whole department as a support system. They have External Affairs representation in various countries, embassies, consulates and so on. They also have the proper representation that can link very well with this particular section. To say that foreign students will be now in a separate body apart from the rest of external affairs is counterproductive. I think this should be changed and I would ask the government to reconsider this and leave the academic relations section with external affairs.
I also want to mention Motion No. 40 with respect to the review. The previous speaker already mentioned that. I think the government's acknowledgement that a review is necessary is correct. I think the proposal in the suggested amendment by the member for St. Boniface is much superior to what the government is suggesting. The reason I say this is that Motion No. 40 put forward by the member for St. Boniface gives the provision teeth. It says that the review is to be conducted every five years, but the review is to be conducted by Parliament and the study goes back to Parliament for decision making.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
I think that is vital because it involves Parliament in the whole process. I think that is certainly what the component parts of the new organization would want. I think that is what Canadians want.
We are talking about an organization that is part of the fibre of our country. I think that if we are going to make these changes then we should make the changes as meaningful as possible. We should reflect the component parts as much as possible and we should allow Parliament to have the input that it needs. Do not forget for a moment of course that Parliament represents every part of this country. We want to make sure that every part of this country has its views and its aspirations reflected in this new organization. Therefore, I think the review by Parliament is very important.
This is too important an area to let go and just to pass over. I want to ask the government to give very strong consideration to those amendments made by the member for St. Boniface because I think they will greatly strengthen what is intended.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, rather than split my intervention into two, four and six minutes you might find consent to recognize it as one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If I understand correctly, the member is asking the Chair not to notice when it is one o'clock. Is there agreement with that?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt has up to 10 minutes.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is that a government governs with the consent of the governed.
We have just had a dissertation by the member for Terrebonne which indicates that that is the least concern of this particular government at this time. None of the points that he put forward had anything to do with the
people who are involved with the Canada Council and the humanities, arts and social sciences areas and do not have any real impact on these decisions.
In other words there was no consultation of any kind as far as the governed were concerned. These are the people who are going to be affected most. In other words democracy is the least worry of this particular government at this particular time. Maybe it is because it is just going into an election and it does not expect to be here after the election.
The essence of democracy is the consent of the governed. There has been no consent of anybody who is involved in these particular changes.
The essence of the amendments that we are debating today concerns something that the Canada Council people, the university people and the academics asked this government to look at. It is for the whole of part III to be dropped in its entirety.
They used as part of their argument for the dropping of Part III the fact that within the information provided to the committee and to the arts group that there were no savings except for 10 members of the government who probably would not lose their jobs anyway and who would be moved some place else. There would be no actual savings in the operation of the two councils if they are merged into one.
In the process of looking at these changes, there is no efficiency being indicated at all and there was no consultation with any of the bodies affected.
It has come to the point where I do not know why the government party which calls itself the Progressive Conservative Party does not delete the "Progressive" from its name. That is because what they are actually doing here is going back to what they had before 1978. The decision to change the council into two councils is a regressive move.
Consequently, I never did understand what Progressive Conservative meant. I think probably we should say once more-as my colleague here from the Liberal Party suggests-that we should change the name to the Regressive Conservative Party because that is what the party seems to be doing in this particular operation.
April 20, 1993

There was no consultation. In fact there was probably exclusion. There was no discussion on the changes that were going to be made in this by Part III of this act.
We recognize that after eight years in power the government is a little hesitant about using consultation. It has given consultation a bad name. It pretends it is going to consult, calls people together, seems to listen and then goes its own way.
That is the kind of consultation it has been carrying on.
I suppose maybe we should not blame it for not having consultation in this instance. Nobody believes that any consultation this government has done in the last few years has been of any value to the people who are being governed by its changes.
I can give you specific examples of consultation which has not been to the benefit of the people who are being governed. We have had thousands of hours of consultation relative to agriculture. None of that was taken into consideration when the decisions were made in agriculture. The decisions were made by the bureaucrats and in some cases by the members opposite.
The same thing is happening right now in development. The minister of development is here at the moment. There are a lot of changes being made in development that have nothing to do with the people who are being governed, the people of Canada.
We should be following the recommendations that have been made by the people who are most affected and not disorganising the provision of grants or the process by which we support research, the arts and so on in Canada.
We should look at part III, eliminate it and do a very basic and thorough study of what is necessary to perhaps save more money than we are now. The essence of democracy is only democracy if it happens with the consent of the governed.
I want to spend a couple of moments putting before this House some of the feelings of the people who are most affected by part III of Bill C-93.
For instance, the Canadian Association of University Teachers says that no prior consultation with any of the
Government Orders
SSHRC's stakeholders was conducted and no convincing rationale has ever been offered for this measure.
It goes on to say:
All that is being offered to date is a promise that the merger would be conducted among equal partners in a wholly new agency so as to ensure that the federal support for research in the social sciences and humanities would remain independent.
That is only a promise which none of the people involved really believe. It did not work before 1978 when these two agencies were separate and it is unlikely to work well in the future.
A second group is the federation representing the social sciences. It said almost the same thing:
After having carefully studied the proposed legislation, we remain very concerned about the future of social sciences in this country.
Again, there was no consent from or consultation with those people who are being governed.
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the university teachers said:
Lumping the social sciences and humanities with the arts does not make much sense.
They show how ridiculous it is to be regressive and go back to before 1978 without having a plan that is going to work and without saving any money. They go on to provide several quite workable alternatives which should be used instead of putting part III through.
This is an attack on the very essence of democracy. By going through with part III of Bill C-93, the government is not allowing the people who are most affected to have a say in the legislation which is going to be passed in this House.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: I rise on a point of order, I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. Further to my statement on information about potential savings of $5 million, which members wanted to find out more about, let me give some details for the benefit of this House. This information on the potential savings was provided by Canada Council management in discussions with Treasury Board. At this preliminary stage of the merger-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the only request from the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle was to produce a document if one exists. Does the hon. member have a document to table?


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, if you give me the opportunity, I will conclude very shortly.

April 20, 1993


S. Q 31
[Stage Direction]
These estimates made by management are based on the 10 per cent cuts that the Canada Council made further to the last budget. What I could table in the House is the official press release setting forth the policies under which Canada Council management can give the approximate figure of $5 million.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 1.08 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1.08 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the proposals for parliamentaiy reform made by the Minister of National Defence in her bid for the Progressive Conservative leadership. What is striking about the proposals is not the proposals themselves but rather that the minister's so-called new politics represents one more instance of people laying claim to certain ideas, such as more free votes among other things, as if they were the first to ever suggest them.
The minister has borrowed without attribution from a recent report of the Standing Committee on House Management, just as the Liberals borrowed without attribution in January from a subcommittee of that same committee, just as the government copy-catted the Reform Party on free votes in its throne speech of 1991, and just as the Reform Party pretended that more free votes was somehow its idea.
The fact is that in recent history the idea of more free votes in Parliament was made in 1985 by the McGrath
committee, and was advanced even earlier than that by members like myself when we were considering the LeFebvre report on changes to Parliament.
This is just a little history lesson for the candidates and any other pretenders to reform who do not have the decency to footnote their work.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, on April 17, 1993 the newspaper Les Affaires published an article entitled: "The regions' autonomy arrives in the nick of time".
According to that article and to an interview with the federal minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, Mr. Benoit Bouchard, Ottawa supported an impressive number of initiatives between 1988 and 1992. Mr. Bouchard was particularly proud to say that the contributions of his government to projects in Quebec amounted to $5 billion. "When we can clearly define the roles and give detailed explanations on the approach we want to follow, people are impressed" said Mr. Bouchard.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this House, Abitibians, I am proud of Benoit Bouchard's work. As he said: "The federal government delivered the goods".
In the name of all the people of Abitibi, I wish to thank him sincerely for the great support he gave Abitibians in the promotion of their regional development projects.


TAXATION
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is both tax time and budget time again. I want to call the attention of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue to an area of injustice in the tax system.
One of my constituents writes:
April 20, 1993

Many women (and some men) across this country, who are custodial parents following marital breakdown, are required by law to report receipt of child support payments as income and then pay taxes on this money.
In my opinion child support payments are not income but rather reimbursements for expenses incurred in raising children.
She goes on to say:
I receive what I consider to be a fair amount of money as child support but in reviewing my income tax returns for the past two years that I have been a single parent, I realize, with horror, that over 40 per cent of what I receive has been lost to me through increased income tax and lost child tax credit.
Without having expressly addressed the question of deductibility of the support payments from the payers' income, I contend that taxing the custodial parent is a major cause of single parent poverty and contributes to the hunger and misery of thousands of children in a country that is relatively affluent.
With a view to the upcoming budget I ask the ministers involved to review this piece of oppressive tax legislation which so viciously discriminates against the custodial parent in a broken marriage situation.


NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to remind members of the House that April 18 to 24 is National Organ Donor Awareness Week.
Professional and voluntary organizations encourage families to discuss and make a decision about organ donation before a tragedy occurs, and urge health professionals to examine how they might participate in the organ donation process.
I invite Canadians everywhere to consider organ donation and to sign a donor card or the consent portion of their driver's licence if they have not already done so. Decisions should be discussed with family and friends so that in the event of death the potential donor's wishes will be followed.
By doing this we can all give, and encourage others to give, the most valuable gift of all, the gift of life.
I wish everyone involved with National Organ Donor Awareness Week a very successful event.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, time and time again we are reminded that the federal agencies and departments are not respecting the Official Languages Act. Twenty-four years after the adoption of this law minorities must still fight for their rights in provinces and in the federal government.
Recently the Canada Labour Relations Board issued an important decision in French only, failing to provide English translation until days later for anglophone workers in Labrador who were most seriously affected by this decision.
Such an action by any federal body is unacceptable. The Conservative government should put its foot down and ensure that all federal agencies and departments respect the rights given to official language minorities to have this federal government serve them in their language.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the financial returns for Air Canada and Canadian Airlines each show massive losses for the last fiscal years and there is no indication that either of these airline companies have done anything in a structural way to change their impossible red-ink balance sheets.
The minister knows there is far too much air service available in Canada and the current competitive nature of service means that neither airline can make a profit from their monopoly of Canadian airspace.
If we are going to have in effect a monopoly arrangement in Canadian airspace with all of the flight patterns between Canadian cities controlled in favour of Canadian Airlines and/or Air Canada then surely the minister has an obligation to ration service so the carriers do not destroy themselves in stupid competition.
Viable Canadian-owned air carriers are important to Canada's long-term well-being.

April 20, 1993


SOUTH AFRICA
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the recent tragic death of well-known South African activist Chris Hani has sparked a new round of violence that threatens to undermine the struggle of the people of South Africa to end apartheid.
The continued violence, which has resulted in further loss of human life, must not be allowed to escalate. The government of Mr. de Klerk must thwart the efforts of those who wish to sabotage the forces of democracy and he must take the responsibility of finding ways to rekindle the positive attitudes that seemed to characterize events just a few weeks ago.
TTie relatively peaceful environment on the occasion of Mr. Hani's funeral was a tribute to his calls for peace and his commitment to negotiate a change. The majority of South Africans want peace and full democracy, and a majority of South African people want to create a better South Africa for all.
We in Canada must do all we can to support both those in government and opposition.
It is right that existing sanctions be continued until irreversible steps to the democratization of South Africa are taken. We recognize that the challenges are great but the opportunities and rewards for peaceful reform in South Africa are greater.


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday evening I attended a meeting of some 150 part-time fishermen organized by the South Shore Independent Fishermen's Association. These fishermen fear that DFO's stated intention with respect to the definition of professional fishermen will exclude them even though some of them have been fishing for over 40 years.
They recognize the need to reduce the groundfish harvesting capacity of the Scotia-Fundy region. What they do not understand, and with some reason it seems to me, is why they who harvest only 1 per cent of the
available resource have apparently been targeted for elimination.
Since they have not been the source of the problem why should their elimination be deemed to be the solution? DFO has not satisfactorily answered this question.
If the status or future of part-time fishermen is to be altered in any way there must be full and thorough consultation with those to be affected. To date that has not happened.


SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, South Africans continue to mourn the brutal murder of Chris Hani, a respected leader and official of the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party.
Mr. Hani was one of the most vigorous opponents of the racist system of apartheid, fighting it from exile for three decades.
More recently he placed his faith in a shared future for all South Africans and worked in favour of a negotiated settlement. His assassination is one more senseless and tragic loss of life in a country where a whole generation of black leaders has been lost to violence.
His murder sparked widespread violence and rioting among South Africans and the fallout could threaten the process of reform.
I urge the Canadian government to make a strong statement condemning the assassination of Chris Hani and all violence in South Africa, particularly the continued activities of the security forces against black South Africans and the rise in white extremist violence.
As well we should urge the Government of South Africa to accelerate the timetable for free and democratic elections in that country.
Finally, I join many Canadians in hoping that the events of the last few weeks will prove to be one of the last times that apartheid claims the lives of the courageous men and women fighting for its disappearance.
On behalf of my colleagues we extend our deep condolences to the family of a true hero, Chris Hani.
April 20, 1993


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, everyone recognizes the important role women's groups and associations play in our society, that is everyone but the conservative government which has cut the Secretary of State women's program funding for several years now, under the guise of austerity measures.
Meanwhile, those who hold the purse strings for this government supposedly elected to stabilize the public finances have provided for an additional $221 million in the last budget for the national defence department.
While the budget of the women's program is being reduced by 10 per cent, the government poor management is costing hundreds of millions of dollars. That is what we were told in November 1992 by the Auditor General.
Although women's groups are asked more and more to help fill the voids left by the state, the government unscrupulously continues to cut their financing.
When will the Conservative government respect the rights of half our population?


NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WEEK
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all those who participated in National Citizenship Week.
Last week thousands of people took the oath of citizenship in ceremonies from St. John's to Victoria. Many were Canadians who participated in ceremonies that reaffirmed their Canadian citizenship. Most of these were young people bom in Canada, and for them reaffirmation of their citizenship expressed their commitment to Canada.
New Canadians taking the oath took on a new citizenship and also embraced the values that Canadian citizenship represents: freedom, justice and respect for diversity.
National Citizenship Week provides us with the opportunity to take pride in our citizenship and generally take it to heart.


YOM HASHOAH
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, on Yom Hashoah representatives from Jewish communities around the world, along with many non-Jewish neighbours, marked the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Their horrible memories of this unspeakable moment of history have marked their lives yet their presence bespeaks their final triumph over evil, of survival, and of the continuity of the Jewish people.
The Holocaust was a war of genocide against the Jews. Six million, among them one million children, were murdered by the Nazis or their accomplices for no reason other than the fact of who they were. The uprising exemplified the courage not to submit to Nazi victimization but to live with dignity and fight for life, not to be led like sheep silent to the slaughter.
Their tenacity of spirit was also a form of resistance. The memory of this bravery is scorched on our minds and in our hearts.
Today we must do more than remember. We must take up the challenge to affirm justice and humanity for all people, particularly now in Bosnia. We must assure that the perpetrators of war crimes are brought to justice. Our own progress appears to have faltered. We must redouble our efforts to eliminate the scourge of racism and anti-Semitism from our world.
In so doing the fight to the death for human dignity of the ghetto fighters will not have been in vain.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Yukon First Nations, successive Yukon territorial governments and all Yukoners who for the past 20 years have worked toward one goal, the passing of the Yukon land claim and self-government legislation.
This is no ordinary achievement. At a time when the world is full of conflict and strife the recent passing of these agreements in the Yukon legislature shows us what

April 20, 1993
Oral Questions
can be done in the name of justice, equality and a better future for all people.
These agreements are the foundation of a new era of co-operation and goodwill, a new era that rejects the inequities of a painful past and a troubled present and holds out hope for a future based on respect.
This is indeed a great achievement that will be celebrated and supported by each member of this House. I therefore call upon this government to introduce this historic legislation in the House of Commons and to ensure its quick passage.


CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that April is Cancer Month.
I think everyone is aware of the devastating impact of cancer in our society. It is not one disease but a group of diseases that have one aspect in common and can affect individuals of all ages, although the elderly are affected to a greater extent.
The Canadian Cancer Society is trying to beat cancer and to improve the quality of life of people with cancer. The society educates the public, creates healthier environments by supporting changes in legislation, provides emotional and practical support for patients and their families and conducts fund-raising campaigns.
We wish the Canadian Cancer Society and its many volunteers every success with their activities during Cancer Month.


BANKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the government has steadfastly refused to have banks assume their proper responsibility in the national economy.
One of the most often repeated complaints we hear from businesses and the manufacturing, development, construction, restaurant and retail sectors is that despite
having been long and loyal customers, now in their moment of greatest need they find they cannot get the time of day from their banks.
During this recession the banks have been holding such a tight grip on credit that they are choking economic growth and job creation. Despite the banks' repeated claims that it is small and medium sized firms which create the bulk of new jobs, according to the Canadian Banking Association less than 25 per cent of business loans go to those firms.
The main banks should not be making small and medium sized businesses pay for their lending mistakes with South America, Campeau and Olympia and York. If the banks remain unwilling to change their practices, as our leader has often urged, it will be incumbent upon Parliament to change the statutes that provide banks with this privileged position in Canadian society so that they too can help Canada back to work.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In a confidential report the IMF told this government that it has to put its finances in order. Earlier today the Minister of Finance said that he agreed with the IMF report. It is something that we have said to this government for years, that it had the wrong priority.
As there is now pressure on the government from outside to have the proper priorities, will the Prime Minister change his mind and cancel this infamous program of buying helicopters that we do not need any more, at all? As a gesture of good will for the nation and to show that he wants to save taxpayers' money, will he cancel his royal trip to Europe where he is going to four capitals to distribute his CV to find a job?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to compliment the Leader of the Opposition on his 30 years in Parliament yesterday and tell him that he apparently does not get more elegant as he gets older in his job.

%

April 20, 1993

My hon. friend refers to the IMF report which indeed quite properly points to all industrialized governments in regard to making certain that debt is reduced, that deficits to the extent humanly possible are eliminated, that privatizations occur, that interest rates are kept low, and that inflation and productivity are dealt with as well. All of this is further to what we have been seeking to do, and so we take good notice of important reports such as those brought forward by the IMF.
My hon. friend neglected to mention that the same IMF report complimented the federal Government of Canada on its actions to get its finances in order: "The IMF has also said that the restructuring and the fiscal consolidation that Canada is going through have laid the groundwork and the foundation for a solid sustainable recovery". As others have pointed out, in many respects the report is quite complimentary of the efforts made at the federal level.
At an appropriate time the Minister of Finance will bring in another budget that will deal with the matters raised by my hon. friend. Perhaps at that time the Liberal Party will be able to rise, for the first time this session, and vote in support of one measure designed to reduce the deficit.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I asked two questions. I asked the Prime Minister a question about the helicopters and he is still stubbornly refusing to reply to the question. On my second question on cancelling his trip we heard nothing at all.
But it is not only the IMF. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops says that at this time the total number of both unemployed and underemployed in Canada is close to a staggering 3.9 million people.
When will this government reorganize its priorities and rather than spending money the way this government is spending money try to use that money to create jobs for these 3.9 million people who are either unemployed or underemployed in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has made quite a leap from the Catholic bishops to the IMF. He will have to let us know which has ecclesiastical dominance in his mind and which deals with the economy.
Oral Questions
The same IMF report says directly, and I quote this for my hon. friend: "The foundation has been set for a lasting improvement in Canada's economic performance. Structural reforms and fiscal consolidation efforts at the federal level should sustain a healthy rate of growth once the recovery gains momentum. With the decline in inflation, monetary conditions have eased considerably and are expected to ease further and support the recovery".
Indeed the bank rate dropped 10 basis points today, down to another low level, and it is with low interest rates, low inflation and high investment rates such as were indicated in the IMF report that we are going to create the jobs that all Canadians including the Catholic bishops seem to want.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see what the Prime Minister has to boast about, after heading a government that in nine years, since 1984, has accumulated $280 billion in debt. He is going to use taxpayers' money to travel around Europe, while one 1.6 million Canadians are looking for jobs and 2.5 million would like to have full-time instead of part-time jobs.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: When will he make decisions that would be welcomed by Canadians, such as cancelling this ridiculous helicopter program and staying in Canada and paying his own way to Europe in July?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is indignant about the fact that the national debt doubled under the Conservative government. What about a national debt that under his government was multiplied by 11-not by 2, 3, 7 or 10, but 11-as a result of the worst case of mismanagement of the economy in Canada's history. You were Minister of Finance, you were President of the Treasury Board, and your-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Twenty-two per cent of the population of Montreal are living below the poverty line in one of the most industrialized cities in this country. The reason is obvious, Mr. Speaker. According to Canada's bishops, it is because of this government's laissez-faire policies. The Prime Minister does not like these references to our bishops, so according to

April 20, 1993
Oral Questions
Quebec's minister of industry, it is because the federal government has no policy for industrial growth. Here is my question: Who is wrong, the bishops and the Government of Quebec, or this government, which refuses to act responsibly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have no axe to grind with either the Catholic or the Protestant bishops. They are entitled to then-opinions. However, I may remind the hon. member that last week the Royal Bank indicated that economic growth in Quebec, starting with Montreal will be the highest in Canada, and that Canada's economic growth will be the highest of any industrialized country in the world.
The hon. member knows perfectly well his party voted against the drug patent legislation that creates thousands of jobs in Montreal. It voted against every plan to create jobs in Montreal. And today he has the nerve to stand up for Montreal's interests. I think he should pay a little more attention to what his own party is doing. Vote for Quebec and Montreal once in a while instead of always voting against Quebec's and Montreal's interests.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I remember a time when the Prime Minister was more interested in the bishops than in the Royal Bank.
Let me cite from the bishops' proposal for job creation. They do not call just for cutbacks. They call for a comprehensive industrial strategy. They call for the renewal of public infrastructure. They call for research and development to developing industries and they call for enhanced programs for worker retraining.
That is what we on this side of the House have called for. We are proud to stand with the bishops and not the Royal Bank. It is also what millions of Canadians are calling for.
How much more suffering must the Canadian people endure before this government begins to act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Repent.


Mr. Harvard:: Repent and recant.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend stands with the bishops. We stand with the humble parish priests and the Royal Bank.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is just to prove that our tastes are small c catholic.
The numbers last month showed an increase of 48,000 new jobs. The numbers today show a decline in the bank rate by another 10 basis points. Inflation is now at its lowest in 30 years.
The Royal Bank and other important institutions indicate that Montreal, Quebec, the province of Quebec, will lead Canada in economic growth next year. It indicates as well that Canada will lead the industrialized countries.
With all the respect that I have for the Catholic bishops and the Anglican bishops and others, these are the realities. Where Canada is making solid progress the IMF says that it is number one in the world in terms of these fundamental growth factors.
I would like to do a little better. Obviously we would appreciate doing better. That might take some help from the Catholic bishops, a little more than we have been able to receive. But we are grateful for them, their advice, their prayers and their help. We look forward to making greater progress as a result of their advice.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance.
Although I must say it is interesting that 10 years ago it was former Prime Minister Trudeau who said of the Catholic bishops' statement that they had no business making a statement on this country's affairs, the Liberals seem to have changed their tune.

In his document called "Charting the Economic Course", the Minister of Finance stated, and I quote: "In all my pre-budget consultations with Canadians, the main theme has been deficit and debt reduction".
We have also been in touch with the Canadian Labour Congress, anti-poverty organizations and the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, and that is not what they told us.
April 20, 1993

Can the Minister of Finance or his spokesperson tell us who exactly indicated that debt and deficit reduction should be a government priority? Where is this consensus the minister is referring to?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party will be interested to learn that over 90 groups from all walks of life in Canada have submitted briefs.
The Minister of Finance received letters from hundreds and hundreds of Canadians who had specific recommendations for the budget. He has listened to all this advice including the advice from the bishops of Canada. That advice is studied and we will see the results in the budget when the Minister of Finance brings it down later on.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there is a huge deficit in Canada. Every party is concerned about that but the discussion is about how we address that.
For millions and millions of Canadians the major deficit in this country is a jobs deficit. Unemployment and poverty continue to cost the Canadian economy $80 billion a year.
The government has said it wants to make cuts. The government has choices. The government can cut corporate Canada's $1 billion business expense deduction. The government can cut offshore interest deductibility for corporations which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian economy. The government could have stopped the bill for tax-free family trusts which cost up to $600 million a year. Nowhere in the minister's statement does he suggest these kinds of cuts.
Will the Acting Minister of Finance ask the wealthy and profitable corporations to pay their fair share?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that this government has done a great deal to cut out the loopholes in the tax system, the extras that were allowed to be charged by the previous administration.
Oral Questions
When my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, was Minister of Finance, he brought in major changes to the tax system that cut out a lot of those loopholes.
I remind the hon. member, however, that the suggestions she is making today would place our industries in an uncompetitive position with those others that they deal with around the world. We are a trading nation. We must compete on a relatively level playing field with other industries in other countries if we want to remain competitive.
The hon. member's colleagues support the Canadian Restaurant Association. At least they are at its receptions all the time eating its food. Yet they want to wipe out a deduction that is allowed for entertainment expenses which the restaurant association opposes. They cannot have it both ways, although the NDP likes to try.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I suggest the minister ask Canadians whether they would rather have first-class universal health care or pay for boxes in the SkyDome, which they think is more important and which choices the government should be making.
To say that family trusts would hurt business in this country is absolutely ludicrous. There are choices that this government can make and there are cuts that this government can make.
The Prime Minister could choose to cut his farewell tour. The government could choose to cut the purchase of $5.8 billion worth of helicopters.
I want to ask a question of the acting finance minister. Over and over the government has chosen the privileged over those who have the least. It has chosen to punish those who have the least over those who have the most. Is the acting minister going to be prepared in the new budget to make sure that everyone pays their fair share and not just those who have the least?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Bob White would be very interested in the hon. leader's comments on the Dome since he is very involved in the Dome in Toronto. I think the NDP government appointed him president. I am sure he enjoys his box in the SkyDome as well. I am

April 20, 1993
Oral Questions
sorry he has not invited you to a ball game yet. It is good fun there. You should try it some time.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I do not ask Canadians to pay my way. I will pay my own way.


John Horton McDermid: The NDP is talking about job creation all the time. Yet it wants us to cancel the helicopter project that is going to create 45,000 man-years of high-tech work in areas in this country that need that type of work like Halifax, Nova Scotia.
I want her to tell the aircraft workers in Halifax that she is going to cancel that helicopter project because that will put them out of work and I do not think they want to see that.
We are creating jobs through the creation of helicopters that are required by our Armed Forces to protect our sovereignty in Canada and to provide search and rescue.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity- Conception):: Mr. Speaker, in Question Period yesterday the Minister of National Defence made reference to a theatre press release issued in Somalia on March 18, two days after a Somali died while in the custody of Canadian Forces peacekeepers.
My question is for the Acting Minister of National Defence. When the theatre release was issued on March 18 to whom did it go? Why were members of the Canadian media who were on the scene at the time and who raised questions on the issue kept in the dark?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the press release was issued as is customary in theatre, in this case in Mogadishu.
I understand some reporter who was in Somalia but was not in Mogadishu said he did not get the report. I do not know why that happened. An earlier incident on March 4 which was reported on March 6 in the same way, in theatre through a press release, was widely reported in the world media. Why that did not happen on the other
incident I do not know. You would have to check with the media.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I think there is something terribly wrong here. The incident occurred on March 16. The Minister of National Defence was informed on March 17. A notice was issued on March 18 in Somalia and was pinned on a notice board, as the hon. House leader has suggested, 260 kilometres from the scene where it happened.
The Canadian media on the scene at the time asked questions and were kept in the dark. The Canadian public did not find out about it until two weeks later, and not from the Minister of National Defence but from an investigative reporter and in response to questions from the Official Opposition.
My supplementary question is: Why did the Minister of National Defence not follow up on her knowledge of this incident on March 17? Was it because the minister is incompetent or was it because the minister simply did not want the Canadian public to know?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the minister pointed out yesterday in fact the press release issued in Mogadishu was not sent immediately to DND headquarters, and as she indicated that is a weakness in the system. She has put in corrective measures to make sure that does not happen in the future.
The reality is there was no cover-up; there was no secret. The headquarters for Canadian operations are in Mogadishu. The officers charged with responsibility of producing the press releases and so on are in Mogadishu. When the incident occurred as all other incidents that have occurred, and I think there have been three, they have put up the press release.
This one uniquely out of the three was not widely reported. That is not a cover-up. It is in fact an acknowledgement that perhaps other means need to be looked into for disseminating information. That is what the minister of defence acknowledged yesterday. She indicated that she had put in place the measures to make sure in fact that information is available at DND and Canadian press can have access to it.
April 20, 1993


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow this issue up with the Prime Minister. It smells an awful lot like the Al-Mashat affair.
The Minister of National Defence publicly blamed her own peacekeepers yesterday for failing to advise her about the death of the Somali. We now know that within 24 hours the minister was advised and the minister made a decision not to make any public statement here in the Parliament of Canada about the death of the Somali specifically referred to.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister to explain why his Minister of National Defence would blame our peacekeepers in Somalia when she obviously decided to keep this whole issue secret herself.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as usual is making wild, unsubstantiated accusations and indeed misrepresenting what the minister said.
The reality is, as I have just indicated in answer to a question from her colleague, that in each and every incident the next day in theatre the officers responsible issued a press release. What the Minister of National Defence acknowledged yesterday is that procedures did not automatically mean that these press releases were transferred to DND. They go up through chain of command. The hon. member continues to talk from her seat and will not be dissuaded by facts if she can throw a little mud even though it is not justified.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Minister of National Defence is using today the same logic that the government applied in the Al-Mashat case.
The truth of the matter is that her own spokespersons admitted that within 24 hours the minister herself knew all about the death of a Somali. She took it upon herself to keep this information from the Canadian people. I would like the Prime Minister to tell us why his minister, instead of taking her responsibilities actually put the blame on officials in Somalia?
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's premise is totally false and therefore the question is totally ridiculous.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in respect of this. The press release that was issued on March 16 simply said that a man had been retained after trying to infiltrate the Canadian compound at night and had died in custody. The officials there turned the media away from the facts which only came out after it became public that Canadian officials treated this as a homicide and that Canadian soldiers were being investigated under that charge.
It is clear there was a cover-up in Somalia and it is now clear from the minister yesterday admitting outside the House that she knew about this a day after it happened.
Will the government not concede therefore that the minister has aided and abetted the cover-up and yesterday simply told at best half truths to the House of Commons?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly an expert in half truths.
The reality is that the statement of facts was issued in Mogadishu and an investigation commenced as is proper and the investigation carries on. That is the circumstance.
The hon. member seemed to be suggesting that in fact it is appropriate and once an investigation is commenced by the Judge Advocate General's office or his staff that in fact the minister come into the House and give all details of the investigation. That would be absurd as he knows.
There is nothing to cover up for goodness' sake. An incident happened. The military through its legal system is investigating it.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had more than ample opportunity to come before this House and lay out the facts for the Canadian people and she has persistently refused to do so.

