1993-05-03

Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Canadian Citizenship Act to ensure it reflects the evolving nature of Canadian society and considers Canada's commitment to diversity and individual human rights.
She said: Who are we, Mr. Speaker? For many years we tried to define who we are, to define a national identity. We know we are not American, yet we probably have more in common with our southern neighbours than anyone else. We know that we are no longer British, yet we have inherited many of our political traditions and symbols from Great Britain.
Canadians are aboriginal people who were here for a millennia before Canada was settled by Europeans. We are French and British whose ancestors laid the framework for a nation that today is the envy of the globe, a nation where citizens speak two primary languages, live in many different regions, belong to a host of different religions, ethnic groups and races, yet are fundamentally Canadian.
[ Translation]
In our northern country, it is our citizenship which unites each member of this House, regardless of our political stripe. Whether federalists or separatists, socialists or conservatives, we are all citizens of this great country.
Citizenship also unites millions of men and women who choose the Canadian citizenship. In spite of that, our citizenship is too often taken for granted. Too often, we think that citizenship has no real value.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Canadian citizenship is the key to our common future. It is a heritage that reaches back across the ages to our native roots and looks forward to a time when all Canadians will be equal, not simply on paper but in reality.

During the first decades of our existence as a nation, we, Canadians, did not have our own citizenship. It is only in 1947 that Paul Martin senior, a minister in the Liberal cabinet and a great statesman, brought in the first Citizenship Act in the Commonwealth.

Before any other nation of the British colonial empire Canada acted on its own to bring our own identity.
I believe that the passage of the first Citizenship Act was as a significant moment in history as choosing the maple-leaf for our national flag, the patriation of the Constitution and the proclamation of the charter of rights.

The passage of this first Citizenship Act meant that our community was evolving as a nation and demanding its place among other states, but citizenship, just like Canadianism, is a vague concept. As a country we change and evolve and so it must be with the notion of citizenship. This is why a Liberal government passed a new Citizenship Act in 1977.
The changing nature of our immigration necessitated a review of the original act. It has been 16 years since the last changes were made, and I believe that a review of our Citizenship Act is overdue. We should not merely examine the act as a legal concept, but also in terms of its emotional implication. We must come up with a concept

May 3, 1993
Private Members' Business
which enables us to take down the barriers between us, so that we can work together to build a better Canada.

I was hopeful in 1989 that the Conservative government would re-examine Canadian citizenship. I listened with interest to the throne speech on April 4, 1989 when the Governor General uttered the following words: "My government will introduce a new Citizenship Act".
This promise came along with a commitment to establish a race relations foundation and, Mr. Speaker, did you know that neither of them are in place today?
The government is quickly coming to the end of its mandate and after four years has failed to live up to its commitment.

Over the last few years, I tried to bring the matter before the committee, but the Conservative members refused to show up and, more importantly, the chairman of the committee refused to call the meetings. It is frustrating for members of the House to try to discuss an issue in committee. It is simply not acceptable to have a forum but to be denied the opportunity to look into the issue.
These frustrations motivated me to table motion M-731. Because the minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship refused to look at the issue, I decided it was my responsibility to bring it before the House.
.(1115)
I believe every member of this House has the right to address the issue of citizenship, explain what it means for them personally and share their ideas on the possible changes to the present act.

I believe that by debating this issue and then voting in favour of this motion we would be sending a clear message to Canadians about the value that all of us must place on citizenship, and we must be sending a clear message to the minister that we want the Citizenship Act revitalized.

We want the federal government to promote the concepts of citizenship and Canadian identity in order to enhance our pride in what we are and to build a sense of belonging among Canadians.
As a matter of priority, this policy should develop a sense of pride and inclusiveness. For too long, citizenship has meant equality in our laws only. We must make it an everyday reality for all. I know that such concepts are difficult to translate into legal texts, but we must accept that challenge.

Despite the difficult nature of attaining this goal I feel that these concepts can be incorporated into the spirit of the legislation. We can create the sense of inclusion by writing a preamble to the act that describes who we are. We can foster a sense of belonging by changing the nature of the oath of citizenship by making it more relevant to those who aspire to the title. We can create a stronger sense of identity by clearly outlining the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Finally, I believe that we need to re-examine the criteria for citizenship as outlined in the act.

There are also a few issues pertaining to citizenship that are directly related to the act and that must be addressed. Since they have not been discussed for a certain number of years in this House, I believe it is important to take note of them since they are essential to an active and efficient citizenship. I am speaking here of problems concerning civics courses, second language training and promotion of citizenship.
Canadians have the right to know where we stand on these issues which are fundamental to defining our identity.

We must realize that citizenship is not reserved for immigrants alone. It is something that affects each and every one of us whether we are first or fifteenth generation.
However, there are some things that affect naturalized citizens and do not touch native bom Canadians. People who aspire to obtain citizenship need to have information provided to them as to what is expected of them. They need to know what Canada expects from them to become citizens. In order for people to know what is expected we need to provide material that is sensitive to cultural diversity, and accessible to people who may be either illiterate or visually impaired.
May 3, 1993



On that point, I believe that learning material in civics could be available in audio and video forms. Written material should also be available in the mother tongue of new citizenship claimants.

Citizenship education courses should be made more accessible. All Canadians should learn more about then-past, learn about their political institutions and be encouraged to participate actively in society. We need to encourage a sense of unity and our diversity, a sense of belonging to a country in whose citizenship we have the right and opportunity to be different. We also need more effective second language training initiatives. If new citizens do not have command of either official language, they become marginalized. People are literally left mute by a country that does not give them the tools they need to be active citizens.
For years the government did not provide all new immigrants with the opportunity to learn one of the official languages. What this did was marginalize many immigrant women who found themselves in a new country with no linguistic skills.
Mistakes such as these should never be repeated and we must do all that we can to give these people the tools they need to become effective citizens.

The minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship must do everything in his power to promote the value of our heritage.
I congratulate the minister on his efforts to help Canadians reaffirm their citizenship. This is something all of us should do as it is a symbol of our faith in our country and its future as a nation.

The act needs to be changed as well. I believe that an important element in revitalizing Canada's Citizenship Act would be the drafting of a descriptive preamble. We need to consult broadly with Canadians on what should be included in the preamble. Canadians need to tell us how they want to describe themselves. Nevertheless, I
Private Members' Business
believe that certain descriptive characteristics need to be included to foster a sense of belonging and inclusion in Canadian citizenship.

We should define ourselves as a bilingual nation with great pride, and as a nation with a wide variety of cultures. We should also recognize the special place of the Quebec society and native peoples in our country. Moreover, I think we should stress clearly the rights and responsibilities associated with our citizenship.

We know that we expect citizens to obey the law, but how about a more detailed outlining of our responsibilities? I am not suggesting that people be punished for not fulfilling the responsibilities directly outlined in the Citizenship Act. However, I do feel we can tell people what we expect from ourselves. We should all be expected to respect the environment, to be responsible for the well-being of our family. We should have a sense of responsibility toward the well-being of our community and our fellow human beings.
People know their rights. They should be just as familiar as to what they should do to help Canada and Canadians prosper not only economically, but also socially and culturally.

I want to make it clear that I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that we amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.

As the oath currently reads, new Canadians and those who reaffirm their citizenship swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth and her heirs and successors. I believe it is time for a change. It is time for people to swear allegiance to Canada and Canada alone. This is not a rejection of the monarchy. It is time that new citizens pledge allegiance to something which is more relevant to our and to their experience in this country.
I also believe we have to look at the criteria for those to whom we grant citizenship. I am not convinced that the present day political geography quiz is the proper test. We need to re-examine this issue and perhaps look at different standards.

May 3, 1993
Private Members' Business

It might be important to ask them how they will contribute to the Canadian society, why they want to become Canadian citizens, and what the word "Canadian" means to them. Being able to tell the citizenship judge who is the premier of Nova Scotia or who is the member of Parliament for one's riding has nothing to do with being a good and deeply committed citizen.

These should be the criteria for citizenship. The qualities of a person and their commitment to this countiy, not some Jeopardy quiz.

A few technical amendments are also in order. There should be a direct link between the multiculturalism and citizenship minister and the act, and the discriminatory section 3(b) on adopted children should be struck out.

Finally I believe there should be limits on the automatic loss of citizenship. A person must be notified that he or she is being stripped of citizenship pursuant to other sections of the act or if the person decides to renounce his or her citizenship. In this I refer specifically to section 8 where a person born outside of Canada to Canadian parents automatically loses his or her citizenship on reaching 28 years of age unless he or she expressly applies for citizenship. Why should a person not be allowed to renounce it if he or she does not want it?

I think all those points should be examined if we are to make our Canadian Citizenship Act more representative of the Canadian society. We should amend this act to better reflect the evolving nature of our society if we want citizenship to have a real meaning to our Canadian people. I hope all members in this House will join me in sending a clear message. We want a new citizenship act, a more modern act which would better reflect our current reality. I hope they will join me and vote for motion M-731.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate.
I commend my hon. colleague for bringing this very important subject before the House. She is very right in saying that it is perhaps overdue that we should take a look at and make revisions to the Citizenship Act. Perhaps the time is appropriate for a more comprehensive set of inclusions within the Citizenship Act.
I know my hon. friend is very pleased to be aware of the fact that the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship has been participating in very extensive coast-to-coast consultations with Canadians which are targeted at responding precisely to what she is looking for.
I particularly find it interesting because five years ago David Crombie, the then secretary of state, the minister responsible for multiculturalism, initiated a process. He was very interested in doing some revisions to the Citizenship Act. I am sure members will recall the paper called Being Canadian that he published as a white paper or green paper. I do not know what kind of a paper it was but I know it was printed on white paper. I remember that at least.
In that paper he addressed a number of the issues that my hon. friend brought before the House today. I personally had an opportunity, as I was mentioning to her prior to the debate, to do a study on behalf of Mr. Crombie. I just found a copy of my paper.
Along with listening to her remarks I was reviewing some of the recommendations that I made in that paper at that time. It is kind of interesting. I would like to read some of them because I know they are things she would like to see in the act. I can read them since I wrote this paper and recommended them. Obviously, I think they are good ideas. Here is just a sampling of them:
Canadians who adopt the citizenship of another country should
not automatically lose their Canadian citizenship though the option
of revocation should be available to them.
May 3, 1993