April 20, 1993
Oral Questions
Today we have another announcement from DND in respect of another killing on March 4 of a Somali civilian by Canadian forces in Somalia and the media advisory, as it is called, leaves many more questions open than it answers.
Will the minister tell the House whether any Canadian forces personnel have been charged or disciplined, whether there are any criminal activities involved in respect of this incident, where was the Somali when shot, and above all whether DND is treating this as a homicide. Why did the Minister of National Defence when she was expressly asked yesterday to give the House the facts on this not take that opportunity? Was she covering up on this as well?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the particular incident in question occurred March 4. On March 6 a press release was issued in theatre in Mogadishu that was widely reported in the Canadian media. If you check the files you will find that. Some cover-up.
An investigation by DND was undertaken by the officials on site. The report has reached headquarters. On the basis of that report the Department of National Defence has sent investigators from DND to Somalia to continue the investigation. On the advice of the Judge Advocate General the Minister of National Defence was asked not to comment until they are on site. They are on site as of yesterday. That is why the press advisory today. The hon. member is digging, looking for dirt in a place where none exists. This has been upright, handled properly and the hon. member should try to ask some decent questions about issues of importance to Canadians.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
We know that a reporter from Pembroke was at the base in question within 48 hours of the incident that is now being discussed before Parliament. We know that reporter put direct questions to base officials.
The reporter in question has been quoted and the transcript has been available to radio. It said directly that when questions were put no answers were given. The reporter in question, Mr. Jim Day, has said that no notice was posted.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why, given the important and tragic nature of this incident, a decision was taken to keep this information from the people of Canada and from the Canadian press contingent on the ground at the base. Surely the Prime Minister does not believe that a piece of paper posted on a bulletin board 260 kilometres away represents a press release. A press release must be released to the press if it is to be valid.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as it has been handled in every incident that occurred, the headquarters' staff deals with the media and issued a press release in Mogadishu away from theatre.
The investigation officers who are part of the Judge Advocate General's group have been conducting the investigation. Assistance has subsequently been provided by Ottawa.
The fact that soldiers in northern Somalia, away from headquarters, who were charged with the responsibility of keeping the peace and distributing food and so on would not answer questions about an investigation into a homicide being conducted by the Judge Advocate General's office is hardly a shocking thing. In fact the persons responsible operate under the Judge Advocate General's office.
I want to ask the hon. member what kind of an answer a reporter would get if he came up to an RCMP officer and said: "I would like the details of your investigation". He would probably be told to get lost and that is probably what happened to him.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just caused himself some serious difficulty. He has taken great pains to say to Parliament and through Parliament to the people of Canada: "We are hiding nothing. We issued a press release within 24 hours". Now he is telling us that it is not unusual that a reporter would be told to get lost when asking about what is going on.
The fact of the matter is that we have a public acknowledgement by a member of the minister's staff that within 24 hours the minister of defence was briefed. The minister was briefed on March 17.
April 20, 1993

Why for two weeks did the minister of defence, who was in this House on many of those days in the intervening period, choose not to report to Parliament and choose to keep this information from the people of Canada? Why was there a cover-up under way?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there was no cover-up. A press release was issued stating an investigation was under way. It is no more appropriate for the minister of defence to come in and talk about details of investigations under the Judge Advocate General's department than it is for the Solicitor General to come into the House of Commons and talk about details of investigations by the RCMP.
I understand the hon. member went to law school. Did they not teach him there that it was inappropriate to talk about details-


Brian Vincent Tobin: I didn't go to law school.


Harvie Andre: Well, he is not a lawyer. I'm sorry I maligned him.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we should move on.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the minister of health.
The Toronto Hospital for Sick Children has issued an alert that 17,000 former patients may have been tainted with AIDS blood, a medical and social tragedy that the federal government failed to prevent and continues to fail to trace the victims.
Will the minister make a commitment today to initiate a national strategy to trace all victims? Will he also make a commitment today to compensate those victims and their families as soon as they are discovered?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have been informed by the Government of Ontario that the children's hospital in Toronto is making an investigation into the cases that my colleague referred to. The Department of National
Oral Questions
Health and Welfare is working with the Government of Ontario to find out exactly what happened.
If there are any measures that have to be taken they will be. However, we have to give the Government of Ontario the opportunity to follow the investigation and make a report before making any further decisions.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
The minister knows that the question of blood supply is a very pressing problem in the country. Since the minister was originally asked about this several months ago in the House it has gone from being a problem in one or two provinces to a problem across the country. I ask the minister again, on behalf of the Official Opposition, what further information does this government need before setting up an independent, public, judicial inquiry into the safety of the blood supply for all Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have to make the point first that cases referred to before by the member from Winnipeg refer to children at the children's hospital in Toronto between 1980 and 1983. He knows very well that the AIDS issue came forward in 1983.
Second, the committee of the House of which I believe the member is a member is working on a report at the present time which normally would be given to me where recommendations will be given about all the questions on tainted blood.
I have already said in the House that if there is any serious recommendation which would trigger the necessity for an inquiry, I will do that. The hon. member will agree that normally we wait for the report by the committee before making any decision about what the committee will recommend.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The minister yesterday made public a report recommending that Canadian barley sold into the North

April 20, 1993
Oral Questions
American market no longer be marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board.
In view of the fact that there are other studies which conclude that barley should stay under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and in view of the fact that many farmers and farm groups want a plebiscite before any changes are made to the Canadian Wheat Board, will the minister confirm today that in fact no changes will be made to the Canadian Wheat Board without first holding a producer plebiscite?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all the member is not accurate. He should know better than that.
There has been no suggestion that barley be removed from the Canadian Wheat Board. What is being analysed is the question as to whether in fact there should be some freedom of choice by producers who choose to grow and market barley. He should get his story straight.
There is no recommendation or no analysis by anybody that I am aware of, certainly nothing that was said yesterday by Dr. Carter in his report, that suggested in any way that barley should be removed from the Canadian Wheat Board. The suggestion that was made was that in the continental North American market there should be some opportunity and some choice by producers as to how they choose to market their product.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that what he is talking about is making changes to the marketing of barley that is going to reduce the efficiency of the Canadian Wheat Board and change the way that barley is marketed in this country.
The minister will know that the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, Unifarm, the National Farmers' Union, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta wheat pools, Keystone Agricultural Producers and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture want to see a plebiscite, a vote, before any changes are made to the marketing of barley. As well, a poll conducted by Anderson Fast Marketing Research found 88 per cent of producers in Saskatchewan want a plebiscite as well.
The question is simple. Will the minister clearly state that there will be a plebiscite before any changes are made to the way that barley is marketed in the North American continent? After all, the Canadian Wheat
Board is there for the producers in western Canada, not at the wish of the government or the minister.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, there are several producer groups on the prairies, including United Grain Growers and many other farm organizations that have direct membership that are in favour of a dual system.
If in fact there was consideration or there was an examination of removing barley totally from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board then I think the member has a case. But if in fact we do take a look at it and decide that it is in the best interest of the producers to have a dual system which gives choice, then the producer who chooses either to market through the Canadian Wheat Board or on his own has a plebiscite and he will operate that plebiscite every time he chooses to market barley.
The answer is under the present scenario that is being examined, there will be no plebiscite when the government makes up its mind.


FOREIGN AID
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for international development and external relations.
The minister will recall in 1986 she led the Canadian delegation to the special UN session on Africa, followed in 1987 by the CIDA report and policy which identified the poorest of the poor as a centrepiece of our foreign aid.
In view of recent decisions to cut not by 10 per cent, but by a total amount, aid programs to countries in Africa which are among the poorest of the poor and the hardship this is creating both for these African countries as well as their Canadian partners, what steps is the minister taking to try to ameliorate that situation and to assure that all of the headway that has been made since 1986 is not now going to be lost?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of External Relations and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate my hon. colleague and to commend him for his untiring concern and dedication to Africa.

April 20, 1993

That being said, I must tell you that since the economic statement was tabled on December 2 we have had to make do in the Canadian International Development Agency with a budget reduced by over $200 million. Major decisions and hard choices had to be made. I based my choices on the regional concept recognized by NGOs as well as the UN.
In answer to the question about what I intend to do regarding Africa, I will say that Africa will continue to receive 45 per cent of our bilateral assistance, and humanitarian assistance as well as food aid will be maintained. Our support to UNICEF, NGOs and institutions is also maintained. In addition, Africa will receive $4 to $5 million a year, on top of the $10 million to $20 million to promote economic ties. So, it is totally wrong to claim that Canada is turning its back on Africa. We are still supporting efforts through a regional development concept or philosophy.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries.
Fishermen across eastern Nova Scotia and the Gulf of St. Lawrence are at their wits end as they gear up for the 1993 fishing season. For months they have been waiting anxiously for some kind of details on a comprehensive compensation plan to help them through this crisis, a crisis which has been created largely by this government's mismanagement. For months this minister has been stonewalling them.
When will he finally announce the details of his compensation plan so they can begin to prepare for then-future?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, on December 18 I believe it was, I announced what the total allowable catches would be with respect to certain fish stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the south and west coasts of Newfound-
Oral Questions
land this year. There had to be severe reductions because of problems that all members of the House know about.
All of the regular programs of the Government of Canada are in place to assist people who may be affected by the diminution and the amount of fish that they can catch. We are reviewing now and are preparing to supplement those programs with respect to people in Atlantic Canada who do not live in the northern cod area but who are affected by these quota reductions.
I am veiy concerned about this as is the government and there will be an announcement as soon as possible.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, these delays are unacceptable. The minister has known for months that the quota cuts that he has announced will not allow fishermen to have a season in 1993. Thousands of fishermen will not have a season. As well there will be plant workers who will be thrown out of work as a result.
There is no need to keep them in this uncertainty any longer. When will he announce this plan so they can plan their future and we will know how long this crisis is going to last?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I might say that this is a crisis that has been building up over a period of years, certainly since the year 1977. This is not a sudden crisis that has just come upon us.
There will be fishermen who will not be able to earn sufficient UI stamps this year because of the diminution in the stocks of fish that they have to catch. There will be plant workers who will not be able to get employment. For that reason the present programs may not be sufficient and may not be all that is necessary. The government is developing a plan to deal with that and it will be announced. I cannot give an exact date for that but it will be announced in time to assist those people who are going to need assistance.
The fishermen are eligible for unemployment insurance up until May 15. There will be a plan in place when it is needed.


David Charles Dingwall: Before the election.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not Liberals; we don't bother about elections.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders AGRICULTURE


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it also relates to the Carter report on the issue of the marketing of barley.
That report has already been roundly condemned. The Canadian Wheat Board describes it as disappointing and unacceptable. The outgoing president of Sask Pool says the report is "just torching the very institutions we have here".
We want to know where the government precisely stands on this report. Is the Minister of Agriculture refusing to take the advice of his very own wheat board? Will he not listen to a voice of farmers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the report was commissioned as a result of an analysis we did of all regulations in the Department of Agriculture, one of them being to further analyse how barley should be marketed in North America.
We appointed a round table. That round table hired a consultant, Dr. Carter, to whom the hon. member referred. He just made his report public yesterday in Alberta. We will be hearing from all the participants on their concerns. Once that happens the Department of Agriculture will then make recommendations to the government as to how we will proceed.
Before he goes too far in quoting the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, he should also refer to the letter that he wrote to Dr. Bjamasson wherein the chief commissioner pointed out that Canadian farmers would increase their revenues in changing to a dual system by about $35 million. That is not bad in terms of increasing farmers' revenues from the sale of barley.


YOUNG OFFENDERS
Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
People from across Canada including two candidates running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party are in favour of lowering the maximum age for young offenders. I would like to ask the minister: How can we get this change into effect while this House is in session?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
Obviously the question of young offenders is a very important one. So far I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, or maybe one month ago, that we will get back to the House with something on that subject within a month.
This question and others are being contemplated for the moment as other amendments to the legislation. We amended this legislation last year in Bill C-12, which is a great improvement to this legislation.
I thank the hon. member for her question. We will make sure the House will be aware of our intention within a month.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been on the waiting list for two days to ask a question on the Young Offenders Act.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, be read the second time and referred to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture; and the motion of Mr. Cole (p. 18132).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Cole that this question be now put.
April 20, 1993

Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Harb	Weiner
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You asked for the nays and the Leader of the Liberal Party rose in his seat. If there was any agreement between the parties, we did not hear about it. So we thought the

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
Liberal Party voted against it and the NDP as well, and we did too. That is exactly what happened. If I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, that is how you put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly pursuant to Standing Order 61(2) the next question is on the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.	
Bill read the second time and referred to a subcommit-	
tee of the Standing Committee on Communications and	
Culture.
April 20, 1993