One of the things we have done in Canada under the current act is to allow people to become Canadians without necessarily having to give up their former citizenships.
When I did this study this was something that was reacted to by native-born Canadians, people who were bom in Canada and became Canadian by birth. Some of them reacted to that. It is important to remember that as individuals we are what we are.
There are advantages to Canada in having citizens who can flow freely back and forth between this country and others. Here are some more:
That persons should not be required to renounce former citizenships as a condition of becoming Canadian, although the option should be available to them.
That Canadians who voluntarily give up their Canadian citizenship should normally have an automatic right to renew their citizenship if and when they wish.
That is an interesting one. All members of Parliament are faced with this situation from time to time. Perhaps a Canadian marries an American and goes to live in the United States.
Recently I was dealing with a case involving an elderly woman in her early eighties. She had become a widow. She lived in the United States and was no longer a Canadian citizen. That was 35 years ago. Her husband passed away. She wanted to come home to Queen's County, Nova Scotia and all of a sudden, she discovered she was not a Canadian. She would have to go through a complicated process. At one point, it was even suggested that she would have to apply in the normal process. That is ridiculous. Here is another one:
That Citizenship Act amendments re-establish two original requirements for citizenship. Specifically, that applicants be "of good character" and that they indicate their intention to reside permanently in Canada.
The point being made is that a Canadian passport is not intended to be a passport of convenience but something that is available and is one of the privileges and rights of being a Canadian citizen.
Sometimes one wonders, with all the things going on in the world today, if people are seeking Canadian citizenship not because they want to live in Canada but because they want access to a Canadian passport.
That the length of residence for citizenship qualification remain at three years.
Private Members' Business That is what it still is.
That the definition of residence for citizenship qualification purposes should normally necessitate the presence in Canada of the applicant for at least 75 per cent of the time required to qualify for citizenship.
That again addresses the whole issue of seeking citizenship for convenience rather than as a commitment to this country.
That for compassionate reasons the government should grant statutory exemption from the requirements for adequate knowledge of one of the official languages to applicants over the age of 60 who have come to Canada to live with one or more members of their immediate family.
That only makes sense.
That where citizenship has been acquired through fraud, false representation or concealment of material circumstances that citizenship should be revoked through a process in the courts by a justice in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Here is another one that was kind of interesting. It is a recommendation that the title of the office of citizenship judge be changed from judge to commissioner. When I did this study a number of the respondents indicated that for people coming from countries where there may have been oppression a judge was kind of a terrifying figure. The suggestion was made that to many immigrants the idea of going before a judge was scary whereas if the term was "commissioner" it was a less frightening prospect. That is where that recommendation came from.
The last recommendation that I will mention from this study, which I know my hon. friend will be pleased to hear, reads:
That the Citizenship Act be amended to include a general preface setting out the fundamental principles of Canadian citizenship.
I think that is one of the main thrusts of her motion. I see there is a certain harmony of opinion with respect to this and, if I do say so myself, it was not a bad paper now that I have had a look at it five or six years later.
One of the things the member mentioned in her remarks that I would fully endorse is this notion that our Citizenship Act tends to be targeted at merely the process of acquiring Canadian citizenship and does not address the whole issue of what it is to be a Canadian citizen because most Canadian citizens did not acquire

May 3, 1993
Private Members' Business
citizenship by immigrating to this country but were born into it.
I often wonder about the test that is given in the process when a person becoming a Canadian citizen goes before a citizenship judge and has to answer a quiz on Canada. I wonder how people would do if that test were applied to all Canadians. I wonder if they would all be successful on it.
She made reference to the quality of citizenship education and civic education in Canada. We in this place all realize that education is primarily a provincial responsibility, but the diversity of curricula across the country has always been a barrier to effective Canadian studies in my opinion. It is extremely important that there are certain basic pieces of knowledge about this country that should be a part of the fabric of every Canadian. They should know certain things about the country, what it is, what it comprises, how it is governed and that sort of thing.
Whether it is appropriate to address this in the Citizenship Act or not is another question. My inclination would be that it is probably not, but there definitely should be some interest. It seems to me that there is a federal interest in the quality of civic education, particularly in terms of responsibilities of citizenship as opposed to rights of citizenship.
She mentioned that the criteria should be re-examined. Perhaps so. Certainly in the study I did we took a look at that. We concluded that the basic three-year requirement with a residence requirement should be essentially the same.
She mentioned language training. One of the requirements of the Citizenship Act is that an individual should have to be able to function in one of the two official languages, which imposes an obligation on the government to ensure that opportunity is there. She raised the problem particularly faced by immigrant women who tend to be more in the home than out in the community and do not have the same opportunity to learn the language.
There is no question that if people do not speak the language of the community in which they reside they are at an incredible disadvantage, not just economically but socially in every way. It is one of the reasons that
immigrant women in many instances, and perhaps more so than other groups, face barriers to full integration and participation in our society socially, politically and economically.
Therefore there is a strong need there, which perhaps is greater than official language training to which we devote a tremendous amount of public resources in this country. Yet one would have thought that it was a basic part of being Canadian to learn to speak both official languages. It is an opportunity that should be there, though it is an opportunity that would not necessarily be taken up by all people.
I see that I am getting the sign that my time is up. I could go on at length on this subject but in closing I will again commend my hon. friend for bringing forth this motion. I assure her that it is a very high priority with the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. I assure the member I will be supporting the motion when it is put before the House.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the motion by the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville and commend her for bringing this forward.
The motion asks the government to:
-amend the Canadian Citizenship Act to ensure it reflects the
evolving nature of Canadian society and considers Canada's
commitment to diversity and individual human rights.
I agree with most of the points that both my colleagues have raised. This is certainly a non-partisan issue. This is a question of great importance to all Canadians. The point the hon. member raised about swearing allegiance to Canada rather than to the Queen is again something that we should move to as quickly as possible.
For five years the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship-and I wish we could reverse the importance of those two words-has been proposing amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act. Amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1974 are long overdue. Our population has greatly changed and greatly increased. In 1974 we were a country of 12.5 million people. Now we have over 27 million people. We have maintained about the same proportion of immigrants each year, 16 per cent, but the numbers have greatly increased and the countries of origin have changed.
May 3, 1993

It is veiy important that our concept of citizenship and our Citizenship Act must reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada. It must be concerned to a greater degree than it is at present with the rights and responsibilities and the education of all our citizens, both native-born and immigrants. The present act pertains mostly to new immigrants.
As a country that is rich in cultural and racial diversity we have much to learn from each other as we forge ahead to redefine ourselves as a country and to clarify our goals as a unified nation. Any changes to the act should involve wide public education and consultation, which is in itself an educational process. Canadians should be encouraged to carefully reconsider what it means to them to be Canadian.
I agree with my Conservative colleague that we need more emphasis on civics and Canadian studies in all our educational systems, including adult education.
The Citizenship Act needs to be reviewed and updated to truly reflect the nature of modern Canada. We have come of age. We are a bilingual country that recognizes the two official languages of our founders, but we are no longer a white colonial society that can ignore the rights of aboriginal people and newcomers who are not of English or French heritage.
Canadian society has evolved and changed over the past 46 years. In the 1960s four out of five immigrants were from Europe, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand. By the 1980s two out of three immigrants came from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. Inherent aboriginal rights are now recognized by all governments and by most Canadians. Persons who used to be referred to in the Trudeau years as "others" and are now referred to as allophones, have full rights and responsibilities as Canadian citizens, and they should not be seen as an adjunct.
We are all citizens of a multicultural Canada with equal rights and responsibilities. Although our Canadian culture is constantly evolving we have developed a common sense of beliefs and values. Canadians believe in democracy, justice, and the right of individuals to be free of hunger, violence and poverty. Canadians want a caring and compassionate society that cares for children and the elderly, that ensures education and jobs and promotes the universality of health care, the kinds of things that we were proposing in the social charter in the
Private Members' Business
constitutional draft. Our national values are reflected in the pride and participation of our citizens. Last summer's Voyageur program was very successful for young people. It was an exchange between different regions of Canada and should be an annual event to promote friendship and understanding between regions, francophones, allophones, aboriginal people and anglophones.
Our national symbols, our role in the United Nations and our international peacekeepers promote pride. These are the kinds of things we should not be shy about. We should be proud we are Canadian. Certainly those who travel realize very quickly how fortunate we are to be Canadian citizens.
Citizenship requires responsibility as well as rights. Citizens participate in the political process, in strengthening our communities, in eliminating discriminatory barriers and in supporting social justice ideals. The Citizenship Act needs to be revised to reflect these values and to include the commitments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states in section 15: "Every individual is equal before and under the law".
New and old Canadians must accept this as a given. We no longer should have to challenge these rights under the charter. We must work vigorously to eliminate the inequalities and injustices that unfortunately exist in our daily lives and in society as a whole. Racism must never be tolerated.
Canadian citizens want to have equal opportunities in jobs, education and training. We prosper as a nation when people reach their full potential, when they are not ghettoized in dead end, minimum wage jobs, when the cycle of poverty is broken and violence in all forms is ended. The Citizenship Act must clarify policies for newcomers, as it has in the past, how they apply for citizenship, what are their rights and so on. It should be available to citizens, as my colleague has stated, in their first language.
There must be an increase in language training opportunities for all newcomers in order that they will be able to participate fully in Canadian life. This is something that has been very lacking. The cutbacks in language training and the cancellation of the SLT program are a real detriment to citizenship.

May 3, 1993
Private Members' Business
The Citizenship Act should also be reviewed so that the legitimacy and the integrity of citizenship judges are clear. Judges should not be political patronage appointees. A review of the Citizenship Act must address how appointments are made, what qualifications judges should have and why citizenship judges are different from judges and courts other from the legal courts of Canada.
Amendment to the Citizenship Act must include a responsibility to develop citizenship education programs. This I cannot stress too strongly. I am very concerned about the cuts this government has made to citizenship training. Many new Canadians are better informed as to what it means to be Canadian than are those of us who are bom in Canada. We need to broaden citizenship education and make it meaningful to all segments of Canadian society, in the schools, through public programs using modem media techniques such as videos and television.
We must all have a better knowledge of Canadian history, including our ethnic history. The recent referendum showed that Canadians want to revitalize their citizenship and have an active say in public affairs. It is time for a review of the 1947 Citizenship Act. In amending the act we must do away with the distinction between Canadians by birth and Canadians by choice. Every citizen is part of our Canadian family with equal rights and responsibilities. Citizenship is a commitment between citizens with each other and with Canada. It is an active partnership.
I say to the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, let us get on with this important job right now.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be rising to speak in support of the motion of my colleague from Saint-Laurent-Cartierville. It is a very timely motion and I hope we will be passing this resolution unanimously at the end of the day.
I am happy and proud to be a member of the Liberal Party that introduced the first Citizenship Act in Canada, the party that has given Canadians the right to citizenship. From 1947 till now we have had a number of amendments to this act but it was not until lately that I
began to have direct interaction with the act as well as with the system as a whole, only to realize the large number of deficiencies that exist in it.
Currently a landed immigrant after three years is eligible to apply for citizenship. The first step for that person is to call the citizenship office in order to obtain an application. Like any other department, the person phones in and is told to drop by and pick up an application form. This is the first hurdle an immigrant is faced with, the fact that it takes not one day, not two days, not three days, not one month, not two months, but up to nine months to obtain an application form for citizenship.
The act says one is eligible for citizenship after three years but now it is three years plus nine months to obtain the application form. One obtains the application form, fills it out and then submits that form. You would be surprised to learn, Mr. Speaker, that it takes up to one year after having made the initial application, not to obtain your citizenship, but to have an interview with a judge. It is now three years, plus nine months, plus another year or four years and nine months before being able to see a judge in order to obtain citizenship.
I could repeat some of the horror stories I have heard in my riding of Ottawa Centre and throughout the national capital region. If it happened that the applicant was one of those unfortunate ones who had not received an education back in the old country, and had come here 30 years ago from Italy or 40 years ago from mainland China or Hong Kong, then he or she was not really provided with the tools necessary to obtain an education, never mind in English or French, but even in his or her own mother tongue. We are faced with the horror stories I am about to begin telling the House.
An applicant, a 63-year old lady, who had never been in school in her entire life and who had been in this country for over 37 years wanted to have an interview with the citizenship judge, only to be asked-and I will say this in French because I have the question here in French-

"What province produces the most oil and the most electricity?"
May 3, 1993

[English)
I do not know how many people would know nowadays. The level of production changes from day to day pretty well. Probably Newfoundland now can claim it has the potential to produce more oil than any other province.

Another question is: What province has the most forests?

It depends which province has cut the vast majority of the trees out there.

Another one is: Name the five Great Lakes between Canada and the United States.
Another question is: Name the three levels of government.

This one intrigued me: Name the three levels of government.



I was a municipal politician and I was told, as are Canadians told, that we have, depending on the province you are in, four levels of government: the federal level; the provincial level; and in our case in Ontario we have what we call the regional level; and then we have the municipal level of government. Do not tell that to school-boards because they might get all upset because they consider themselves as another level of government.
I want to share with the House one question one applicant was asked. She was denied citizenship because she was asked: How do you vote? The applicant said she had put a check-mark in the box. She was denied the right to citizenship because she was told she had to put an x.
Private Members' Business


Shirley Maheu: That is not true.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I do not know. Many people vote with a check-mark or an x. Both of them are accepted.
Another applicant was rejected because one of the questions she was asked was: Where does the Queen sit? Innocently the applicant said she sits on a chair. That was wrong. She sits on a throne. Along with a couple of other questions the applicant was denied citizenship.
This applicant is 63 years or 64 years old and has no choice but to apply again. Five years later the applicant will apply and the same story will repeat itself.
I have a confession to make. I challenged all those applications that were rejected when I had had a chance to examine the background of the people. I discovered they are illiterate not only in English or French but also in their own mother tongue, especially those over the age of 55 years. I took their cases to the Federal Court. There again you are faced with a lengthy delay of up to about one year because there is a backlog.
The ministers already know about those difficulties and have not taken any action on them. To add to the agony of all the people in Canada in 1990 we had 114,478 citizenship applications and guess how many judges we have. We have 48 judges to deal with 114,478 applications in 1990. This adds up to about 2,000 applications per citizenship judge. It is highly unfair and cannot be done unless the system is looked at and unless the Citizenship Act is overhauled altogether.
I say this because a Gallup poll has released information indicating that 30 per cent of Canadians cannot pass the citizenship exam or test.


Shirley Maheu: And foreign Canadians.


Mac Harb: That is almost one in every three Canadians would not be able to pass the citizenship test.


Shirley Maheu: Born Canadian.


Mac Harb: Bom Canadian. I am not sure if native Canadians have been taken into consideration as part of the statistics. If not that will increase the statistics by 10 per cent.
Who are we kidding? The citizenship test as we know it, the Citizenship Act as we know it, does not fit the need and does not help to build a better citizen. We have

May 3, 1993
Private Members' Business
to overhaul it so that we are bringing people into the system and integrating them, not scaring them away.
It is really quite intimidating for immigrants when they are told they have to appear before a citizenship judge. It is well known everywhere that when you go before a judge you are either guilty or innocent, so you go in with that feeling when you make an application or pass a test. To some of these people who are over the age of 60 and have not had a chance to go to an educational institution, it is quite intimidating.
I do not want to be the one who is always going after the department without making some tangible recommendations. I will run down these recommendations very quickly.
We have to acknowledge the problem of illiteracy and ensure the Citizenship Act takes that into consideration. We have to ensure that there are citizenship courses that are equally accessible to all applicants nation-wide.
As my colleague has suggested we have to overhaul the Citizenship Act to reflect the realities of the nineties. We have to ensure that citizenship judges are fully qualified. We have to make sure all references to judges in court have also been looked at.
We have to consult with all levels of government to ensure we have an educational system that in fact is educating the people about citizenship.
Finally we have to co-ordinate our efforts as a whole from the school-boards, the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government in order to find out what it is we are teaching those arriving in this country and what it is we are teaching our children when it comes to real Canadian citizenship.
There is a lot of work to be done. We have not yet begun and this is a chance for the minister to move quickly on this issue.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion of the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville because I agree with the principles contained in it.
Over the last year our government has indicated that it intends to introduce a new citizenship act as part of a comprehensive approach to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. The Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship feels that a new act should, to use the words of the member's motion, "reflect the evolving
nature of Canadian society and consider Canada's commitment to diversity and individual rights".
The issues covered in the motion before us today are already part of the basic premise of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. The department ensures that the evolving nature of Canadian society is well reflected.
This government takes very seriously its commitment to Canada's diversity and individual human rights. We are building a Canada in which our institutions, our laws and our way of life reflect the values all Canadians share.
What are these values? They include a spirit of generosity and compassion, a belief in equality and fairness, a commitment to consultation and peaceful dialogue, and a respect for diversity. Canadian citizenship reflects these values. Canadian citizenship is about promoting a sense of community affiliation, national identity and shared purpose. Canadian citizenship is about building a Canada where everyone feels at home. Canadian citizenship is about making sure everyone participates in building our future together.
Canadian citizenship should also be about responsibility. One of our colleagues has mentioned responsibility: the responsibility Canadians feel toward peace, order and good government, and the responsibility to ensure that true family values are promoted, that law and order are cornerstones of our society, and that we help the less fortunate, especially the elderly, the disabled and the children. There is a responsibility to be productive members of society.
Canadian citizenship ultimately is about full and equitable participation of all Canadians in their communities. We are already committed to diversity. Our multicultural society and its linguistic duality are founded on mutual respect. The right to freedom of expression, religion and culture is enshrined in Canada's Constitution and laws.
Increasingly Canada is drawing strength from this diversity. Newcomers to Canada are welcomed and encouraged to contribute to our future on an equal footing with all Canadians. Canada's commitment to human rights already is well established. The fight for a Canadian bill of rights and later the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Multiculturalism Act and the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act all indicate that entrenchment of human rights has been a major concern of all Canadian governments past and present.
May 3, 1993

Government Orders
However the government is not prepared to rest on its laurels. Our commitment to diversity and individual rights is not dormant.
We have an expanded view of Canadian citizenship that focuses on inclusiveness, equality of opportunity and responsible participation by all Canadians.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-118, an act to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are nine motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-118, an act to amend the Export Development Act, all in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
The vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 4.
The vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motion No. 5.

Motion No. 6 will be debated and voted upon separately-

Motions Nos. 7 and 8 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motion No. 9 will be debated and voted upon separately-

I will now submit motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso) moved:
Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 30 to 33 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"directly or indirectly, exports from Canada to other countries and Canadian capacity to engage in those exports."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 37 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"corporation may,".
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 38 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"(a) as security for any loan made, guarantee issued or other liability assumed under this Act, acquire and dispose of any interest in".
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 41 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"the effect of providing, to any person carrying on business in Canada, any".
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 3.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin to discuss the substance of the first group of amendments in my name, I have had discussions with the parties and I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to make a wording change to Motion No. 1. I would ask if this is the appropriate time to make that wording change.
[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1993
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois)):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to make a wording change?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso):: The
wording change I propose for Motion No. 1 which has been worked out in the last few minutes, and I will try and be faithful to that change, would be:
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 30
and 31 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"directly or indirectly, Canada's export trade and Canadian capacity".
I would like that modification to be noted for the record and with unanimous consent my amendment to be modified accordingly. With that understood, let me say briefly why I have introduced these amendments to this legislation.
First, I am a little uncomfortable in making these amendments at report stage because this work ought to have been done in committee. Unfortunately the speed with which the committee dealt with this bill did not allow for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The Chair would appreciate receiving your amendment.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I was saying I am uncomfortable to a certain extent introducing these amendments because the work on and the proper explanation of these amendments ought to have taken place in committee. Unfortunately the legislation came forward without the adequate consultation it should have received within the communities of interest affected by this change in the mandate of the Export Development Corporation.
To the extent that it was discovered in committee and too late to make the appropriate changes there, there were some real concerns with the expansion and the degree and nature of the expansion of the mandate being accorded to the Export Development Corporation. That is the rationale behind the amendments I have proposed in this grouping for the House to consider.
I want to make it clear to the House that my party and I support the extension and the modernization of the
powers of the Export Development Corporation to provide assistance to Canadian exporters and the Canadian exporting community to carry on business abroad and to facilitate exports that are important to the Canadian economy and to jobs in Canada.
We fully support the principle of modernizing and expanding the mandate of the Export Development Corporation. We realize in order to do so in this new international financial environment requires the legislation creating the Export Development Corporation and going back to 1969 to be updated and expanded for the corporation to be permitted to engage in the various forms of financial support it has now become obvious in our globalized trading environment is necessary for our exporters to compete adequately around the world.
Therefore our support of the principle of modernizing the mandate of the Export Development Corporation remains. However, I think members on both sides of the House would agree that there was a legitimate, heartfelt and realistic concern that the legislation was open-ended and broad. This permitted, to the concern of some of the interested parties, the Export Development Corporation to be involved in activities that were not directly related to the support of Canadian exporters and to Canadian trade.
The open-ended nature of the legislation was combined with the fact that the regulations in which the powers of the corporation were to be expressed were not available to us in the committee or to the interested public. The fact that those regulations had not been specified and that the legislation was so broad was a subject of concern.
One of the concerns had to do with the fact, as it was understood in committee, that the legislation was allowing the corporation to engage in activities that were not, at least on the face of it, directly related to the promotion of Canadian exports.
I think it is worthy of being brought before this House that the legislation should be tightened in that respect to link the mandate of the corporation in the legislative framework more closely to the promotion of Canadian exports, the promotion of the Canadian exporters and jobs related to Canadian exports and investments abroad.