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Thriff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Criminal Code and a related act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Pierre Blais: that the bill be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Pierre Blais: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on third reading on Bill C-102, which contains the legislative amendments to implement a number of excise tax and tariff measures announced over the past 20 months. Many of these proposals have already been implemented through notices of ways and means motions tabled at the time of their announcement. Among the measures are tariff changes to reduce cross-border shopping and a range of initiatives to address the problem of tobacco smuggling and tax evasion.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that the growth in tobacco smuggling over the past few years has had a profound economic and social impact. Domestic sales of tobacco products have fallen significantly over the last year and a half, particularly in some parts of the country. The result of falling tobacco sales has been a substantial loss in business for those in the wholesale and retail trade.
Criminal organizations are becoming increasingly involved in the packaging of tobacco products and are using the profits from illegal sales of tobacco to finance other criminal activities.
Tobacco smuggling and tax evasion have also had a serious impact on the fiscal and social policies of the federal government. Revenues from tobacco taxes have declined as Canadian smokers switched to contraband tobacco products. This decline in tobacco tax revenues, which are used to fund important government programs
Government Orders
and services, has considerably outpaced the decline in overall tobacco consumption. As well, government health policies to discourage smoking are being undermined by the availability of inexpensive tobacco on the black market.
Without strong action by the government, the level of smuggling would continue to increase, with the resulting costs for the public and private sectors alike. This concern was the basis for the enforcement and control measures announced by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue last spring to deter tobacco smuggling. Bill C-102 provides the legislative authority to implement these measures, which can be summarized as follows: tighter controls on the distribution and sale of duty-free tobacco products in Canada; improved markings on tobacco products to better identify duty-free tobacco products; the addition of "proceeds of crime" provisions to the Excise Act and the Customs Act to enable law enforcement agencies to seize the profits made by organized crime from tobacco smuggling and tax evasion; and significantly higher criminal penalties for people caught smuggling tobacco into Canada or selling contraband tobacco products in Canada.
On this last point, I would like to note that amendments were proposed during consideration of this bill by the legislative committee to further increase the penalties for the smuggling and illegal sale of tobacco products under the Excise Act and Customs Act. I am pleased to report that these amendments were approved by the committee and are included in Bill C-102 for consideration by hon. members today.
I should add that over the past year the government has allocated substantial new resources to Revenue Canada and the RCMP to enable these agencies to strengthen their enforcement efforts both at the border and within Canada. These additional resources, together with the higher penalties, new controls on the sale and distribution of duty-free tobacco and the addition of "proceeds of crime" provisions in this bill are vital components of the government's measures to address the tobacco smuggling problem and will improve the government's enforcement efforts in this area considerably.
This bill also implements the excise tax on tobacco products for export or for sale through duty-free shops that was announced in February 1992.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
The purpose of this tax was to reduce the incentive to smuggle by narrowing the price differential between Canadian tobacco products for sale in the Canadian tax-paid market and those sold in other countries.
While the tax was effective in reducing the supply of contraband tobacco products in Canada in the weeks following its introduction, it quickly became apparent that its effectiveness would be severely limited in the longer term once suppliers in the U.S. were able to obtain Canadian-type tobacco products outside of Canada. The government therefore suspended collection of the tax in April 1992, when it announced the introduction of additional tobacco enforcement and control measures, which are among those I described a few moments ago.
Bill C-102 also addresses another difficulty Canadian wholesalers and retailers have had to face: cross-border shopping.
Last year the Minister of Finance indicated to the Canadian Retail Council's National Task Force on Cross-Border Shopping that, to help deal with this serious problem, the government would be prepared to remove tariffs on imported consumer products that are not made in Canada and are purchased by cross-border shoppers, where the tariff contributes to higher prices in Canada.
The task force identified a number of products and after consultations with all interested parties it was determined that the tariffs on about 25 products could be removed. These tariff removals represent approximately $1 billion worth of annual imports and about $60 million in duty. Examples are video cassette recorders, microwave ovens, sewing machines, cameras and telephone answering machines.
Canadian consumers benefit as lower prices for these imported goods are passed on by the retailers and wholesalers. The retailers and wholesalers, and the economy in general, benefit as these measures encourage consumers to shop in Canada.
The response to this initiative has been very positive. Department of Finance officials are continuing to work
with Canadian industry and the Retail Council of Canada to identify other consumer products on which tariffs can be removed.
I would also like to touch very briefly on some of the other excise and tariff measures contained in this bill.
Hon. members will recall that in the 1992 budget the Minister of Finance announced the elimination of the 8.5 cent per litre excise tax on the ethanol and methanol portions of blended fuels. This measure, which will be enacted by Bill C-102, will encourage the development and use of ethanol and methanol fuels made from renewable feedstocks. The use of these fuels provides a number of environmental benefits, such as a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
The bill also contains a number of other tariff changes. Most of these are technical but some of them remove duties in response to requests from Canadian businesses. These amendments cover a variety of products such as peach trays and light bars for emergency vehicles but in my view the most significant change is the extension of duty-free entry to materials and parts imported by manufacturers who make goods that are incorporated into other products that are exported.
Previously those manufacturers could only get a refund of duties after the finished products were exported. Immediate duty relief was restricted to manufacturers who were both importers of the parts and materials and exporters of the finished goods. The extension of this privilege to intermediate producers is a big step in improving the competitive position of those producers.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of the provisions in Bill C-102. In particular, this bill contains important measures to address the crossborder shopping problem. As well, the measures that will be enacted by this bill to combat tobacco smuggling will ensure that Canadian enforcement agencies have the proper means to go after and dismantle the criminal organizations involved in the illegal tobacco trade.
I therefore ask hon. members to support the passage of this bill on third reading.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-102.
April 20, 1993

Basically this bill responds to the cross-border shopping problem and provides additional measures to counteract tobacco smuggling. I think everyone here recognizes the problems of cross-border shopping and tobacco smuggling. We as legislators have been asked by the Canadian people to do something about this problem. I know that we all feel that not enough is being done to attack this epidemic and not enough is being done to attack the whole problem of contraband cigarettes.
This bill was introduced in consultation with the tobacco industry. It is aware of the seriousness of the problem of cross-border shopping and smuggling and understands that it has a role to play in doing something about this problem. However, while this bill takes a first step to deal with the problem of smuggled tobacco by changing packaging rules and imposing stricter penalties for those who deal in these products it does nothing to address the root of the problem, which is high tobacco taxes.
Today as we study this bill I would like to speak specifically about the major problem of smuggling tobacco products in this country because it greatly affects my area of Haldimand-Norfolk. My argument is this: I believe that excessively high taxation on tobacco has created a prohibition-like environment in which otherwise law-abiding citizens are either selling or buying smuggled tobacco.
People from every walk of life, young and old, professional and welfare recipients, are in on the illegal action. All feel that they are over-taxed and for this reason have convinced themselves that buying or selling illegal tobacco is socially acceptable. They think that taxes on cigarettes are too high and that it is not a crime to buy or sell them. Many ordinary Canadians feel no compunction about buying or bypassing this tax-related law. Canadians now wink at cigarette smugglers the same way as Americans winked at the American bootleggers of the 1920s.
Smuggling is dividing communities. It is dividing native communities, inspiring the creation of criminal conspiracies, increasing violence for retailers, and goes hand in hand with the drug trade. In fact, organized crime is turning its attention to the illicit trade of tobacco
Government Orders
because the profit from illegal tobacco is much greater than that of drugs and the penalties are not as severe.
There is no dispute in this country over the root cause of smuggling. It is high tobacco taxes which have become such a large component of the product's cost and price that they may offer a massive potential profit margin to those who are able and willing to acquire and trade in cigarettes on which no tax has been paid.
It is difficult to understand why a government would allow something illegal to occur right under its nose because it is politically correct to do so. In other words, because of pressure from non-smoking groups and my friend here in the NDP both federal and provincial governments are afraid to deal with the tobacco taxation problem. They would rather continue with their high taxation policy, which we all know is only conducive to smuggling.
One would think that the federal government, knowing that it has contributed to a billion dollar organized crime industry, might start taking seriously this whole problem of the sale of illegal tobacco. What I find so frustrating about this whole situation is that the solution is simple. We should roll back the taxes. This answer was not arrived at in recent days or recent weeks. The tobacco industry and many Canadians have been offering this government a clear solution. The rolling back of tobacco taxes is not only a peaceful solution to the problem but one which makes sheer common sense.
The fact of the matter is that the RCMP can no longer deal with the problem because the problem is just too big. The RCMP concedes that enforcement is not effective in curbing smuggling. It says what is even more problematic is that enforcement efforts will just drive the illicit tobacco trade underground and into the hands of organized crime, which I think for all of us is really a frightening thought.
After all, Canada has taken a lot of pride in the fact that it has been regarded as the number one country in the world in which to live. According to the UN, one of the reasons why it achieves such high marks is that it offers relative safety to Canadians. The nurturing of organized crime in Canada will not keep us at number one for very long.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
To conclude, I would like to offer some facts about the industry and about tobacco fanners and how tobacco taxation has come to the attention of this House. I believe that they all should be very carefully considered.
The contraband tobacco trade has a street value of over $1 billion. The tobacco black market is costing federal and provincial governments an estimated $1.4 billion a year in lost tax revenue robbing Ontario's 1,200 tobacco growers of nearly $20 million in lost markets. It really jeopardizes 60,000 Canadian jobs.
Smokers pay up to $47.13 for a legal carton of 200 cigarettes of which the manufacturer gets $7.79. Distributors and retailers get $3.38 and the remaining $35.96 goes to federal and provincial coffers.
Illegal cigarettes can be had for as little as $22.50 a carton. A single pack which sells for as much as $6.50 legally can be bought for almost half at $3.50.
High taxes are not turning people off cigarettes. They are simply sending them underground. These high taxes are only costing governments.
The tobacco industry supports directly or indirectly the jobs of some 60,000 Canadians in growing, manufacturing, distribution and in the retail sectors.
The large increases imposed by the federal and provincial governments in the 1980s were primarily responsible for the loss of some $5,000 tobacco-related jobs and the closure of four manufacturing plants.
Most of those jobs were in my area of Haldimand- Norfolk. Over the last 10 years, cigarette taxes have increased some 620 per cent. Let me repeat that. In the last 10 years, cigarette tax increases have come to around 620 per cent.
This figure compares to an alcohol tax increase of just 68 per cent, a personal income tax increase of 66 per cent and a corporate tax increase of very little.
The RCMP believes that higher Canadian taxation has meant bigger and better organized crime groups getting involved. Enforcement is never succeeded. It seems that the tighter the regulations become, the more organized and sophisticated the smugglers become. The RCMP describes the situation as "out of control".
The rural economy of an entire area is at stake and it is not just the farmers. Many small businesses depend on the viability of the tobacco industry especially in my area.
It is obvious that tobacco products will continue to be used in Canada.
The government must now face whether it wishes to export Canadian jobs through the tobacco industry and through a misguided taxation policy that disadvantages Canadians and allows American farmers and manufacturers to take over legitimate economic activity.
It is shameful that the government has fostered a tax policy which will devastate our domestic tobacco industry while pushing the economic benefits of producing this legal product across the border.
Of greater consequence, governments continue this taxation policy that has created a sophisticated smuggling network that the RCMP admits it cannot curtail. Surely, we as legislators must re-evaluate our taxation policy on tobacco. It is time we rolled back these taxes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are in third reading here. I think because of the little recess we had that the House is a little mixed up.
We are in third reading. There are no questions or comments on the first two speakers. Then we go to the third speaker for 20 and 10.
I have to say that there are no questions or comments on the hon. member's speech. The hon. member initially would have had 40 minutes with no questions or comments. Yes, it was 40 minutes with no questions or comments.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank you for bringing us up to date on that.
I know my friend in the NDP is just itching to ask me a question. Is there a possibility of getting unanimous consent for a five-minute question for my friend?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to ask a question?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-102. That previous speech by the Liberal member was shocking. I kept asking him whether he was actually speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party and whether this was their total policy.
April 20, 1993


Robert (Bob) Speller: I always speak on behalf of the Liberals.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: That is nice to know. This is the official stand of the Liberal Party. They support the tobacco industry in Canada and oppose health measures that have significantly reduced the use of cigarettes in this country and the incidence of death from tobacco.


An hon. member:: It is not like the NDP that goes with marijuana.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: We have to start to talk about what the consequences are in this country of the use of tobacco products.


An hon. member:: Why not just talk about the bill?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: What is obviously known is that 55,000 Canadians die every year because of illness related to tobacco use. If the Liberals think that is funny then one should talk to 55,000 families that have lost then-husbands, wives, sons and daughters because of tobacco consumption.
This is one of the most serious health problems facing the industrial world and is being pushed and pushed by tobacco companies into the developing world. Sales are being aimed at children in Canada and sales are being aimed at children in the Third World countries.
Over the last number of years, the federal government, in conjunction with the provincial governments, has initiated a national campaign to reduce the consumption of tobacco. It is one of the better things that this government has done. It has done it based on two or three kinds of policies.
First of all it did it by increasing the taxes on cigarettes. Every time there has been a dramatic increase of 25 cents to 50 cents on a package of cigarettes, 100,000 Canadians quit smoking. It was done by an educational program that has educated people about the dangers of smoking. It did it by bringing in programs that insisted that cigarette products contain health warnings.
This bill that was brought in some time ago also contained an ability to put an export tax on tobacco products. What we have learned in this country is that most cigarettes that are exported are illegally smuggled back into the country.


Mr. Boudria:: It is 90 per cent.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: It is 90 per cent and even more. Last year the government put an $8 export tax on a carton of cigarettes and took the profit away from smuggling.
Government Orders
There was no profit to be made in bringing those cigarettes back into Canada because one had already paid one's taxes on them. One could not bring them back in tax free.
In March 1992 there was an export of 164 million cigarettes. Then the government was lobbied by people like Vista. The Liberals wanted to make sure that one could increase the sale of cigarettes. There was lobbying by the tobacco industry and the manufacturers' association. This included such lobbyists as Bill Neville who is the Prime Minister's former chief of staff. There were threats. The tobacco industry said it would stop buying tobacco in Canada and would close all of the manufacturing plants in Canada. The federal government capitulated and withdrew the tax.
Here is what happened as soon as it withdrew the tax. The export and therefore the illegal smuggling of cigarettes back into Canada jumped dramatically. In March 1992 there were 164 million cigarettes exported. In May 1992 after the government capitulated and withdrew the export tax, that figure jumped to 958 million cigarettes, which is an increase of 650 per cent.
We all know that these are exported and then smuggled back into Canada. All the government did was to make it profitable again to have cigarettes smuggled back into this country.
In March 1992 there were 39 million kilograms of fine cut tobacco exported because there was the export tax making it unprofitable to smuggle these cigarettes back into Canada. In May 1992 after the government had capitulated and given in to the hardball tactics of the tobacco industry, the exports jumped from 39 million to 366 million kilograms of fine cut tobacco. That is an increase of 938 per cent.
The government said: "We will now again make it profitable for the smugglers". It had an impact. The federal government lost $800 million in tax revenue that it could have collected and the provinces probably lost a similar amount.
When the government was playing around with putting in the export tax the industry must have had tremendous anticipation. They somehow knew what was going to happen. When the government announced that it was going to put in an export tax, one company knew in advance somehow to ship out of Canada 50 truckloads of cigarettes before the tax was implemented.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
We do need a level playing field. The Liberal solution is obviously to make our taxes lower on cigarettes and comparable with that of the United States.


Don Boudria: Who said that?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: That is what your colleague says. That is what he is advocating. Cut the tobacco tax.
Of course we know that if we reduce the price of cigarettes then the consumption of cigarettes will simply go up.
In Canada we have developed probably the most effective program to combat tobacco consumption of any country: education, high taxes and warning labels on cigarettes.
The tobacco industry said it would co-operate with the government if the government dropped the export tax on cigarettes. I want to just point out what has been done for that co-operation. Immediately afterward there was a code to be put on cigarettes so that if they were smuggled back into Canada we could trace where they came from.
However the tobacco companies knew that they did not want to be traced. They might have been exporting cigarettes to a particular wholesaler and then these were being smuggled back into Canada.
All the tobacco companies got together and now export all their cigarettes to one warehouse in Syracuse, New York. If cigarettes are smuggled back into Canada they can only be traced to that warehouse in Syracuse, New York.
Because it is outside Canadian jurisdiction, we have no ability to control it or insist on information. That is the type of co-operation the tobacco industry has given us to reduce the problem of cigarette exports.
For the last two or three years the industry has fought dramatically through the courts to try to stop the proper labelling of cigarettes with health warnings. It has tried to ensure that the labelling required on cigarettes and inserts that warns about the health problems of cigarette consumption is not effective. The industry does not want to have nice, bold colours. They are too contrasting and
easily readable. The industry has held it up in the courts for the last couple of years and has lost.
The government is now in the process of bringing forward new regulations which are going to make the labelling more stringent.
I want to talk about an issue that has been raised about farmers. We in this party have repeatedly said that instead of helping farmers grow a product that kills people worldwide, the government has a responsibility to assist tobacco farmers change to other types of crops. That is a solution. We cannot continue to support an industry that kills 55,000 Canadians a year. We cannot abandon the farmer and take away his livelihood. We must develop adjustment programs to help that farmer move to other productive crops.
In Canada, when we look at who is calling on the government to do certain things and whose side they are on, we very quickly realize that the people who are working in the best interest of Canadians are calling for the government to find its courage again and put an export tax on tobacco. These are people in organizations like the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Every medical group across this country says tobacco kills 55,000 Canadians a year. That is half a million Canadians between now and the turn of the century.
People are standing up and advocating that the government should not continue with its program that has been effective. It should roll back taxes so cigarettes become cheaper which would increase consumption. Remember, every time the price of cigarettes is increased from 25 cents to 50 cents a package, 100,000 Canadians stop smoking.
There is another reason why my party and I side with people in organizations like the Canadian Medical Association. It is because the cost to taxpayers in terms of health care is horrendous. It is estimated that 10 per cent of all our acute care hospital beds are taken up with people who have smoking-related illnesses. If we could suddenly save a minimum of 10 per cent of our acute care dollars in this country we would be able to do something far more effective. We would have lots of money available for adjustment programs to help farmers move into other kinds of crops.
April 20, 1993

I want to finish by talking about the morality of the tobacco industry. Confidential documents were brought forward over the last couple of years which show that the tobacco industry deliberately aims its programs and advertising at minor children. It knows that 80 per cent or more of people who start smoking start before they are 18. If they have reached the age of 18 and are not smokers they are not going to be smokers. In spite of its denial, the tobacco industry has done life-style advertising and promotions aimed at getting younger and younger people to smoke.
In the Third World countries where there is no legislation to control the advertising of tobacco, the industry is even more blatant. It openly aims its products at 12 and 13 year-olds. It hands out free cigarettes to minors in Asian countries, Pacific rim countries and Thailand to promote them because its share of the market in North America has gone down.
Why are the tobacco companies so frightened about what is happening in Canada? They see that other countries are starting to look at our success in reducing the consumption of tobacco. They see it is a threepronged success based on increasing taxation, continuing a level of export tax to make it unprofitable to smuggle cigarettes back into Canada, education about the dangers of cigarettes and labelling.
I hope this bill will go through without coming back to this House to reimpose the export tax on cigarette products. Is this government on the side of the big tobacco producers or on the side of the 55,000 Canadian families who lose their loved ones each year. Which side will we be on?
The government and the Liberals must have the courage to stand up and be on the side of Canadians. We must say we will reduce tobacco consumption and be on the side of those 55,000 Canadians who will lose their husbands and wives each year. We must reimplement the export tax.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I want to let the hon. member know that the Liberal Party of Canada is firmly behind the Canadian farmer and will continue to support the Canadian farmer.
Government Orders
He suggested in his speech that he knew how to solve the problems of tobacco farmers, which is clearly NDP gibberish. He has probably never been to see a tobacco farm. He is probably not aware that the government came out a year ago with a $32 million program to help the Canadian tobacco farmer. Do you know how much of that money has gone to the tobacco farmer? None. Absolutely zero. The government announced with great fanfare that it was going to help them diversify into other programs and then cancelled the AEI program to help them get into other areas.
Canadian tobacco farmers, knowing the future of the industry, have gone to the government to ask it to be involved in NISA. The hon. member may not know what NISA is, but NISA would give these farmers an opportunity to be like the com and grain farmers in our agricultural community. It would give them the opportunity to invest in their future and help them get through the highs and lows. But the government has not allowed them into this great program.
The hon. member speaks a lot about the Liberal Party supporting the tobacco fanners that he refers to as murderers. He knows I have not spoken in this House on behalf of the tobacco manufacturers. I have spoken on behalf of the Canadian tobacco farmers and our tobacco communities that depend on these farms.
Is the hon. member aware that every time he gets up and talks like that, sending out this misinformation to Canadians, it hurts Canadian farmers and specifically Canadian tobacco farmers in our communities and our small business people who depend on these farmers?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question because I think it goes to the heart of the issue. This member is saying that if it is profitable and kills people it is just too bad for those 55,000 people. He is determined to continue this profitable business that kills people.
I am sorry but the member cannot have it both ways. Yes, as tobacco consumption goes down tobacco farmers are going to be hurt. I have no doubt about it. That is why my party and I have called upon the government to put in realistic programs to help tobacco farmers switch to other programs. We should not continue to provide programs to help them through the highs and lows and allow them to continue to produce a crop that we know is dangerous.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
If we have to make a choice on this issue-and I guess being in government is all about making choices about whose side we are on-I think it is fairly clear. Research over the last 25 years has clearly and unequivocally shown that the use of tobacco products is dangerous to a person's health and in fact causes death to 55,000 people a year.
Somebody said there are 5,000 tobacco farmers in Canada. Is that 10 deaths per tobacco farmer?
We have to ask ourselves what position we should be supporting. Should we support the continued escalation of the use of tobacco knowing its cost to the health care system and to individuals in terms of their life expectancies and health, or do we take steps to systematically reduce tobacco consumption?
I applaud this government because it has consistently, until it backed off on the export tax, had an integrated policy to allow for a gradual reduction in tobacco through education.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Mr. Speaker, we heard a spirited defence just a little while ago of the merits of the tobacco industry and the consumption of tobacco. I wonder if the health critic for the Liberal Party agrees with the position of the spokesman for the Liberal Party on the consumption of tobacco.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question has to be directed to the hon. member for Surrey North.


Mr. Volpe:: Is he going to answer the question, as the former health minister?


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, how he describes the tobacco industry is accurate. Experience, and bitter experience, teaches us that. On the one hand, it says it does not want young people to smoke but on the other hand it promotes smoking for young people.
I think we can say that Canada today is a leader in the anti-smoking crusade. We have had difficulty, for example, with tobacco farmers. I disagree with the hon. member that it is easy for tobacco farmers to switch over to other crops that are at least as financially beneficial to them as is tobacco. The land in the Delhi area is possibly not as suited to replacement crops. That is a reality we face.
Having said that though, there is a bottom line. I believe the tobacco industry is an amazing industry. It is the only industry that promotes death, destruction, fire, health loss, illness and a shortened life span and makes it glamorous. It is the only industry that is able to do that. It has a phenomenal marketing ability.
If one listens to my words they sound very harsh but they are absolutely accurate. Take a look. What next step does the member feel that Canada should take to promote public health policy, and particularly the reduction of smoking, especially among young people in Canada?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. I would also say that the member's words do not sound harsh at all, they sound honest.
We have advocated that the next step is probably to stop the tobacco companies from promoting cultural and particularly sports events and using their names in doing so. Australia has simply stopped them from promoting any kind of events that they use their name in.
The other thing is to continue and maybe even escalate the health education programs that the government has initiated to inform people about the dangers of tobacco, particularly to inform young people and counteract the idea that to smoke is glamorous, macho and makes young women very attractive. We have to be able to counter the kind of glamorous image the tobacco industry likes to portray.
I agree with the hon. member very much that it is the only industry in the world that glamorizes its product knowing that it creates death.


BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION (GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS) ACT, 1992 NOTICE OF ALLOCATION OF TIME TO CONSIDER REPORT AND THIRD READING STAGES OF BILL C-93
Benoît Bouchard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) in respect to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992.
April 20, 1993

Under the provision of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days and hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the said bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Essex-Kent it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier- Budget; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Immigration; the hon. member for Markham- Whitchurch-Stouffville-Child Pornography; the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby-Violence against women; the hon. member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley-Softwood lumber.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Criminal Code and a related act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak on Bill C-102, which is a very complicated bill for a lot of different Canadians.
I have very mixed feelings about the bill and certainly I can understand what many other Canadians have said. There certainly is a health problem with regard to smoking. Everyone in this House and everyone in this country recognizes that to be a true fact.
We also know that smoking is very tax-high revenue for the government. As mentioned earlier by my colleague, taxes have gone up some 600 per cent in the last 10 years. This shows that maybe the wrong focus has gone toward smoking and I would say alcohol as well. We look at a government that is promoting through taxation smoking and alcohol, in fact deriving the greatest share of the revenues through both, and yet many in this country would say we question the value of cigarettes and alcohol.
Government Orders
My colleagues on the far left of the House, the New Democratic Party, have suggested that there are extreme health problems. From hearing my colleagues from the NDP and as well some of the colleagues from across the way I have to ask why the policy is not to ban smoking in this country. It seems to me that if the health problem they are presenting and they are saying they will end the smoking issue, then it would be a logical step to ban smoking in this country. I certainly do not think that has been done either by the government side or by the NDP, who purport to be the great saviours in terms of health problems.


An hon. member:: Because they are hypocrites.


Jerry Pickard: There is a major economical question involved with this bill. Absolutely no one will debate that $34 per carton of cigarettes is a very healthy revenue for the government. It has escalated so much in the last 10 years that it has become a law enforcement problem. That problem then starts to stem out into organized crime which is smuggling cigarettes into this country, causing a second social problem which is the illegal use of cigarettes in the country.
Many people in the RCMP as well as in customs and excise have compared it to our prohibition days with alcohol. Now many organized crime groups are bringing cigarettes in by the truckload and distributing them throughout the country. These illegal cigarettes are raising revenue in this country of as much as $1 billion annually. That is a tremendous problem for our law enforcement agencies. I would say that part of this bill does deal with that problem and corrects some of that. The imposition of fines of up to $200,000, the extra fines that would be imposed on people who bring illegal cigarettes into the country, is good. That portion of the bill is going to stop Canadian-made cigarettes from going over to the United States and then being brought back into Canada.
The real crux of the problem is the fact that we have escalated the cost of a product that many people in this country legally use, are addicted to and have chosen to use. We have escalated the cost of that product so much that people from every walk of life in Canada, from every sector of our society, are purchasing cigarettes illegally and at the most economical prices. It is a tendency that I see happening not only in the tobacco industry but in all facets of Canadian life.

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
In talking with people over the last few years I have found that they are very upset with tax increases. People are very upset with the high cost of living in this society, whether it is income taxes, taxes that have been imposed through goods and services or taxes that are coming through our excise areas.
We know that the tax record of increase, increase, increase has taken money from the Canadian consumers' pockets and increased their costs as much as 50 per cent, 60 per cent, or 70 per cent in the last eight years.
We know that this is a major problem for Canadians in tough times. Canadians are looking at the amount of money they are putting out in taxes and saying that it is far too much.
I am watching the Tory leadership campaign going on and I certainly understand from it that we have a problem. Everybody is saying: We can stop the extra spending in this country. We can stop the huge tax increases. We can slow down the debt and the deficit.
This is a situation that has developed dramatically over the last eight years. It is a problem that every Canadian speaks about in coffee shops. It is a problem they speak about in homes when they are sitting around the dinner table. It is a problem we as a nation have to face.
Is the government overtaxing to a point that is causing a lot of normal law-abiding citizens to purchase articles that should not be for sale? They should not be taxed as high as they are. I think it is causing another crime situation in this country.
With regard to the health issues, the crime issue, the excessive cost of cigarettes and the tax issue, we have very mixed up, in terms of its concerns, legislation coming forward that does not seem to be consistent.
If I take what my colleague across the way said about the fact that cigarettes must be stopped or what the member from the NDP said, I would assume they are going to step forward to ban cigarettes in this country. Then we will have a real undercurrent of growth because people do choose to smoke in this country.
It is our responsibility to make sure that the interests of all Canadians are treated fairly. I do not believe that high taxation on cigarettes, the way it has been, and the laws that we are coming down with are resolving the core problem. The core problem here is another matter of taxation and enforcement.
I support stopping the illegal entry of cigarettes into the country and punishing those who do it. That is a good measure. However, we have missed the core point in this issue which is overtaxation.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the various speeches about the tobacco industry and the rest, I must say this is something we could talk about for a long time. People want to put a stop to youth directed advertising by cigarette manufacturers. They want to restrict cigarette smoking generally, but after all, people are free to choose and if they want to smoke, there is not much we can do about it.
There is another aspect we should consider. Recently, the tobacco industry has become a criminal element in our society. How did it get this way? In the past few years there was an incredible increase in excise taxes on tobacco and cigarettes and now taxes are so high that people have started to smuggle. In other words, excessive taxes have created a smuggling industry.
The hon. member from Toronto told me that last year the federal government lost more than $750 million.
Taxes have created a smuggling industry and the only logical way to deal with the problem is to cut taxes, if only for a year or two, in order to stabilize the situation. Then we can see how we can stop the smuggling and prevent this industry to engage in criminal activities.
Representatives from my riding, including Mr. Denis Savard, came here to discuss the problem. Mr. Savard showed a lot of common sense in what he said.
We would have to reduce taxes on cigarettes, if only temporarily, to deter smuggling and prevent the cigarette industry to engage in criminal activities. That is the real problem. We have to deal with this problem first and then we can find ways to stop smuggling altogether.
April 20, 1993