:
May 3, 1993

Government Orders
That is the purpose for this group of amendments that I am introducing here. I should say that we have reviewed the amendments with the Export Development Corporation and it has concurred with the modifications that I have introduced to this House. In fact it has helped us with the language.
Since I think all parties in this House are in agreement with allowing the Export Development Corporation to have the kind of mandate it needs to facilitate and support Canadian exports, then it should be known that the change to Motion No. 1 would, in its view, allow it to do that. At the same time it would bear in mind the express need to make it clear that we are really dealing with exports and Canadian exporters.
I hope that introduction explains the motivation and purpose behind this group of amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This is just to say that the new wording of Motion No. 1 presented by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso is in order.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I want to just briefly thank the hon. member and his colleague for working with the government to try to achieve an amendment that those on both sides of the issue can live with. Motions Nos. 1 and 2, as proposed by my hon. friend, are indeed acceptable to the government.
I want to make a point that I think all members should be aware of. At second reading this bill was supported by all three parties. As my hon. friend said, the committee did its work quickly but it did it with consent and discussion among the three parties that were participating. That is why this legislation is before the House. It is to facilitate and assist Canadian exporters. I think it is important to the Canadian Exporters' Association.
When the association came and spoke before the committee it indicated that it was very anxious to get this legislation through. The government engaged in very extensive consultations prior to introducing this legislation. I think I can say that my hon. friends opposite in both parties are with us for seeing the growth of the Canadian economy through this very important area of trade.
It is important to us that this happens. In order to assist Canadian businesses and Canadian exporters it is important for the Export Development Corporation to have flexibility as well as the authority that this legislation will grant them in order for it to do just that.
At this point Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are the only ones up. Is that right, Mr. Speaker? Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have not been moved. With those remarks I want to thank my hon. friend and indicate that both of those amendments are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say very briefly on behalf of my caucus that we are supportive of the amendments brought forward by the member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso. We would join with them and the government in terms of praise for the Export Development Corporation and the work it does.


Peter L. McCreath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked if Motions Nos. 3,4 and 5 were before the House. I believe the indication I had was that they were not. Do I understand that that is not correct? Are Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 before the House because I have a brief comment that I wish to make with respect to those. May I do so?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind the hon. member of the ruling made earlier that Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are grouped for debate and the vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 4 and so on. The debate is on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if it would be agreeable to the House I would be willing to split those motions in terms of taking Motions Nos. 1 and 2 together as a group and Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as another group. Could I request that for the purposes of voting?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since the Speaker is the servant of the House, I have no objection, if there is unanimity, to grouping Motions Nos. 1 and 2, having the vote on Motion No. 1 apply to Motion No. 2, and then considering the other three motions, Nos. 3, 4 and 5, with the vote on Motion No. 3 applying to the other two.

May 3, 1993
Government Orders

Is there unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The debate is on Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Therefore the vote also applies to Motion No. 2.
I will now call Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 since they have already been moved.

Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, in moving Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 let me just say this. The spirit or the purpose for these three amendments to the legislation is to link the expanded mandate of the Export Development Corporation to the work which it is primarily engaged to do. That is to support and promote Canadian exports through the provision of financial insurance, leasing and other related services to our exporters and to the partners that our exporters work with around the world in order to gain access to other markets.
Motion No. 3, if I may explain, has the effect of linking two paragraphs in the revised Export Development Act, namely, paragraph 10(l)(b) and paragraph 10(l)(d). These oblige the corporation, when acquiring and disposing of interest in properties and in leasing properties, to be related to the purposes for which the Export Development Corporation is in existence, namely, supporting exports and the exporting community. That is the main motivation behind Motion No. 3. It is again in support of our interest on this side of the House in order to ensure that the legislation supports the Export Development Corporation in carrying out its mandate.
Motion No. 4 which adds a clause to paragraph 10(1. l)(b) would require that the person who is assisted by the corporation-I refer to a corporate person as well as an individual-would be carrying on business in some way in Canada. That is the motivation behind that amendment and it supports our understanding of what the purpose of the Export Development Corporation is.
In addition, Motion No. 5 means that that particular clause would be rendered redundant if the other motions were accepted.
Nothing in these amendments would be intended to exclude the EDC from entering into leasing arrangements. That is not our intent and that is not our understanding by the changes we are proposing in this amendment. They are intended to facilitate the Export Development Corporation's activities but at the same time to ensure in the legislation that those activities relate to their central concern, which is the promotion of Canadian exports.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to respond to my hon. friend's amendments which the government cannot agree with.
We believe that Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have the effect of removing the flexibility a revised act will give the Export Development Corporation to help Canadian companies in their pursuit of globalization. The govern-
May 3, 1993

ment will not stand in the way of any Canadian company going global. This is why these motions are unacceptable.
For example, Motion No. 3 would prevent the EDC from being able to use innovative financing techniques such as leasing to support the international trade efforts of Canadian companies. Our purpose in introducing Bill C-118 was to enhance EDC's ability to offer creative solutions to the trade problems of Canadian firms and not to restrict EDC's ability.
If Motion No. 4 were adopted, for example, its effect would be to prevent the EDC from supporting exports where such exports are financed or undertaken by a person who does not carry on business in Canada. This would mean that if a Canadian company had received financing for an international transaction from a source outside Canada, the EDC would not be able to offer that source insurance for the transaction. The government would not want to see sales opportunities lost to Canadian firms because of the limitations of the Export Development Act. Therefore, these three motions are not acceptable to the government and we will vote against them.


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):: Negatived on division. The same vote also applies to Motions Nos. 4 and 5.
Motion No. 3 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Government Orders


Francis G. LeBlanc: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately
after line 8 on page 5 the following:
"(8) Subject to subsection (9), the Minister shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette at least sixty days before the proposed effective date thereof a copy of every regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make under this Act and a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to interested persons to make representations with respect thereto.
(9) The Minister is not required to cause to be published a proposed regulation if the proposed regulation
(a)	has been published pursuant to subsection (8) whether or not it has been amended as a result of representations made by interested persons as provided in that subsection; or
(b)	in the opinion of the Minister, makes no material substantive change in an existing regulation."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is motivated by the need for greater consultation in the development of any changes to the legislative mandate of a corporation such as the EDC with the other stakeholders which are affected and with which it works in the conduct of its activities, namely the banking community, the insurance community, the exporting community and others.
What became apparent during the course of this legislation was that this consultation did not occur and it was difficult for us to properly evaluate the legislation at committee.
Motion No. 6 would act to require that prior consultation be carried out regarding the regulations that would support any changes in legislation so that when any legislation comes before Parliament the regulatory support is there and the consultation has taken place.
I would also add in support of this change that it is consistent with the recently released report of the finance subcommittee on regulations and competitiveness which recommended in recommendation 7.6 and I quote: "Wherever possible stakeholders should be brought together at the problem definition stage of regulation development to reach a consensus on goals, priorities and allocation of resources for achieving them. Consultation at this stage should be most effective".
I think that is important in legislation such as that which we have before us. We would be giving effect to that report by passing this amendment to Bill C-118. I would hope that the House would agree with that.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, consistent with this government's belief in transparency in the

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
policy development process, this motion is acceptable to the government.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 6 agreed to.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 14 on page 5 and substituting the following:
"exceed an amount equal to ten times the".
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 32 on page 5 and substituting the following:
"shall be taken into account."
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have decided to withdraw these two motions, and I have the consent of my colleague Mr. MacLaren to withdraw Motions Nos. 7 and 8, if need be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw these two motions?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 withdrawn.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-118 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 35 to 43 on page 7 and substituting the following:
"25. (1) Unless the rights of the Corporation are terminated pursuant to this Act, the right of the Corporation to carry on its business is limited in the following manner, namely:
(a)	if Parliament sits on at least twenty days during the month of March in the year that is five years after theyear in which this section comes into force, the Corporation shall not carry on its business after March 31 of that year; and
(b)	if Parliament does not sit on at least twenty days during the month of March in the year that is five years after the year in which
this section comes into force, the Corporation shall not carry on its business after the sixtieth sitting day of Parliament next following March 31 of that year.
(2) For the purposes of this section, Parliament is deemed to sit on each day that either House of Parliament sits."
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 9 in effect is a sunset clause. It would require that this legislation be reviewed by Parliament within five years and that Parliament reapprove this legislation within five years.
The amendment is motivated by the following consideration. This new mandate which we support in general terms is a much broadened mandate for the Export Development Corporation. We have not seen the regulations which support the mandate so this Parliament is not in a position to evaluate the nature in which this mandate is to be used. We feel it is important that the new framework be evaluated by Parliament at an appropriate time and five years would be an appropriate time to do that.
The review is there in the original legislation but this review would ensure that Parliament actually approves and extends the mandate that we have conferred with this legislation and if events change within the next five years, the Parliament of Canada will have an opportunity to fully revisit this issue.
I think in terms of the government's commitment to transparency which was just articulated by my colleague a few minutes ago it would agree with this rationale, agree with this amendment and with the desire of all members of this House to ensure that Parliament is given the powers and the opportunity to review at appropriate junctures legislation which affects the vital interests of Canada.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the Export Development Corporation reports to Parliament on a yearly basis through its annual report and through the tabling of its corporate plan. Of course it could be called before a committee of Parliament every time.
Nevertheless the persuasiveness of his argument is such that consistent with the government's commitment to transparency this amendment and motion is acceptable.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised at the government response because if you look at the existing wording of the bill
May 3, 1993