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today on Bill C-102.1 want to speak very briefly on the issue of taxes and tobacco smuggling.
I want to put on record first of all that I too am very concerned about the volumes of tobacco being smuggled. About one pack in six that is consumed in Canada is indeed smuggled. It represents about $1.6 billion in federal and provincial tax revenues. Smuggling profits are estimated to be about $800 million. This represents 48 million cartons of cigarettes, eight times that of 1990, an increase of 650 per cent in smuggling in two years.
This is primarily because governments kept insisting they were going to raise the taxes on cigarettes and tobacco at both federal and provincial levels. Of course in doing so, on the pretext that it is a health risk, and we admit that it is, they have created a whole new underground economy in smuggling. That underground economy applies not just to tobacco but also applies to alcoholic beverages.
The tax rate in Canada for example is 67 per cent, compared to the United States which is 30 per cent. In Europe it is 75 per cent. The difference between the price of a carton of Canadian cigarettes in Canada versus the United States is about $35 per carton. It is not much wonder that there has been a vast increase in the volume of smuggling.
These tax increases have indeed created an underground economy, just as the GST is contributing to an underground economy based on cash being paid for services. That in itself is becoming a very serious problem in this country. We warned the government during the GST debate that this would happen, but of course it turned a blind eye.
The legislation as originally drafted would have unfairly penalized Canada's land frontier duty free shop industry in an attempt by the government to correct problems created by the government's regressive tax regime and lax enforcements. The original clause 73 would have regulated the sales of duty free shops. In terms of correspondence, one operator who lives close to my riding said: "Presently all Canadian duty free shop operators are adhering to a one carton, two tin limit on all sales of cigarettes and fine cut tobacco".
Government Orders
The reason for this is that these duty free shop operators recognized the problem and did not want to be part of it. They voluntarily, as an organization of then-own people, put on a limit of what they would sell to people moving out of Canada, whether it is tourists from the United States or Canadians going to the United States.
The question then is why proceed with legislation limiting the sales from Canadian duty free shops if it has been demonstrated and recognized by the Department of Finance that the Canadian duty free shops are not part of the smuggling problem. At a time when the Canadian duty free shop industry as a whole is facing significantly increased competition from the United States, the only consequence of such a restrictive action would be to provide United States retailers with an additional competitive advantage and the subsequent loss of millions of dollars in tourist revenues.
The Canadian duty-free shop industry plays a key role in the Canadian economy through its employment of hundreds of Canadian workers and the generation of substantial tax and revenue dollars for the federal and provincial governments. The vast majority of the duty free shop industry is composed of small to medium sized businesses owned by Canadian citizens.
I had the privilege of being on the steering committee as a co-chair of that original committee that set up the Canadian duty free shop criteria. I am very proud of what these people have done. I am proud of the leadership they have shown in this regard and certainly I am very pleased that they voluntarily took the lead to try to control this terrible problem.
There has been an amendment passed in committee that recognizes their concerns and clause 73 no longer includes these duty free shops. Of course that means recognition of the fact that they are not part of the smuggling problem.
Over the last 10 years federal tobacco taxes have increased by 18.7 per cent per year on average and provincially 18.1 per cent. In 1980-81 the federal government collected $811 million in tobacco taxes. In 1990-91 the federal government collected $2.25 billion in taxes from tobacco. It has increased the taxes by 47 per cent since 1988 alone. Total tobacco sales by producers in 1991 totalled $310 million of which the federal government collected $2.25 billion in taxes. The entire Department

April 20, 1993
Government Orders
of Agriculture budget could be paid for on the tax collected on tobacco alone in this country.
A producer producing 90,000 pounds of tobacco will earn about $180,000. The federal government will collect $10 million in taxes on that particular producer's crop alone. It will yield well over $5 billion in taxes at the two levels of government in 1991-92 not including the GST.
Gradually the police and law enforcement people are in fact getting control of the situation. They are doing it slowly but surely. The LCBO, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, estimates that one of every ten bottles of liquor consumed in Ontario is being either smuggled or bootlegged. The cigarette industry indicates that one in nine cigarettes obtained in Canada has been obtained illegally.
The Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council collected discarded cigarette packages after events last month and discovered that about 37 per cent of them had been smuggled. The LCBO estimated that Ontario residents spent more than $700 million for illegal liquor last year or about 13.5 per cent of the province's total liquor sales.
Meanwhile the revenues or the sale volume of LCBO has dropped by $60 million. This shows you the magnitude of the problem that has been brought about by the increased federal and provincial taxes. The RCMP said tobacco seizures have almost doubled in the last year. The force made about 3,000 seizures last year, which is up from 1,570 in 1991.
In a London Free Press article of March 20, 1993 the Quebec minister of revenue hinted that Ottawa and the provinces are considering lowering taxes on tobacco in a bid to curb the growing contraband cigarette trade. The Quebec revenue minister gave the figure that one in every three cigarettes sold in Quebec, Ontario and the west is contraband.
However although the Quebec minister may have seen the light, the federal government in Ottawa certainly has not. The article goes on to quote a senior official from the Department of Finance: "We are not at this point considering cutting taxes, certainly not actively".
The Tillsonburg Independent is a weekly newspaper in Tillsonburg, Ontario, which is the heart of tobacco country. The editorial of March 23, 1993 quotes the mayor of Tillsonburg's testimony before an Ontario legislative committee. He states that high taxation merely increases the already burgeoning share of the market that is in the hands of the smuggling industry.
We recognize the seriousness of the smuggling industry and we certainly hope that this will help relieve that problem. In terms of the health issue as spoken to by others earlier here today, I want to just point out the double standard we have here about the serious health issue as it concerns cigarettes.
I submit and I have submitted before in this House that the use of MMT in gasolines is an equal health risk. I call on the government to ban the use of this substance because there are alternatives available to MMT that are environmentally friendly and are not health risks. Surely if the government is serious about the use of tobacco and the risk to health, it has to be equally as serious about the use of MMT in gasoline where the victims are the young children of this nation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to comment on this afternoon's debate. First of all the bill before us today is many-sided. On the one hand, it will benefit the ethanol industry to some extent, and I am sure that I speak for all parliamentarians in this House when I say that it is about time we came up with such an initiative.
My colleague from Stormont-Dundas and myself have met with our local seaway group. They want to go about setting up an ethanol plant in our area. By our region I do not mean my riding or his because they are still unclear as to the specific location. One way or another the entire community will benefit.
The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex has been an advocate for the ethanol industry for a good long time in this House and I want to congratulate him as well.
I would now like to take a moment to address the cigarette smuggling issue.
April 20, 1993



Prior to the passage of the bill, prior to this bill being introduced, the fine for illegally importing cigarettes was nothing more than a joke. I complained in this House some two years ago about the effect of the absence of meaningful laws to curb smuggling.
As an example, under the present act a first offence right now for illegally importing cigarettes is a $50 fine. That must be very discouraging. That is about the profit on two cartons of cigarettes. For each subsequent offence the fine is $200.
Now we have fines not exceeding $10,000 and 12 months in jail. That is starting to make a bit of sense toward curbing the illegal importation of cigarettes in Canada. There has to be more done.
First I want to join with others who have said that there must be meaningful assistance for tobacco farmers in Canada to aid them in their transition to other crops and in recognizing all the difficulties that entails.
Second, I want to talk about the necessary increase in border patrols. The community of Akwesasne is partly in my riding and has something like 18 or 19 RCMP officers assigned in that area. If you count three shifts a day, seven days a week, one needs five people in order to have one on duty at any one time. That means there are all of three people at the best of times when there are no holidays on duty to patrol that area where the smuggling is going on.
It would be a mistake to pretend that is a native-only problem. That is wrong. Gangs from Montreal and Toronto have virtually taken control of the smuggling in our area.
Finally, the union representing the customs and excise employees issued a statement last week condemning the government for cutbacks in customs employees when we should be increasing them in an effort to curb that contraband. That is what we need to do.
In terms of whether or not an export tax works, I am not sure. The bill contains that provision. I am not personally against it.
However, there is a problem and it might as well be stated. At the present time there is nothing that prevents Canadian tobacco manufacturers from establishing a
Private Members' Business
plant using the same product name and the same everything else in a package that looks virtually identical right across the border. It can then export those cigarettes to Canada in packages that look virtually the same as the ones that are shipped to the United States and that are smuggled back in at the present time.
Those are kinks and problems that the government will really have to work hard on. With that we have pretty well reached the hour of five o'clock. I will end my remarks for today and I will continue at the next sitting of the House.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It was my understanding that there was some sort of an agreement. If there is no agreement that is fine.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

["I regret that the member's time has expired.\nThe time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have another item to put before the House before I recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
I have received a written notice from the hon. member for Hamilton East that she is unable to move her motion during Private Members' Hour on Wednesday, April 21, 1993.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of position in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a). Accordingly I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), Private Members' Hour will thus be suspended and the House will continue with the business before it prior to the Private Members' Hour.

April 20, 1993
Private Members' Business SECURITIES



Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a National Securities Regulator
should be created to address the issue of overlapping federal and
provincial securities regulation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion today calls on the government to consider the creation of the establishment of a national securities regulator.
The purpose and the reason given in my motion for establishing this is to address the issue of overlapping federal and provincial jurisdictions. Thirty years ago the royal commission on banking and finance recommended that the federal government take the lead in encouraging the development of "high and uniform standards of security legislation and regulation in Canada" by establishing a federal regulatory agency. That was 30 years ago.


Mr. Stupich:: Were you here 30 years ago?


John R. Rodriguez: I was not here 30 years ago. I could not be here and be as young looking as I am today. The arguments and the conclusion of that royal commission are as relevant today, probably even more so today than they were 30 years ago.
What has happened over the ensuing 30 years of course is the revolution in communication technology. There is the deregulation of financial institutions that has taken place. There is the internationalization of credit. There are all sorts of challenges and yet Canada among all the of the industrialized nations of the world is the only industrialized nation without a national securities regulator. The royal commission of the day had reasons to recommend that there be a national securities regulator. I also had reason to mention it in my motion. One reason was to eliminate much of the duplication and the lack of uniformity in regulations.
We have to understand the structure. The provinces are responsible for regulating security systems, so we have 10 provinces with 10 sets of regulations. Where the institution comes under federal jurisdiction there is a set of federal rules as well. There is a jungle of jurisdiction out there, often overlapping and often with no uniformity. It seems to me that having a national securities regulator would lead the provinces to establish a vety high set of federal standards. That should be uppermost in the minds of legislators.
If there were a national securities regulator it would increase the standard of regulation across the country in light of the ability of Canada to interface with other jurisdictions that have national standards of security regulations such as the United States, for example. The United States has the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The U.S. commission has no counterpart in Canada with which it can interface. It has to interface with provincial regulators, and of course in each jurisdiction there is a different set of rules.
It is important to begin establishing a set of rules that we can project internationally. It would be setting the rules as large borrowers attempt to avoid the intermediation of banks and go to the international market for their funds. They often do that by selling securities directly. There must be a way to establish some sense of uniformity and some sense of standards.
I can give an example of a case where there was an overlapping of jurisdiction among the provinces. In this case it was between two provinces, the province of British Columbia and the province of Ontario. My colleague is from British Columbia. He will remember the Bennett-Doman case. It was a perfect example in which the former premier of British Columbia, Bill Bennett, and his brother Russell had been charged with insider trading in the stock of Doman Industries Limited. The defendants resided in B.C. but Doman's shares were traded exclusively on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The alleged illegal trading was effected through the Toronto Stock Exchange computer assisted trading system, a national communications system.
The B.C. government and the Ontario Securities Commission both laid charges against the Bennetts in early 1989. They were acquitted in the B.C. provincial court in May 1989. The Ontario Securities Commission dropped the charges in Ontario. The argument was that the legal principle of double jeopardy prohibited another trial on the same offence and set of facts.
The commission decided to proceed with a regulatory hearing into the case, but that case had to be abandoned the following year when the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that the OSC could not compel the Bennetts to provide testimony. Justice Steele stated in his judgment that the court had no power "to assist the tribunal outside Ontario". It is a perfect example of where the national securities regulator could have brought the Bennetts to heel, if we had had a national securities commission with standardized rules. I thought I would use that one example to clearly illustrate the lack of
April 20, 1993

uniformity and of a sense of continuity across the country with respect to a national securities regulator.
We are almost there. We have global markets for securities, bonds and equities 24 hours a day. Interprovincial and international trade in securities are growing in importance. The key reasons are the growing importance of the securities markets and the allocation of credit. I mentioned that borrowers, large corporations, can now avoid the intermediation of banks and go directly to the markets by floating securities.
According to the Toronto Stock Exchange chairman Michael Edwards, cross-border equity trading surged from $73 billion U.S. in 1979 to $1.44 trillion U.S. in 1990. In these circumstances it is fairly obvious a system organized around provincial boundaries, a regulatory system based on provincial boundaries, is fairly well anachronistic and inadequate.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Right on.


John R. Rodriguez: I am starting to wonder about my position now. The hon. member for Mississauga South says: "Right on". That scares me because he is a friend of the trusts.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is right, and you are a friend of the big banks.


John R. Rodriguez: He is the original trust buster.
There is increased pressure to improve and harmonize disclosure requirements to get rid of inconsistencies. Regulators need it to do a better job and investors want it because it facilitates their understanding and decision making. It would also result in a cut in the cost and paperwork involved in registering the same security in several provinces.
A second reason is that only a federal securities regulator would prevent competitive deregulation wars between provincial regulators. Competitive deregulation would harmonize trade in securities to the lowest common regulatory factor and ethical standard. Even if provinces succeed in fully harmonizing the rules to the highest common factor, they would still be subject to
Private Members' Business
different interpretations by different provincial regulators. This is why a federal regulator is needed to set national standards and to enforce these standards.
I am glad that my friend from Mississauga South is here. Not so long ago he was in full support of deregulating the financial institutions. We have pillars. Our system was built on pillars and we regulated the financial institutions by pillars; not pillars of salt, pillars. We had banks as one pillar. We had trust companies as another pillar. We had insurance companies as a third pillar. We had security brokerage houses as a fourth pillar.
In 1986 we knocked the brokerage houses down. That pillar went down. It probably saved a lot of them from bankruptcy. Immediately that pillar went down-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They are still there.


John R. Rodriguez: They were having some problems. Some of them were having problems. The member would admit that. Would my friend admit that?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They are still there.


John R. Rodriguez: The banks quickly moved in and bought the pillars, took the pillars over. Now each bank has a security brokerage pillar inside the stable. Of course we cannot have them communicating freely and openly so we put up Chinese walls. They call them Chinese walls. I call them picket fences because I think we can still move back and forward over them.
To some extent we have been cheating, have we not? We have been using a federal regulator, OSFI, through the back door. It is responsible for regulating banks and financial institutions and through the back door has been doing some regulation of brokerages.
Last year we completely knocked down the other pillars, all of them. They are all gone now. They are eating each other up as we predicted. Have you not seen it lately, Mr. Speaker? The banks are eating up the trust companies. The trust companies are going to be eaten up by insurance companies. Then the banks will eat up insurance companies because now banks can own insurance companies.

April 20,1993
Private Members' Business
If we extrapolate that, the banks can now own their own securities firms. Banks now have accounts combining bank stock and trading services. Bank trusts and insurance companies can offer investment counselling and portfolio management services without having to set up a subsidiary reporting to a provincial securities commission as was previously the case.
They are pushing this very lucrative, fee generating business. Since the regulation of banking, federally chartered insurance and trust companies falls on the federal jurisdiction, the federal regulator must be allowed to monitor the spectrum of activities. A strong federal presence is inevitable. It has to come.
I mentioned insider trader and I mentioned the Bennett-Doman case. It was a classic example of the inability to deal with an alleged problem because it spanned two jurisdictions, B.C. and Ontario. I would argue that my proposal would deal with problems like that one.
I would suggest that another reason for a national securities regulator is the fact that the federal government is already involved to some degree in securities regulation. Insider trading, takeover bid and other provisions of the Federal Business Corporations Act overlap provincial securities law. The Criminal Code includes provisions on stock manipulation and other forms of securities fraud. There is already some federal responsibility.
Another reason is more an argument to allay fears. It seems to me there are no significant constitutional impediments to an expansion of the federal government's role in security industry regulation. The federal trade and commerce power should impose sufficient authority to regulate securities trading.
I am not the only one who has argued for a national securities regulator. In the previous throne speech the Prime Minister put the following question: "Do we really need three separate securities regulators when all over the world countries are moving to a much more centralized regulatory regime?" It had even been included in the Charlottetown accord.
In terms of where we are headed that is what we have to do. I propose we should create a federal Canadian national securities exchange commission, CNSEC, along the lines of the Securities and Exchange Commission in
the United States. CNSEC would be run by an independent board of directors. I personally am not in favour of developing a parallel federal system of securities regulation. This would only it would seem to me add to the confusion to have a parallel federal system and a provincial one.
The mandate of this commission would be: one, to create an integrated national system of securities regulation, that is create one securities regulatory regime by integrating the provincial securities commission into CNSEC; two, I believe we should set accounting norms and technical and ethical standards for trading in securities which would be one of the functions of CNSEC; three, to supervise the sound and efficient functioning trade in securities, bonds and equities; four, to supervise the international flow of capital and investment into and out of Canada; five, investigate abuse and apply sanctions; six, to represent the national financial interests vis-a-vis the international forces currently working to create one global financial market.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hon. member's time has expired. I have given him an extra two minutes.


John R. Rodriguez: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In conclusion, the hon. member.


John R. Rodriguez: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to support this motion. Hopefully the government will have the courage before this Parliament dies to introduce legislation that would establish a national securities commission.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to participate in this debate.
The motion before us today calls for the creation of a national securities regulator to address the issue of overlapping federal and provincial securities regulation.
I do not see the use for such an organization. The present system is working relatively well and is flexible enough. Why change so radically a system that is working?
April 20, 1993



Let me provide you, Mr. Speaker, with some background on this issue. Securities markets have traditionally been regulated by the provinces. Under the financial institution reform enacted last year most securities activities remain outside the business powers of federally-regulated financial institutions.
Even though there is a different regulatory regime in each province, the Canadian capital market works well. The provincial securities commissions co-ordinate their regulatory activities through the Canadian Securities Administrators.

I would like to point out that there is very little overlapping of federal and provincial securities regulations. When overlapping has occurred, discussions were held between the two levels of government to settle the matter.
The Hockin-Kwinter agreement for instance which was signed by the federal and Ontario governments in 1987 specified the division of powers and regulatory responsibility between the two levels of government with respect to securities.
The financial institutions legislation passed last year identified those securities transactions that federally chartered financial institutions could make. I understand that discussions on this issue are presently under way between the two levels of government.
The House will recall that the same legislation also reformed the statutory and regulatory framework for federally chartered financial institutions in Canada.
Barriers between the pillars of the financial sector, namely the banks, insurance companies and trust and loan companies, have been eliminated, allowing more direct competition between financial institutions.
The reform of financial institutions has benefited consumers through increased competition and a widening of the range of services provided by these institutions. The reform also increased the protection for depositors and insured persons and it strengthened the ability of Canadian financial institutions to compete here and abroad by providing them with new opportunities for growth. Banks, trust and loan companies, as well as insurance companies can now go outside their traditional sector and diversify their activity by owning institutions
Private Members' Business
in other fields of the financial services industry. For example, banks and insurance companies can own trust and loan companies; moreover, trust and loan companies as well as banks can own insurance companies. Thanks to this opportunity for diversification, financial institutions can now offer consumers a wider selection of goods and services.
The reform also gave greater powers to financial institutions. For example, trust and loan companies can enjoy the same internal powers as banks, including full authority to give credit to businesses and consumers. Also, insurance companies can now make loans to consumers and businesses.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to go back to the motion which is the subject of this debate. The federal government repeatedly said that it was committed to reducing duplication and overlapping.
Given the significant progress made regarding securities, and given the ability of the provinces to regulate this sector properly, I do not see the necessity of creating a national body to regulate the securities industry.
However I would like to take a moment to discuss more in detail the jurisdiction conflicts between the two levels of government, as well as some of the changes which have occurred in the eighties regarding the regulation of securities in Canada.
Given the importance of this industry for our economy, both the federal and the provincial governments are interested in establishing efficient securities markets.
I already said that in Canada these markets were traditionally regulated by the provinces. Provincial authorities are responsible for a good part of the day-today regulation of the securities markets.
As for the federal government, it looks at the internal operations on securities of federally chartered banks as well as trust and insurance companies. It also looks at the presence of foreign institutions on Canadian markets.

Further, the federal government is involved in the securities market through the takeover bid, insider trading disclosure and related provisions of the Canada Business Corporation Act. This act is administered by consumer and corporate affairs. The federal government

April 20, 1993
Private Members' Business
also has an interest in preserving the over-all efficient functioning of Canadian capital markets.

Both the federal government and the various provincial governments are involved in regulating certain aspects of the securities markets. However, responsibility is the operative word and responsibility lies mainly with the provinces.
Both levels of government agree that the basic division of supervisory responsibilities should not be modified. However, they acknowledge that problems have surfaced from time to time and that maintaining a system that works well requires considerable co-ordination and cooperation.
The federal government believes that by setting up a discussion process in which both levels of government would participate on an equal footing would be the best way to deal with the problems of overlapping and duplication. The changes we saw in the eighties with respect to the regulation of securities in Canada have shown the benefits of this approach.
The changes that took place on securities markets a few years ago have had two major effects on the sector. They promoted competition and encouraged international integration.
I would like to give a few examples of these changes and the effect they have had. When fixed commission rates on our main securities markets were either dropped or substantially reduced the industry started offering more competitive prices. The securities market expanded and became more sophisticated.
It seems I have only two minutes left. I will conclude my speech. There is a lot more I could say about the subject.
I have tried to provide a summary of what we have done to deal effectively with the pressures of competition by decompartmentalizing the securities industry, thanks to policy changes co-ordinated at the federal and provincial levels. That is something we must not forget.
We must remember that the changes in the securities industry were brought about thanks to the co-operation of both levels of government. Further changes would have to be made the same way.
The existing system in this country has worked well. If changes are necessary there are many ways to make these changes without modifying the existing federal and provincial framework. Unilaterally creating a national securities regulator would not fit in with this approach.
I therefore advise hon. members against supporting this motion.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker,I would first like to compliment the hon. member for Nickel Belt with respect to the motion before us because it does illustrate some of the problems that we have been seeing in the subcommittee on financial institutions. I must say that I am disappointed to see that the representative from the government side is indicating a reluctance.
We saw in the number of things we looked at as we went through the financial institutions legislation a lot of overlap. We saw a lot of duplication. I will give an example of one situation. The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation provides deposit insurance but because of provincial regulations on certain institutions it had to go to the provincial government first to request permission to go into that province to do something and to check out that particular institution. It seems to me that when you have a federal organization like the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation that you should have the right to go in and investigate to make sure that taxpayers' dollars as well as depositors' dollars are not in jeopardy.
We see this type of breakdown between provinces and the federal government in a number of areas dealing with the regulation of financial institutions.
We also see a situation in which the new legislation which has been introduced has created a new atmosphere, an atmosphere in which there is a blurring of the pillars within our financial institutions, and a competitiveness which we encourage. At the same time, as I am sure you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, with competitiveness also comes a need to protect. Consumers have to be
April 20, 1993

protected, the systems have to be protected. We have to try to find that right balance. I believe that as we look at financial institutions and what is going on in that whole process, we must have what I would call national standards. This motion, which probably does not go far enough when you look at the over-all area of financial institutions, at least is a move in the right direction by having a regulator to deal with national securities types of situations.
We are in a global economy. We all recognize that. We also see what is happening in the European common market. We see where those financial institutions are going to be working in any of the different countries of the common market and they are going to have the same types of regulations and problems that we face in this country, but they are doing something about it by having national standards and, as far as the European common market is concerned, national regulations.
We are saying on this side that there is a need. We have OSFI which deals with some aspects of financial institutions but again, we in Parliament are concerned.
I know the chairman of the subcommittee is concerned because we are having difficulty getting information concerning the collapse of two trust companies. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions is taking the position that information should not be brought forward to our committee. There are things that need to be looked at and aired. There has to be at least a minimum standard in this country as far as securities are concerned but also with respect to all financial institutions.
We recognize of course that NAFTA is another aspect that is going to have implications on our financial institutions and where we go in that area. Again that is going to require us as a country to have strong national regulations. If we are going to be competitive in the international markets, which I believe we are, then at the same time we must have those protections so our financial institutions are sound. People who invest in our financial institutions and carry on business with them must have the security of knowing that those institutions are regulated and there are at least some minimum standards.
Private Members' Business
For that reason, as I have indicated, we feel there is an opportunity to go further with this particular motion and encompass some other aspects. I am hoping that our subcommittee of financial institutions will take on a supervisory role in the sense of looking at what has happened to a number of our financial institutions and determining for sure that the proper protections are in place.
We face a very critical test at this particular time with respect to finding out what went wrong with Central Trust and Standard Trust. There is a reluctance on the part of the superintendent to give us that information. It is my view that Parliament has a role to play here to make sure that those financial institutions are sound and Canadian taxpayers' dollars are in financially sound institutions.
If we carry this motion one step further and provide a regulatory oversight dealing with national securities matters, I think a regulatory oversight with Parliament involved in the process is also a proper direction for us to be taking. In that sense our committee must exert its influence in making sure the demands for information from OSFI are brought forward.
I think the motion put forward goes in that direction to some degree, but as indicated earlier I do not believe it goes far enough.
I would also say that listening to the government's position, it looked at all sorts of different pieces of legislation and all sorts of different bodies that are regulating one aspect or another of financial institutions. If we are going to harmonize the things that are going on in this country in the area of financial institutions, we have to consolidate them under one or two regulatory agencies rather than have this proliferation of different agencies looking at different aspects of our financial institutions.
I think that is the thrust, in part, of this particular motion. In that regard we are supportive of the direction and concept, but recognize that in typical fashion the NDP members have not gone far enough. They are hesitant and timid in their approach. As the chairman of the subcommittee has said, they are the lackeys of big banks and big banking institutions and therefore are reluctant to really jump into this and do the job properly.

April 20, 1993
Private Members' Business


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am very pleased to join the debate today and I am delighted that my friend from Nickel Belt has brought this motion forward. I think the motion cuts to the heart of one of the major problems we have in this country. When we started as a country at Confederation we had different banks in different parts of the country issuing the currency. We did not have a national currency and we did not have national markets.
As a consequence, issues like security, trading and so on became under the purview of the provinces. For a long time the whole concept of judging the validity of securities, what is in a security, how it is regulated and who can sell securities has been a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
I suppose that was fine as long as a security dealer only raised money from the local community to start a business in the local community where the security dealer was. It was perfectly fine. So we developed stock markets in Toronto and Montreal and security dealers operated in those markets. By and large those markets dealt with companies that dealt only in Canada. They floated issues for Canadians wanting to raise money to build enterprises in Canada.
After a while new markets were developed in western Canada and we developed stock markets in Vancouver and Calgary. Alberta and British Columbia also developed detailed security regulations.
The other provinces of course developed security regulation systems to deal with the registration of non-transferrable securities and debentures.
The trouble is that we are growing and the world is growing and our dollar is traded today in every market in the world, 24 hours a day.
It used to be that the Minister of Finance would not read a budget until eight o'clock at night after all the markets had closed. Today it does not matter when he reads the budget because there are markets trading our securities everywhere in the world. In a sense we ought to have some sort of world regulator of these institutions, but that is not possible so at least we should have something done nationally.
It is a matter of constitutional negotiation. It was at the Charlottetown accord group and was not dealt with there. It should have been dealt with there.
Dealing with trust companies, for example, we have a situation where provinces regulate these companies and so we had the obscene situation in the province of Alberta where the province licensed Principal Trust. Principal Trust could not get a licence to operate in Ontario because the Ontario regulators smelled a rat. It could not get a licence to operate in Quebec because the Quebec regulators smelled a rat, so it operated in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland where it got registered. People lost their shirts in those provinces because there was no over-all regulation. They thought they were depositing with Principal Trust which was covered by CDIC when they were in fact buying a Principal land deal or a Principal mutual fund or a Principal somewhere else and getting no principal back. That is the problem with securities.
We saw the Bennett-Doman case brought forward by my friend where fast and loose action was pretty much condescended to in Vancouver but objected to in Toronto, so no satisfactory result came in that matter.
We cannot run a country with markets that are designed to raise money for national and international projects and a market system that is supposed to handle the trades of securities issued in other jurisdictions if we do not run those markets on a national and consolidated basis.
There is no great advantage to a province in regulating securities. It always shocks me that provincial treasurers see the regulation of securities as something they ought to keep together and close at hand. They think that perhaps if they keep the security business in their province they will somehow attract money into the province.
We have seen the kind of money they attract. They attract the bad deals because the bad deals which cannot be registered elsewhere go to where the regulation is the softest and where the regulation is the softest we wind up with the frauds and with the wash trading. We wind up with the fast dealers and with Canada receiving a bad reputation as a place where people can invest their funds.
We need a lot of funds in this country. We have a big country to build. We have needs for massive amounts of investment and we cannot raise all of that investment here. We have to raise it around the world. We cannot raise investment around the world when we continue to threaten investors with sloppy and incompetent regula-
April 20, 1993

tion that has existed in at least two of the markets in this country.