there is a requirement that there be a formal review at the end of five years.
The motion from my colleague makes no reference to any kind of formal review. Basically it is a sunset clause which means at the end of the fifth year, in March of that year, certain conditions are met and the bill ceases to function.
We have had ample experience in this House with legislation that has an annual sunset clause. With the Unemployment Insurance Act we were asked every December to rush through a bill, all three readings at one time, to extend that aspect of unemployment insurance for another year. There was no comprehensive review. There was no reasoned approach. We just knew that if we did not do it there were going to be a lot of folks out there who were in trouble.
I grant that this kind of legislation is much different. A mandatory review, I would suggest is not perfect because there are some things that could have been done to make it more effective and to give Parliament a greater role in that review. However, to replace a mandatory review with just a sunset clause, what is likely to happen at the end of the five years is the government of the day, because it had other things on its agenda and because we know it takes time for legislation to work its way through, will come to us at the last minute and say: "Look, if we do not pass this legislation the Export Development Corporation ceases to exist. We have got all these irons in the fire and therefore we have to pass it and yes, do not worry. We will have a review".
What would have been more helpful is to take the wording presented by the government in the initial bill which says:
Five years after the coming into force of this section the minister shall cause a review of the provisions and operation of this act to be undertaken in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
The minister shall within one year after causing a review to be undertaken pursuant to subsection (1) submit a report on the review to Parliament.
That could have been added, like this House did not too many weeks ago under a transport bill, to require that report to automatically be referred to the appropriate standing committee. That standing committee would be automatically seized with the matter, would review
Government Orders
the government's report and would report back to Parliament on the appropriateness of this House continuing with the Export Development Corporation Act. That would have been the better approach.
The other thing we have to keep in mind is even if the government decides that it is going to do an internal review leading up to the five years, that will shift the focus from the administration of the act by those seized with that responsibility to on the one hand make a legitimate review of the act and on the other hand: "How do we keep this act so we can keep our jobs?" That is putting it in a very crass way.
The long and the short of this is I will oppose this particular amendment because I do not think it is in the best interest of the Export Development Corporation and it will hamstring the government of the day as well as this House in terms of providing a legitimate review of a very important element in the Canadian economy.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be short.
I, of course, stand in support of my colleague's motion. I think the member from the New Democratic Party is over-reacting here. I think it is incumbent upon us to take a look at the annual report on a yearly basis. If we are getting a sense that the mandate of the Export Development Corporation is not living up to what we together in this House have agreed to, then I think there is lots of time to react to that.
In fact there is nothing preventing us from putting this bill to committee immediately and there is nothing wrong with putting it back on the legislative agenda.
We are depending heavily on the support, skill and expertise of the Export Development Corporation. If we get a sense that what we are doing here is not really meeting the objectives, there is nothing stopping us from bringing this bill back to the House of Commons right after the report is put forth.
There is one thing that does concern me about this bill. I mentioned it before and I am sure members will remember.
My concern with this bill is not with the actual Export Development Corporation itself. My concern has to do with the small business sector. I find there are many

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
small business people in our country who know very little about the Export Development Corporation.
We have all stated in this House repeatedly in the last few months that the greatest hope for new job creation lies with our small business community and we have also stated repeatedly that exports are the mainstay we are going to be looking to and depending on.
The Export Development Corporation should be sensitized to the fact that it must spread the message to a greater number of small businesses in our country so they can be included in the Export Development Corporation portfolio.
In conclusion, I think my colleague's motion more than meets the requirement to make this a good piece of legislation.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the brief discussion we had on Motion No. 9. I have listened with particular attention to the comments of our colleague from the New Democratic Party. I do not think there is anything contradictory in his approach to that developed in Motion No. 9.
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has already explained that there is an annual opportunity to review the workings of the Export Development Corporation. Indeed it could be more frequent than annually at the initiative of a parliamentary committee.
That opportunity stands and will continue to be in place to give Canadians, who ultimately are the stakeholders in this corporation, the opportunity to ensure that it is functioning along the lines we all seek.
The purpose of Motion No. 9 is to add to the opportunity for a thorough review of the corporation and its activities and to assess its mandate in light of changing circumstances. There are few things more dynamic in the world today than trade. We must strengthen the ability of the EDC to ensure that Canada plays a leading role in international trade in full co-operation, of course, with the private sector. This will be enhanced if we proceed with Motion No. 9 in light of the fact that the annual review procedure is already in place.


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:: On division.
Motion No. 9 agreed to.


Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister for International Trade) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John Horton McDermid: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few very brief remarks on third reading and thank all members of the House for their co-operation in enabling us to deal with this very important piece of legislation.
I would like to take members back to the day when the minister introduced the legislation. This is interesting. I was reviewing his comments at that time. He said:
Canadian firms recognize that they have to succeed internationally if they are going to stay competitive and keep offering Canadians high income jobs.
Exports in international investment have sustained our economy through a difficult recession. How well Canadian companies perform in the international marketplace will influence our future prosperity.
Those are some of the comments the minister made at that time.
I think it is important to note that the purpose of this legislation is to enable the Export Development Corporation to better serve Canadian exporters. This legislation has come forth because it is in the interest of all Canadians to facilitate exports which lead to jobs and economic growth in Canada. These amendments will
May 3, 1993

provide Canadian entrepreneurs with a more comprehensive array of insurance and other financial support services for overseas projects. They are directly in response to requests that have been made to the government and the Export Development Corporation. It is an important piece of legislation that we are dealing with today.
The amendments are part of the government's overall economic plan to assist Canadian businesses to remain competitive in international markets and to contribute to Canada's future prosperity through the creation and maintenance of high-wage jobs.
Exports are the engine of growth in the Canadian economy and more than one million Canadian jobs depend on international trade. In 1992 approximately
328,000	jobs were created or sustained by Canadian exporters using EDC's services. Canada's exports continue to set a strong pace with January 1993 figures over 18 per cent ahead of the same month a year ago.
We are making progress. Although we all have been through difficult times with the recession Canada has done well in large measure because of the strength of its export sector and the government's strong commitment to support our exporters.
It is critical that the institutions that support exports including the Export Development Corporation be in the position to continue to offer the services that Canadian businesses need to compete in the global economy.
The amendments will level the playing field for Canadian exporters that compete with firms based in countries that have already expanded their capacities to offer financial and insurance packaging. The amendments will bolster the quality of risk management support for Canadian firms currently doing business abroad and offering services that would encourage small and medium-sized Canadian firms to export as well.
This legislation represents a real win for Canadians and a real win for Canadian exporters. I encourage all members of the House to give it their support.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a few words to this debate and say that we once again support the new, updated mandate of the Export Development Corporation.
Government Orders
We hope the legislation we are in the process of passing in this House will provide the kind of support needed by the EDC in conjunction with other players in the Canadian financial community to help our exporters in Canada be fully effective competitors in this new globalized economic environment.
It is well known to everyone in this House that with the integration of the world economy, trade and financial matters are becoming increasingly linked. Financial packaging is becoming as important to the success of Canadian exporters in the international markets as the price and quality of the exports themselves.
Certainly much has changed since the Export Development Corporation was created in 1969. There have been changes in international financing and in the instruments that are used such as insurance, re-insurance, guarantees, leasing and a whole range of financial support that was really not used very much 20 years ago. This legislation is an attempt to reflect that fact and make those facilities available to the Export Development Corporation.
I want to raise a caution. The caution is there and it is partly what is motivating some of the amendments I introduced that oblige Parliament and parliamentarians to pay closer attention in the next few years to the responsibilities, roles and activities of this agency.
We realize that the world and the international economy are changing at a blurring rate. The capacity for us to react as legislators to the changes which are taking place now is limited by the very complexity of the kinds of transactions which are occurring.
At the same time over the last few years we have had fierce debates in this House over trade matters which used to be the purview of experts and have now become issues of vital concern to ordinary Canadians. Canadians know that exports and their financing, insurance and support affect the jobs of all Canadians.
In this country all of our players must work together as much as possible: the public sector players, of which the EDC is an important part; and the private sector and mainly the banking community; the insurance community; the exporting associations; the exporters themselves; the trust and trade companies which operate on international markets; the stock exchanges and a whole range of

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
institutions which operate in the support and service of Canadian exports.
The activities of the Export Development Corporation which has been provided with a mandate and a privileged position by the Government of Canada to promote Canadian exports must work together with and not at cross purposes to or in competition with some of the other institutions, firms and businesses which deal with the international community.
That is why with the expansion of this legislation and with the regulations still not fully revealed to this House, we have adopted the position of agreeing to give the Export Development Corporation these new powers and of supporting it in the modernization of the kinds of instruments it uses to carry out its activities. However let us make sure that in the context of what is now taking place on the trade front it works with the Government of Canada and all members of this House to ensure that what it is doing is in support of exports and export jobs.
As my hon. friend for Broadview-Greenwood mentioned it must support small businesses and small business activities and work with the banks and other companies to promote exports and Canada's competitiveness. It must not work on its own. That is the caveat we want to flag before this House at this time with this legislation.
We want to express our support for the EDC and its activities in the role it plays which is a vital one in this climate of globalization. At the same time we want to make sure it is using that very important mandate in the service of Canadian exports and with the co-operation of the private sector in Canada under the monitoring and watchful eye of the Parliament of Canada. I think those points have to be made as we conclude debate on this important legislation. We express our support once again for that.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of my colleague, the member for Mackenzie, who has been handling this bill during second reading and in committee but unfortunately is not able to be here today.
I want to say a few things about the bill to indicate that we are supporting it very clearly. I am rising to speak on this bill extending further authority to the Export Development Corporation which I think is a useful thing to do. Crown corporations cannot function when they are restricted and these amendments all add to the ability of the corporation to do its job, which is to assist in the exporting of our products around the world.
The proposals included in the bill provide additional abilities to allow the corporation to meet new competition and new practices that have been developed since the corporation began its operations back in 1944. A lot of practices have changed and a lot of our foreign competitors do have rights and privileges available to them that are no longer available to Canadian exporters simply because we have not brought our practices, laws and rules up to the levels that exist among foreign traders.
My reading of the bill, among other things, suggests that it would permit the Export Development Corporation to take an equity share in some projects that would permit it to act as a catalyst in mobilizing investors, other banks and banking institutions and make it possible for the funding of larger projects to proceed.
Sometimes the ability to take a minor equity position in a project may bring credibility to the whole project that would attract other legitimate investors in the project. The reality is that when we have an equity position we keep a much better eye on where our money or where our line of credit or line of insurance is applied.
As large and long-term projects develop, it becomes more and more necessary for the Export Development Corporation to be involved over a long term and some of the changes that are proposed in the bill appear to facilitate that need.
Another thing that many of the would-be users of the Export Development Corporation have complained about involves the current requirement for setting up a multitude of export development contracts with different countries and different contracts for domestic sales as opposed to export sales so that a company, like a textile manufacturer that exports some of its products, has to keep two sets of accounts, one for its export business and the other for its domestic business. A lumber company that might be doing business both internally and externally will find the ability to offer one
May 3, 1993

contract for 1300 both internal and export business to be quite attractive.
It also has the effect of spreading the risk of the Export Development Corporation in making it less subject to bad collections in the event of a sudden collapse of a foreign country or a foreign currency market.
Many of our competitors are now in the business of making available to their exporters long-term, pre-shipment financing so that the pre-shipment development costs of getting business are being financed in other countries and in other jurisdictions. The proposed amendments to this legislation would allow the Export Development Corporation to provide that kind of service as well, again a laudable acceptance on the part of the government and the corporation.
In order to do long-term business they are in fact going to have to participate even at the planning and pre-export stages of the project aimed at increasing exports to other regions.
The fourth area that appears to provide some change would be the one permitting or enhancing the ability to support export sales through leasing arrangements. It would permit the EDC to act as a lessor or permit it to take direct equity participation in a lease financing arrangement so that a variety of partnerships could be established.
These proposals provide the kind of flexibility that seems to be there for our competitors and should assist somewhat in providing the infrastructure our exporters require in arranging the financing insurance that go with completing an export sale.
The role of exporting in this country has always been an extremely important one from the earliest days of economic activity when we exported fur to Europe, to the days when we increased our exports to include timber, later wheat and now a wide range of commodities and manufactured goods and services. The role the Export Development Corporation has to play can be a very important one.
I am pleased to assist in the passing of this bill today. I know that the folks in the other place will give it quick consideration and allow us to change the operations of the Export Development Corporation.
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-118. As I mentioned on earlier occasions I am totally in support of this bill.
A couple of my colleagues asked earlier today if I was out on the golf course or biking on the weekend. I can tell them I attended a funeral on the weekend. I attended an outdoor funeral on the Golden Mile in Scarborough in Toronto. It was a funeral for the most productive, the greatest money generating machine in the General Motors fleet, the Scarborough van plant. The Canadian Auto Workers had a funeral on Saturday and this plant is very close to my riding. The men and women who are employed in this factory are from all over our city.
This was a plant that exported 90 per cent of its product, not only throughout North America but sometimes to different parts of the world. This was a plant that in the last 10 years contributed over $2.2 billion to the balance sheet of General Motors.
My friend from Brampton asked the question and I think it is a fair question: What does this have to do with EDC? This has everything to do with EDC because if we are going to revitalize our export market, if we are going to revitalize our small business community, we will have to be much more supportive than we have been with plants like the GM van plant in Scarborough.


John Horton McDermid: What should we have done?


Dennis Joseph Mills: I can honestly say to the member for Brampton, the minister responsible for privatization, I do not stand up here today with a magical solution to this and I admit that openly. However I have to say that when 3,500 people lose their jobs directly and another 10,000 to 15,000 in offsets lose and you are part of the community, you cannot disagree with me that this is sending a shiver of confidence through our community, the community that the hon. member and I share.
I know this is a very tough issue for the government. It is bad enough that we are losing plants that are losing money, but when a plant is closed down that has contributed $2.2 billion to the balance sheet of General Motors, what does that do to the trust factor? This is a plant that has won award after award because of its productivity and its quality of product. All of a sudden this great plant that has been exporting-

May 3, 1993
Government Orders


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not like it any better than the hon. member, but this really has nothing to do with the Export Development Corporation. This was a corporate decision made by General Motors.
Ford just made a corporate decision to invest billions of dollars in a Canadian plant and hired 1,100 more people for jobs. These things happen. That is a rationalization where 20,000 jobs were being lost by General Motors around the world. It is not just Canada. It has nothing to do with the Export Development Corporation and what we are debating. I would suggest that the hon. member stick to the subject matter of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The rule of relevancy is the most difficult parliamentary rule to apply. Again, I ask for the co-operation of hon. members on both sides of the House. I did hear the hon. member mention a funeral, but this was in reference to a plant in his riding of Scarborough. I would ask him to keep his remarks more relevant to the debate.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Brampton, the minister responsible for privatization, would talk about Ford. I applaud Ford for adding another 1,000 or 1,500 people but that does not take away from the 3,500 people, plus the spin-offs that are being lost at GM.
We are not here in this House as Her Majesty's constructive Loyal Opposition to let something like this go by without a moment's discussion or debate in the House of Commons.
What does this have to do with the bill? This has everything to do with the bill.


John Horton McDermid: It has nothing to do with the bill.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member for Brampton said it has nothing to do with the bill.
This is where the government has really thrown out the creative process. Part of the role of the Export Development Corporation is to encourage, to support, put packages together that will help expand and develop our exports.
I do not think it is wrong to mention on the floor of the House of Commons that we have a highly skilled force of 3,500 men and women in the centre of Toronto that right now are looking for the creativity that an export development corporation has. They are looking to see if the Export Development Corporation with its reputation and its access to people all over the world could maybe bring someone to this plant and hopefully get it back to work.
I am not ashamed to lean on the strength and track record of the Export Development Corporation to say please look out there and see what you can do.
General Motors did not have the creativity and does not have the wherewithal to hold this plant together. The purpose of government is not for those that are advantaged. We are not here to look out for those companies that are doing well right now. Our role in government is to look for those people in our communities and our cities that are disadvantaged. When considering direct and indirect jobs, 20,000 is a very large number.
I do not think it is wrong for us to call on the skill of the Export Development Corporation to please try and find someone that would help put this skilled labour force back to work. That is why I think this Scarborough van plant has a linkage with the Export Development Corporation.
I remember back in 1981 when the Motorola plant at Steeles and Woodbine in Toronto was about to close down. Through the auspices of the Export Development Corporation and with its support the plant developed a world product mandate for a couple of new products. That helped keep the Motorola plant open. It helped find, create, put in financial support and went a long way in keeping the Motorola plant open and productive and it has a world product mandate.
I am telling the members that I hope the Export Development Corporation could use the same skill and resource to maybe find or put some ideas on the table to help put these people back to work.
I know the auto business right now is a tough competitive business but this was one of the anchors of our manufacturing base in Toronto. This was one of the sectors of our economy that we could always count on but right now we are going through a very tough time.
May 3, 1993

I think for the member to suggest when we are talking about the Export Development Corporation not to talk about the Scarborough van plant when we are closing it this Thursday is a bit too sensitive.
Getting back to the Export Development Corporation, I think there is something else we have to talk about in this bill. I believe there are very few small businesses in our country that have a complete understanding of what the Export Development Corporation is all about. Would the member agree with that? It is a question of whose fault it is. We are on third reading of this bill. I can tell that this government has finally come to the realization that of the economic policies that it has been implementing in this nation very little is working.
It has also come to the realization that the people of Canada are not going to be fooled for the third time. This government has the greatest record for unemployment, perpetrating welfare, and shutting down manufacturing plants. It is the most incredible thing that it is here today while we are trying to be creative and constructive with the Export Development Corporation and while we are talking about the lives of 20,000 people in the city of Toronto and Scarborough that used to be called the Golden Mile in terms of manufacturing and production.
With this government we still call it the Golden Mile but it is inappropriately named because it is a pretty sad thing when one considers that the General Motors plant is the most productive in the entire fleet. I am going to quote a letter that Mr. Rick Fleming, the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 303, wrote recently:
General Motors has stated in their own admission, "the Scarborough Van Plant has been the most profitable assemble operation for General Motors in the world, bar none! The workers have been scheduled to work two shifts, sue days a week, for every year of operation including up to date".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that the debate is on Bill C-118, an act to amend the Export Development Act and I would appreciate the collaboration of the hon. member.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have to get back to a tighter focus on Bill C-118 and I agree with you. It is a tough thing when one goes to a funeral of almost 20,000 people losing their jobs. One just cannot let it go.
Government Orders
Let us talk about the bill specifically. We need to give more support to the small business community with these new powers that the Export Development Corporation is about to receive. I stated at first reading and in amendments that I am totally supportive of the Export Development Corporation. I said it in this House of Commons before and I will say it again. I think the president, Paul Labbe, is doing a fantastic job with that particular organization.
However, I have to say that I as a member of Parliament am going to be very frustrated if this bill will not include the small business sector and if there is not an aggressive campaign to reach out and try to bring the small business community into the Export Development Corporation fold.
I hope the government will use the powers it has between now and September to push the Export Development Corporation to explain what the corporation is all about to the small business sector. I believe that if that happens then we will go a long way in creating some new jobs.
I also want to say one last thing to the government. It should not be afraid to call on the creativity of the public servants who are involved with the Export Development Corporation to help us rekindle the spirit in some of the plants that have been closed down because the people over there do not have the creative process left to find anything decent to put into them.
We cannot just ignore these people who are losing their jobs. Get the Export Development Corporation to go out and find joint venture investors. Go to different people who are coming here who could take over a plant that has the kind of facility it has and see if we cannot use the strength of those public servants to get those people back to work.


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.


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

May 3, 1993
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. Marcel Danis (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-109, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act, be read the third time and passed.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly on Bill C-109 and I will do my best to stick to the subject matter of the bill itself in so doing.
It is important legislation relating to electronic surveillance and the interception of radio-based telephone communications. Privacy is the unifying theme of this legislation. It is privacy in two distinct senses.
First, we have privacy as the right to be let alone. This is behind the changes relating to the controls imposed on agents of the state when they are carrying out their assigned responsibilities, which is mainly to detect and investigate crime but also to protect themselves and others from harm. Second, there is privacy as an entitlement to keep secrets. To shield communications from others is behind the changes relating to the cellular telephone.
I would also like to mention two important goals of this legislation as it relates to investigations and prosecutions of offences.
The first is to establish a legal framework within which the courts can fulfil their responsibility for regulating activities of state agencies in their law enforcement efforts when these activities intersect with the right of Canadians to privacy. The second goal is to improve the effectiveness of the investigative and trial process in relation to matters arising out of the use of technologically enhanced electronic surveillance activities.
Bill C-109 amends parts VI and XVI of the Criminal Code to put into place changes arising out of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions. Many of the proposed changes are aimed at protecting the privacy of
Canadians when their private communications activities become of critical interest to the state. Others focus on the procedural regime dealing with the issues of evidence.
A number of other changes are included. One of the most important is that it streamlines the evidentiary and procedural regime applicable to evidence gathered through electronic surveillance.
The bill also deals with privacy and cellular communications aimed at affirming the right of Canadians to be secure in their telephone communications. This is important as a boom of radio-based telephone services is on the horizon.
This bill adjusts the definition of protected private communications to explicitly cover scrambled calls. The purpose is to discourage the development of descrambling equipment. It will also facilitate prosecution for intercepting encrypted communications.
Because radio waves do not respect legal frontiers the bill calls for Canadian nexus for private communications brought within the scope of part VI of the Criminal Code.
The bill also protects the disclosure or use of any intercepted cellular call as well as the malicious or profit-motivated interception of these calls whether encrypted or not. It prohibits the use or disclosing of intercepted radio-based telephone communications and provides a civil right of action which would, among other things, permit an injunction to prevent the use or disclosure of radio-based communications without consent.
Some people are assuming that this bill legalizes listening to cellular calls by the casual scanner. That is not the case. The present law may very well cover the interception of a telephone conversation even if it involves a cellular phone. It depends on the circumstances. What these changes do is to make it clear that some situations are protected even if they do not fall within the current law.
In concluding these remarks I would urge this House to provide strong support for this important legislation. The Canadian law enforcement community awaits it eagerly. It is an important measure designed to better protect Canadians in their communications and against criminals.
May 3, 1993	COMMONS
It is clearly up to Parliament to ensure that the system functions efficiently and effectively and in a manner that conforms to the requirements of the charter. This bill is directed to that end.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members on the other side of the House for their warm greeting.
I must say that I have concerns about this legislation. I think that in a lot of ways the general thrust of the legislation is to be commended and is in fact constructive. Nevertheless, I think there are portions of this bill which cause considerable harm and are really counterproductive to what we want to achieve in this country.
The parliamentary secretary discussed privacy and how with the use of cellular phones and cordless phones, which can also be monitored, the government is striving for more privacy. It is legislating privacy where none can of course be reasonably expected to exist.
However, in the other aspect, with the utilization by the police and the authorities of wire-tapping, just the opposite has happened. What we really have is a schizophrenic piece of legislation. The government is striving for the rights of privacy with respect to cellular phones, but in fact privacy maybe seriously breached with respect to wire-tapping.
I would like to emphasize that this bill deals with two aspects: the police use of electronic surveillance methods and the introduction of the protection of radio-based communications and cellular phone calls. We have the two different standards for the two different pieces and parts of this legislation.
To underline my concern about the privacy question I want to quote none other than Mr. Justice La Forest who, in a recent Supreme Court case, said: "A society which exposed us at the whim of the state to the risk of having permanent electronic recordings made of our words every time we opened our mouths may be superbly equipped to fight crime but would be one in which privacy no longer has any meaning". This is a concern. Privacy indeed may not have any meaning.
I want to mention a couple of aspects with respect to the first area, which is the police use of electronic surveillance methods, to underline my concern. Under the existing law the prosecutor has to prove that a