John R. Rodriguez: A myriad of regulators.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My hon. friend from Nickel Belt says a myriad of regulators.
It is about time that we rationalize this business. It is about time that the governments of this country recognized the fact that there is no merit in soft and sloppy regulation. Soft and sloppy regulation hurts everyone in Canada and does not give the province that facilitates soft and sloppy regulation any advantage at all.
You do not make any marks by having your citizens get burned. You do not get any marks by having other people's citizens get burned because they remember and they will not be back.
I say that this resolution has a great deal of merit to it. Does it go far enough? Does it do the right thing? I certainly say that it does not because it really is not a question of duplication. It is a question that security regulation is virtually, totally and completely a provincial matter. We really have no federal security regulator at all. While the federal government may regulate the banks that have security licences, indirectly in that sense it controls the solvency of the banks. It does not control how the security operations are conducted, how registration is conducted or what prospectuses say and so on.
All of these very important matters are not regulated nationally. What we have is a situation where we have only provincial regulations. Really if this resolution had been corrected, it would have said that we instruct the federal government to immediately start negotiations with the provinces to reorganize this Confederation and take over certain things that really ought to be national.
We do a lot of things here nationally that ought to be provincial. There is no reason whatsoever why we have a federal Department of Forestry. There is no reason whatsoever why we have a federal housing minister. Absolutely not.
Housing for example, foolish. We cannot subdivide land here. We cannot organize building permits here. We cannot direct housing regulation here. We cannot do anything in the housing market. We ought to leave the housing market to the provinces. They can do it. We are not needed here. But we are needed where the real
Private Members' Business
problems are in this countiy and those real problems are in the money markets of this world where we have a Canadian dollar, Canadian securities, Canadian opportunities and we ought to make sure that those opportunities are governed, directed, controlled and developed in a national system.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to speak on this motion.
I commend the motion to the House and I congratulate the member who put it forward.
The member for Mississauga South says perhaps the resolution should have read that the federal government be empowered or something like that or directed to consult with the provinces and so on in regard to creating the office of the national securities regulator. I suppose there are many ways in which one can make any motion better than it was originally drafted. That is not the point.
The motion when passed will I assume become the subject matter of deliberations in a committee. The committee is not restricted to doing precisely and only the things that are written in the motion. The committee looking into the issue subsequently could broaden that mandate and obviously do that which the member for Mississauga South asks.
In addition it is implicit in the motion in any case that if there is overlapping at the present time, and if we were to eliminate overlapping particularly in an area that involves provincial jurisdictions, we would have to consult the jurisdiction which is presently charged with that in order to eliminate the overlapping. The argument of the member for Mississauga South is not quite accurate, I say respectfully. I know the member for Mississauga South who is listening very closely to this debate now that he has finished his remarks will take note of that.
The member for Mississauga South said a number of things that I agree with nevertheless. When talking about such things as trust companies and the way they are registered at the present time and the fact that different provinces have different rules involving trust

April 20, 1993
Private Members' Business
companies, most Canadians investing right now in trust companies do not know whether the trust company they are investing in is federally or provincially chartered and regulated. It is not obvious at all at the present time which ones get their directions from which agency of government. That is just one example.
Notwithstanding this there is still a need to ensure or to at least attempt to provide if not guidance, if that word is too strong, then at the very least co-ordination so that there would be at the federal level at least a repository of the different rules that apply in each province so that provinces can attempt to have rules that are similar.
I will use another example to make a parallel. Inside the Department of the Secretary of State there is an agency-I forget the name of it for the moment-which is charged with co-ordinating educational programs. We all know of course that education is strictly the prerogative of the provincial level of government. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State I believe has an official there or at least a group within that department and the purpose of this group is to co-ordinate as best it can. I know the members are going to say it is not nearly co-ordinated enough because there are still vast differences between the educational standards in various jurisdictions in Canada. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, you will understand what I am indicating to you here, namely that such agencies exist at the present time to co-ordinate provincial power in Canada or co-ordinate areas which fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Just as what we said is true in the area of education, and the member for Mississauga South indicated it is equally true in the area of regulating the trust industiy, it is also true in the securities industry generally.
Without putting too fine a point on it, stock exchanges in this country are not exactly the same in terms of how they deal with certain speculative ventures and the like. A particular province seems to have made quite an industry. It is into more speculative stock than other jurisdictions, which is fine I suppose. However, if we were at least sure that the way in which we measure these things is uniform across the country then investors would be better assured that when they take a risk on more speculative stock they would be doing so with the
full knowledge that the rule by which the level of risk is measured is uniform everywhere.
I see nothing wrong with having this motion adopted by this House, sent to a parliamentary committee and there amended and corrected. At the very least we should provide for some co-ordination between the various provincial jurisdictions in Canada.
There is a wider debate in all of this. The member for Mississauga South raised the issue of whether or not some provincial powers should now be federal and federal powers should now be provincial and so on. After the debacle of the Charlottetown agreement last fall I am not sure that Canadians are willing to get into a very heavy debate of this kind at this time. In the future these things will inevitably come up again. If we wait for the next round of constitutional negotiations before we address any of these issues we will probably wait a very long time.

Meanwhile, I do not see why we should not proceed with this motion, why it should not be passed by the House and referred to a Parliamentary committee which could, at the very least, enable us to try and implement some of the principles or some of the proposals made today by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Andre Harvey (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the New Democratic Party would make such a proposal because I must say, with all due respect for my friend from the NDP and those who support him, they always seem to go against the flow and in this case against the new pattern responsible governments are trying to develop.
In 1984, we realized that we could not go on setting up new agencies for the benefit of the regime's friends. What we implemented was a new system based on what we called privatization.
Since 1984 privatization has meant the disappearance of scores of Crown agencies or corporations, with some 90,000 employees assigned unproductive tasks. The result was that instead of increasing by 14.8 per cent a year, as was the case before, spending increased only by 3 per cent to 4 per cent a year. This is very significant, because if spending had continued to increase at a rate of 15 per cent a year, we would have a debt of $850 billion instead of $450 billion, and the deficit would reach $82 billion
April 20, 1993

this year instead of $34 billion. Technically we would be bankrupt. Clearly, the example not to follow is Ontario, where the deficit has tripled.
With these proposals, we would be interfering in provincial jurisdictions. There is close co-operation between the various levels of government in the area of securities-as in many other areas-and doing away with all trade barriers between provinces is an excessively important goal of our government. We will try to finalize within a year a free trade agreement encompassing virtually all areas of the Canadian economy to have the same openness between provinces we now enjoy with the United States and will shortly enjoy with Mexico.
In conclusion, this proposal seems to me totally unacceptable as it goes against streamlining and spending control.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on March 11 I asked the Prime Minister of Canada to tell us why his government was refraining from tabling a budget and showing Canadians the real financial situation of our country.
The Conservatives often say they want to present to Canadians, on a regular basis, a budget depicting the real economic state of our country. For partisan reasons only,
Adjournment Debate
the Minister of Finance has decided to break that promise this year so that candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party are not embarrassed by a somewhat tighter budget.
To hear candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party talk non-stop about how they will reduce the annual deficit of the Conservative government, freeze taxes, cut government expenditures, et cetera, is absolutely absurd. One has to wonder why these people, who in some cases have two, three or four years of experience as members of the cabinet, did not share their ideas with their government before. Why did they keep their views to themselves and wait for a leadership campaign to disclose them? We wonder about that.


Don Boudria: They did not think about it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They did not think about it, as the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said.
Did all those bright ideas come to them as soon as the Prime Minister announced he was quitting? We have to wonder. Could it be that the candidates are coming up with all those ideas only to impress Canadians in preelection time? You only have to recall all the broken promises made by the Conservative government during the last two election campaigns to realize how weak its commitments are.
Our country is in deep financial trouble and this is not a game of Monopoly. It is the duty of the Conservative government to advise Parliament of its plans, objectives, policies and the economic future of our country.
During the last nine years the Conservative government has doubled Canada's public debt to the appalling level of $450 billion. At a time when some provinces are working wonders to minimize the negative impact of the cuts in federal transfer payments, Conservative leadership candidates are standing by a project as indefensible and as extravagant as the purchase of helicopters at a cost of $5.8 billion.
It is important to know if the government will keep going on and develop other projects as crazy as this one which drain such important programs as social, education and health programs, or if it will finally invest its energy in stimulating the economy and give back some hope to the 1,537,000 unemployed and 2.3 million people on welfare.

April 20, 1993
Adjournment Debate
The government had indicated that a budget would be tabled in the week following the Easter recess. This is now and we have no budget. We do not even have a date when it will be presented. Until now no date has been set and it does seem to have as a priority to set one. Although we cannot expect much from a government such as the one we now have and that is driving the country into bankruptcy, we will at the very least have the chance to know the truth about the financial situation if the government summons the courage to table a budget for Canadians, a budget that could boost our economy.
I repeat the question I asked the Prime Minister a few weeks ago: What is the exact date of the budget we are to get in order to really know the true face of the Conservative government policy and also the country's financial situation so that we can correct it after the next election?


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we find it hard to believe that the member for Ottawa-Vanier would ask us to debate the question about whether we are going to have a budget or a financial statement. He has unfortunately not paid attention to Canadian media coverage for the last six weeks. It is not like him.
The government is getting ready to bring down a full budget very shortly and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the government has been consulting widely with Canadians. It has listened to their concerns. Above and beyond all, Canadians want the government to eliminate the deficit and reduce the burden of the debt.
The finance minister reported on his and our pre-budget consultations in the document released last Friday, entitled "Charting the Economic Course in a World of Change".
In its upcoming budget the government will be concentrating on actions to control spending and bring down the deficit. The economic recovery is now gaining momentum and the budget will take action to bring our fiscal problems under control and ensure that we sustain that recovery and create jobs.
I trust that the member for Ottawa-Vanier will be paying close attention when the minister presents his budget.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on March 15 I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration to do two things: first, to table amendments to the Immigration Act in order to make gender persecution a specific ground for refugee status and, second, to admit those women into Canada who had been victims of gender persecution but turned down by the Immigration Refugee Board before the new guidelines of March 19, 1993.
Under the present law and the international treaty on refugees, a refugee is defined as a person who has a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinion. Gender is not included in the definition although there are situations in the world where, first, women are by law relegated to an inferior position and prohibited from doing certain things and are persecuted if they disobey such laws. Second, women in many countries are not protected by the law from personal maltreatment, abuse and violence. Third, where women are subject to persecution as I have described, if they speak out or campaign against such laws they are persecuted as well.
On March 9 the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board issued instructions to the Immigration and Refugee Board members that they should interpret the definition of refugee to consider gender persecution. She said on that occasion that these instructions were not binding and that the gender persecution was not to be a ground of refugee status in itself but must be linked to one of the existing grounds such as race or religion and so on.
It is for these reasons I asked the minister on March 25 to go one step further to make gender a distinct ground for refugee status and make it binding by putting it in the law. The minister answered on that day that he could not do it because it would go beyond the international convention on refugees. To that I say that the convention is only a floor, not a ceiling. Nothing prevents Canada from having a larger, more generous definition of a refugee, but we cannot do less than the convention we have signed.
April 20, 1993

I have also asked the minister to admit on a humanitarian and compassionate basis those victims of gender persecution who were rejected by the board before the new instructions were promulgated. I understand there are over 35 such cases.
In conclusion, I would hope that the government would respond to this request in a more positive manner because I know many Canadians would support such a policy.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising this question once again with us.
I want to tell the hon. member that the guidelines on gender based persecutions issued by the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board on March 9 are intended to promote consistency in decisions of refugee claims. They are consistent with the interpretation of the definition of a convention refugee proposed in the 1985 resolution of the executive committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which Canada supported. This allows decision makers to consider women refugee claimants as members of a social group.
These guidelines were the first issued pursuant to the authority of the chairperson contained in recent amendments to the Immigration Act, Bill C-86. There is no reason to believe these non-binding guidelines that respect the independence of decision makers and that were developed in a consultative process will be less effective in promoting consistency than binding direction on the interpretation of the convention definition.
Persecution against a woman based on any one of the five grounds delineated in the refugee convention can result in that woman being recognized as a refugee. If the persecution is solely the consequence of the fact that the individual is a woman or is directed against a particular subgroup of women, the claim can be accepted on the basis that she is a member of a particular social group. The process of evaluation of a refugee claim would not be any easier if the definition of a convention refugee were amended either within Canada or internationally to include gender.
I hope this answers the member's concerns.
Adjournment Debate CHILD PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am standing before my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss once again the issue of pornography and the urgent need for legislation to outlaw the possession of pornographic materials.
When I last discussed this issue in the House in December I was assured by the Minister of Justice that child pornography legislation would be introduced early this year. Since we now have a new justice minister I would like to know whether introducing this legislation is a priority for the new minister.
Hard core pornography degrades the women and children who are portrayed in these submissive, subordinate and often violent pictures. These videos, magazines and pictures demean our entire society.
We currently have laws that make it an offence to produce, manufacture and sell pornography in Canada. Last February the Supreme Court ruled on pornography in the Butler case. This case concerned obscenity provisions in the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court decision upheld the existing obscenity provisions. The Butler ruling is an important one. In it Canada's highest court has recognized what women and many concerned Canadians have been saying for years. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the harm that pornography's demeaning and dehumanizing depictions of sex can cause to society in general and to women and children in particular. The Butler decision was also important in that it expanded the scope of the existing anti-obscenity law which referred to child pornography.
Pornography is a dangerous and degrading weapon being used in the war against women and children. It reflects the perception that women and children are inferior and available to service the sexual needs of men.
As elected officials we must make sure that legislation is introduced in the area of possession of pornography. We must also make sure that the existing legislation which outlaws the production, sale and manufacturing of pornography is effectively enforced.
In closing I want to say that as a society we have been far too tolerant of pornography. We have the facts. We see the images of young children and women who are our mothers, daughters and granddaughters being beaten, raped and murdered. We have read the evidence showing the link between hard core pornography and the

April 20, 1993
Adjournment Debate
violence against women and children. We must get on with effective legislation in this important area.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Markham has asked the government to address the very urgent need to create an offence for the possession of child pornography, and the government could not agree with the hon. member more.
Let me assure the hon. member that the Minister of Justice recognizes the need to prohibit the production and possession of child pornography to protect children from the harmful effects of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation.
The minister convened more than 250 people at a national symposium on community safety and crime prevention which was held in Toronto in March and clearly indicated that it is his intention to introduce measures in this Elouse as soon as possible which will specifically prohibit the possession, production, distribution and sale of child pornography. This will be done in the very near future.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, back on December 9 I had the opportunity to question the minister of trade on a very important trade matter between Canada and the United States, specifically the softwood lumber tariff dispute.
My question at that time concerned news reports that information on the review of this dispute by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade had been made public, in particular that GATT had made a split decision on the softwood dispute. On the one hand it had ruled that the United States, while using special procedures to launch this harassment, this countervail action against our softwood exports, was proper in doing so. On the other hand it ruled in Canada's favour on the question of whether the United States was right in its continuing to collect the 15 per cent lumber export surcharge or tariff that our own government and country had disavowed. I asked the minister that day in the House to confirm
whether this was in fact correct and the news reports were right from GATT that it was dealing with this particular issue. I wanted also to pursue this question. If in fact the ruling had come down as it did and the United States and its officials owed Canadians some $15 million, what kind of assurances and what kind of work was the government going to do to ensure that we would get our money back?
I understand now from discussions that my staff have had with officials that the GATT subsidy committee will be meeting on April 28 to officially review this case. I hope that the government in responding will give an indication of the success that we have had to date in getting our $15 million back and also the direction that we can expect and what preparations the government has for the eventual decision from GATT and of course the ongoing panels on subsidy and injury that are dealing with this issue.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, we will respond to the question the hon. member asked in the first place. I am delighted to do so and to clarify the GATT report on the U.S. actions against softwood lumber exports in Canada.
The report contains two major findings. First, it found that the U.S. was not justified under the GATT subsidies code to have placed temporary bans on imports of softwood lumber from Canada between October 4, 1991 and March 12, 1992.
The panel has therefore recommended to the subsidies committee that the U.S. refund the cash collected as a result of this action. Second, Canada challenged the initiation of the investigation in the first place. However, the panel found that the Department of Commerce had met the standard for sufficient evidence toward the initiation of countervailing duty investigation into provincial stumpage pricing practices.
Notwithstanding this, the panel specifically noted that it was not deciding whether Canadian stumpage pricing practices were in fact subsidies.
Also raised was the question of whether the GATT panel made a decision with regard to Canada's export of raw logs. The panel found this issue to be outside its terms of reference even though we pressed to have the issue addressed.
April 20, 1993

Finally, the question of access to the U.S. market for our softwood lumber producers is of course of very great importance. Canada is contesting the final decisions of the U.S. on subsidy and injury on Canadian softwood lumber through two chapter nineteen panels established under the free trade agreement.
We are also examining the option of pursuing the softwood lumber case further in the GATT.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 21,1993