Government Orders
wire-tap authorization was carried out lawfully, which I think is a good burden of proof. The onus is on the Crown to prove that the wire-tap authorization was carried out lawfully and so it should be.
However, what we have under this legislation is a major change. We have the creation of a reverse onus. The burden is now on the accused. Under this bill the wire-tap would be presumed lawful unless the defence could somehow prove otherwise. It is a major change.
I have a second concern with respect to the wire-tapping part. Under the present situation the police must now satisfy a judge that a wire-tap is absolutely necessary. With this piece of legislation this bill would free police to tap phones if they believe it would prevent a serious crime. This is a massive loophole that could be used in almost any situation. It would allow police to invade personal privacy without any accountability to a judge, prosecutor or superior.
I can understand the need to protect people. I can understand when a crisis arises and the police have to make a decision to stop a crime which is about to happen or protect some person, maybe even a fellow police officer against future recrimination or assault. My concern, however, with respect to the fact that the police can now tap phones if they believe it would prevent a serious crime is that they do not have any accountability. On page 8 of the bill, it says:
A police officer may intercept by means of any electromagnetic acoustic mechanical or other device, a private communication where:
(a)	a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not with reasonable diligence be obtained under any provision of this part;
(b)	the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act which would cause serious harm to any person or property;
(c)	either the originator of the private communication of the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim or intended victim of the harm.
The police need to be able to prevent crime and we do not want to hamstring our police forces. Fighting crime today is not an easy operation. Criminals also have the same technological advances, the same networking and are also very much aware of their rights. We have to allow the police to be able to do their jobs properly. As

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
members of Parliament this means passing laws which allow the police to do this.
My concern with the right of the police to just make this decision is that there is not the accountability as I have said from a judge, prosecutor or superior. We have no specifications as to what is to happen to this wiretapped information if we do not proceed with it in court.
If we proceed to court with this information, there is certainly an accountability. It will then be determined whether the wire-tap information meets the criteria of the section I just read and if it can be admitted or not. But what happens if the wire-tapping takes place on the basis of the subjective decision of the police officer and that police officer or somebody in the police force decides they are not going to proceed with the matter for which the wire-tapping took place? What happens to that information?
Of course we can say it will be destroyed. There is also the accountability, which is not there, to provide some breach of the law if this information is not destroyed and is subsequently used. I think that is lacking and it is very important that there be some criteria to that effect.
This first part grants police something they never had before which is the ability to obtain a warrant forcing subjects of an investigation to give blood samples or to take lie detector tests, even before they are charged.
Now there is nothing wrong with requiring the police to charge somebody before taking a blood sample or giving him or her a lie detector test, but I am very concerned about abuses here. I am very concerned about the person's rights and that there will be abusive situations and a major increase in the taking of blood samples and lie detector tests which really are not warranted on the facts of the situations. We are giving the police a power here which I do not honestly feel is necessary or warranted.
I have concerns. I admit that most of the provisions dealing with the authorization of the police to gather information are quite satisfactory and will help them in their tasks. However, the three examples I have mentioned give me a considerable amount of concern.
I now want to leave the police use of electronic surveillance methods for a minute to go to the second part of this bill. It relates to protection of radio-based communications which are cellular phone conversations or conversations of wireless telephones which can also be tapped. The suggested amendment to section 184.5(1) that is to be introduced into the Criminal Code says that:
Every person who intercepts, by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic mechanical or other device, maliciously or for gain, a radiobased telephone communication, if the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it is in Canada, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
The government is saying it is permissible to listen in on a conversation, but it is not permissible to discuss it. We cannot discus* it with anyone. We cannot discuss it with the person standing next to us. If we happen to listen to this conversation we cannot discuss it with our wives or husbands. It is not a question of whether this information is used. It is a question of whether we discuss it with anyone.
It has always been the principle that the airwaves were free and open for any communication. If we wanted to shout to someone across a field or from an open window to the street below, the principle was that the information we yelled was public information.
It also extended to telephone party lines. If we were on a party line and someone listened in to our conversation, that was our fault. We just did not discuss personal matters over the telephone if we were on a party line. That was just the way it was. People who did and had their information received had themselves to blame.
A party line did not allow us an alternative. If we were on a party line we did not have another phone in another room that was not on a party line. Every phone we had was on a party line and probably the fellow in the house next door was on a party line and maybe even the same party line. He may have been the person listening in on our conversations. We had to drive a considerable distance to find a phone that was not on a party line to have a conversation we felt was secure.
Now we have a law which changes not only the principle of the openness of the airwaves, but also the fact that those who talk about a phone call they hear accidentally, intentionally or whatever or who listen in
May 3, 1993

on cellular phone conversations are now liable under the Criminal Code and the Radiocommunication Act as well.
That of course is a major change. Why have we made this major change? I think the government is really using the law for the wrong purpose. It is trying to sell cellular phones by using the Criminal Code.
That is exactly the sum and substance of this part of the legislation. The major communications companies that manufacture and sell cellular phones will be a source of millions of dollars a year in major licensing fees for the government. Also if the cellular phone companies make a profit they are able ta pay taxes. Quite frankly, they have quite a bit of clout with the government. The government is telling people they cannot listen in on cellular phone conversations and relay anything that is said or they will be breaking the law and subject to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
They are also subject under the Radiocommunications Act on pages 23 and 24 where it says:
Every person who contravenes subsection 9(1.1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable
(a)	in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both; and
(b)	in the case of a person other than an individual, to a fine not exceeding $75,000.
One may also sue the individual who has listened in on the conversation for an unlimited amount of damages.
Everybody would agree that people should not listen in on cellular phone conversations. The problem, however, is that scanners are in use today. The United States has prohibited the importation and manufacturing of scanners. It has not outlawed the scanners which are in use right now. I think there is a distinction between what the government is trying to do here and what has been done in the United States because the United States recognizes that people will not have privacy as long as there are scanners.
Calls can be intercepted now but with an increase and improvement in technological advances in cellular phones an increasingly sophisticated scanner will be needed to be able to pick up these conversations. The
Government Orders
scanner will have to be able to hone in on ever more remote frequencies.
We are told there are presently 900,000 scanners in the country. That is a ridiculous figure. There are not
900.000	scanners that can pick up cellular phone conversations without being doctored or modified. Very few scanners can do that. When we say there are 900,000 scanners we are talking about devices that can open garage doors. We are talking about radios that can pick up ambulance calls, police calls and things like that. The government is lumping these scanners together in this
900.000	figure, but they are not the ones to be concerned about. We are concerned about the scanners, as in the case of the United States, that are able to pick up calls even with improved technology.
The law should be there to handle people who willingly and knowingly break the law. It should not be used as a means of trying to improve the saleability of cellular phones. I think that is a vital distinction.
I think that as people become more aware that conversations on cellular phones are happening via public radio waves that the companies would be concerned and that this would reduce the marketability of these cellular phones. However, we really have to warn people that their phone conversations can be listened to.
Instead of making people aware of the fact that these phone calls can be intercepted and listened to, the government is moving the other way to try to delude the public into thinking that conversations are safe and that there is not going to be any danger. That is wrong. One can make all the law in the world but that is not going to change the technology. If someone listens in on a phone conversation with a scanner-and any scanners are going to be lawful in Canada-then one has to have knowledge of the fact that they willfully or maliciously told somebody about this conversation.
How many phone conversations do we think are going to be intercepted without any knowledge of the interception or where the information came from? There are going to be hundreds. However, the government is going to continue to make the Canadian people feel that they are safe by passing this law. It will make them feel that if someone breaks the law as stated, then that person is

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
going to be punished and that is going to safeguard the information on the cellular phone.
I want to just go back again to the party line example where there was no alternative. With a cellular phone there is an alternative. If one has a phone in one's car or one is using a cellular phone in the home then chances are that one has a phone that is not a cellular phone that can be used. If not, then one is certainly not far away from a phone that is not a cellular phone where one can speak about things privately. It is a minor inconvenience certainly to have to change phones, but the fact is that it is possible.
If the scanners were banned as the technology increases, then the likelihood of that cellular phone conversation being intercepted would be decreased. First, the scanners necessary would have to be more sophisticated as the cellular phone technology became more sophisticated. Second, the fact is that few people would have the scanners that would be able to do it because most people do not buy scanners to intercept phone conversations. They buy scanners to listen to the ambulance calls or just to pick up ordinary things on the airwaves. This is a fact.
We are saying that cellular phones, which the Minister of Communications himself even agreed were radios, for the purposes of the law are not radios. They are ordinary phones and cannot be intercepted.
I think we are taking the wrong approach here. I do not think the government is concerned about privacy, certainly not with respect to the first part concerning the police use of electronic surveillance. I think it is concerned with the operations and the profitability of the cellular phone companies. That may be fine. It is important to have jobs and important to improve the business and the economy of this country but not to use the law to do it.
While there is a good deal in this bill which is good, I feel that there are some provisions that are not so good and should be changed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in debate of Bill C-109, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act.
I do so having participated on the committee for part of the time. I spent a lot of time thinking about the bill and the issues it relates to and thinking about the role that electronic communication has in our society today. We tend to think of this as a cellular phone bill, but I want to remind members that there is more to radiobased telecommunications than cellular phones.
I suspect all of us have hands-free phones at home. The range is probably broader than we think in terms of people in the neighbourhood who can listen in to our phone conversations. We also forget about the new personal phone numbers that are coming with the new mobile phones. I forget the correct term but there are some experiments going on in Canada and some licences have been given for personalized phones. They are sort of like cellular phones but not quite. They are radiobased as well.
This is the point I am making on this aspect. Cellular phones can be scrambled or digitalized or what have you to make it impossible to intercept them at a price. However, it is unlikely that our hands-free phones at home, which can be intercepted by scanners and fixed frequency receivers and other phones that operate on the same frequency, or the new personal phones will have the ability, because of price, to provide the protection of privacy that people would like to think they have.
The dilemma for all of us is this: Do we own our own voices? When we choose to communicate over devices provided by our modem technology do we give up that right or is there some need to provide some additional protection?
It is fairly simple in law to deal with communications that go through what I call land lines. These are copper cables and now fibre optic cables that stretch from one end of this country to the other. Through an electromagnetic device called a telephone we send the signals down through those cables and it comes up at the other end.
We have protections in place to ensure that those communications cannot be legally intercepted unless due process has been adhered to. That due process requires a police authority, whether it is local, provincial or federal, to obtain the necessary authority from a judge under the provisions of the appropriate act and only for a certain period of time and only under certain circumstances.
May 3, 1993

However, what do we do with radio-based communication? Do we not as well need some protection that works in the 1990s and beyond? We know that our ability as a nation for example to control the airwaves is much more difficult today than it was 30 years ago. I am thinking of full broadcast, television and radio, that knows no boundaries. We were unable to prevent the satellites from sending the signals into Canada from the United States so we put in place mechanisms to ensure that there were some kind of controls and protection for Canadian culture.
However, technology has outstripped some of our abilities. I think the government is trying with this bill to find a way to allow our ability to communicate using radio and telecommunication devices to happen and also to provide some kind of protection for the information sent over those airwaves.
I know that a lot of concern has been expressed around whether or not it is appropriate to prevent, through the Criminal Code, the rebroadcasting of this information.
Someone with a scanner or a fixed frequency receiver and a steno pad and a tape recorder sits down and transcribes the communication between two civil servants in the province of Quebec or a cabinet minister in British Columbia and then publishes or airs that information. That is where we focused a lot of our discussion, but I think we forget that there are more users of cellular phones and hands-free phones than just politicians and bureaucrats. There are business people out there who use them in conducting their daily business; traders, in terms of the stock market and financial analysts. They are business people who are making comments and passing out information on cellular phones. If someone should take that information and use it it may in fact be harmful to that individual and perhaps might even lead to charges down the road. I think we need to keep that in mind when we talk about the protections.
We also need to keep this in mind. Say that one is on a cellular or hands-free phone at home and is ordering something from the Sears catalogue by giving one's Sears number over the phone. If somebody is scanning that frequency then they have your credit card number. While there are other protections in place to deal with the fraudulent use of that credit card, one will not know that it is being used. It is not like one lost the card or one's wallet or purse has been stolen, but that number is out of one's hand and someone is using it.
Government Orders
The same thing applies to telephone credit cards. If one uses that number over a cellular phone or a hands-free phone and somebody is scanning it then they have that number. If it is a Bell card it is fairly easy for them to use it.
Let us talk about our own cards, which is the government line or the calling card. It is not difficult for someone who is in the business to scan the airwaves in our neighbourhoods or around Parliament Hill to catch many of us dialling our 1-800 numbers to get into the government service or dialling the local numbers. They can capture those numbers. At the same time, if we are verbally giving out our calling card number then they have that number too. They can in effect steal access to the government lines.
There is more than just the question of the publication of the conversation at risk here. Legislation particularly in these areas is a matter of balance between the protection of the individual and the rights of society. I think on balance, having thought about it, these particular amendments, although probably going a bit further than all of us would like, are about the only tools that are realistic in today's electronic age.
I want to turn from the telephone aspect in terms of the personal communications that we have to some of the other elements in the bill. I think at the outset I have to say that again we make choices, look for balance and need to balance the rights of the individual with the needs and protections that society requires.
Look at the question of wire-taps where a police force is authorized to go in and intercept the communications either on a land line, radio telephone or what have you. We gave them that tool to ensure that they could do their job to protect us. We also put in place protections for society and the individual whose phone was tapped. Due process had to be entered into. The police could not do it on their own, which is the way it used to be. They could just go in and tap those phone lines and sit there in some dingy basement and listen in to all our conversations.
We as a society stepped in and said that that is no longer good enough. We needed to have some rules in place and that is what we did. We set up a system where they would have to go and get a court order. They were able to do it for a particular period of time and then they had to cease if they did not get the evidence they required.

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
One of the situations that occurred in the last number of years was that the courts decided that one aspect of that wire-tapping was no longer legal. That is the situation where an individual has agreed to allow his or her phone to be tapped because they were either being threatened by someone else or they were a co-conspirator with another party in terms of a criminal matter. In fact, it could be someone with knowledge of a criminal matter, such as a murder, who wanted to assist the police in terms of getting the appropriate evidence to take that person to court.
There is a specific incident in Thunder Bay where this happened.
A woman allowed her phone to be tapped in order to get proof from a male that he had in fact participated in a murder. Just before that was to go to trial the courts ruled on a separate matter that was no longer legal. Just because one person had given permission the police did not have the right. Therefore they could not use the evidence obtained in that way in the court case.
This bill puts that provision into the law. I think it is a good provision and will assist the police forces where they have been able to get a clear indication of someone's guilt but not the proof, where they find a party willing to have their phone communications intercepted, and they are able to convince the judge of all this information. Keep in mind the judge is the gatekeeper. The judge is the one who decides, not the police, the appropriateness of any of these search warrants, in effect, for telephone taps. That is a plus.
The other one that on balance is worth doing is the one that allows the police in fairly rare circumstances, as I understand the bill, to put in a wire-tap when they believe a serious crime is about to be committed. Again there is due process. They have to destroy any evidence gathered if the police are unable to find that a crime has really happened. They have to destroy any records, such as the transcripts and the tape recording, of that particular wire-tap.
There are some protections that will assist us as a society that do not unduly interfere with the rights of society while at the same time provide the ability to find out whether someone is about to commit a major crime, whether it be a crime of violence or a crime of property. It is an important tool that we need to give to our police forces.
If we look at some of the other legislation we have where the police have been given the right to forcibly enter a home if they believe that a weapon is about to be used in the committing of a crime. I certainly have not heard of widespread abuse, or any abuse for that matter, of that particular power. We have to recognize that our police forces have a sense of public duty and public responsibility. In matters like this we need to have faith that they will do it in the appropriate way and they will not abuse these kinds of powers and seek out individuals for vengeance or harassment by wire-tapping. There is again due process which people can rely on to ensure that no one abuses that particular right and abuses this particular legislation.
In the final minute before two o'clock may I say it is a bill that has had a reasonable amount of study. There are legitimate concerns that have been raised by witnesses. At this point it is clear the government feels that as constructed the bill is a balance. We will need to watch the rest of the debate today to see whether it goes on to the other place today or whether it remains in this House for a while longer.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that we have less than a minute to go I wonder if you wish to call it two o'clock. I would be pleased to resume the right and obligation to speak to this bill at such time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
May 3, 1993


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, a Quebec mining company called Ressources Sainte-Gene-viere is investing $20 million in an INRS research program to extract precious metals from mine tailings, these usually toxic wastes that the original mine operators left behind.
Not only is the process cost-effective but it would stop the contamination of downstream waterways by those open-air dumps of toxic waste. This process, for which Quebec has authorized a first trial on 100,000 tonnes of waste at the Manitou Mine near Val d'Or, is one of the so-called first-generation solutions.
It is doubly important because, while giving a new commercial value to this often dangerous waste, it takes it out and away from the threatened environment, reduces its volume by 80 per cent and could well control the remaining residue through burial under water in the abandoned galleries, in order to completely prevent the release of the toxic substances which occur naturally in such waste. The management of contaminated water seeping from mine-tailing storage yards has become a governmental priority world-wide.
Mine storage yards have contaminated entire watersheds and over the past couple of decades their management has cost governments trying to handle orphan sites a fortune and has been a costly burden for active mine operators as well.


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, during the week of May 2 to May 8 Canadians will be celebrating National Forest Week. The 1993 theme will be Our Common Ground.
There is nothing common any more as the Conservative government is shafting the provinces and the forest industry with the financial burden in the application of
integrated forest management. So much for silviculture, reforestation, the protection of wildlife habitats and access roads for anglers and hunters.
Twenty thousand jobs will be lost when the Forest Resources Development Agreements are not renewed upon expiry. This will only fuel the environmentalist movement's efforts to tarnish our international reputation as a nation that neglects its forests.
During National Forest Week the question every Canadian should be asking themselves is: How can I help to make our forests better and more productive? The answer is: By removing this tired Conservative government.


PEACEKEEPERS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's peacekeeping soldiers have a long and distinguished history. However a recent spate of accusations by opposition members of Parliament casting shadows on their integrity and ability stem more from concern about the possibility of the Minister of National Defence becoming Canada's next Prime Minister than from the calibre of our soldiers in Somalia.
Lieutenant-General Gordon Reay said on the weekend that he is:
disturbed by attempts to use my soldiers as whipping boys in an
attempt to get defence minister Kim Campbell.
I and other Canadians agree with Lieutenant-General Reay. These fine men and women are doing their best in a very difficult situation, and attacks upon their integrity do not help.
The military justice system is currently investigating the Somali deaths. As members of Parliament we must learn to let them do their job and await the outcome of their investigation before casting doubts upon the capability of our Armed Forces.


PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, over the past almost seven years numerous questions, statements and speeches in this House by

May 3, 1993
myself and others have failed to elicit any reasonable response from this government as to why it has failed to proclaim its law, the labour standards and health and safety sections, parts II and III, of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which was passed by all parties in this House in June 1986.
The Prime Minister has failed to even reply to numerous repeated letters from Mr. Daryl Bean, the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Further, my attempts have resulted only in non-substantive acknowledgements from the PMO and the government House leader only verbally responded with mischievous diversions that were simply untrue.
My Motion No. 743, urging proclamation, comes up for debate on May 11. If the government continues to fail to explain why this basic legislation has not been proclaimed I urge MPs from all parties to give their consent to a renewed vote on this question and grant their support to this long overdue protection to those who serve us and Canada on Parliament Hill.
After seven years it is time.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it has now
been one week since the finance minister introduced his second budget. It promised no new taxes or increased taxes. It also cut proposed spending over the next five years by almost $31 billion.
Our budget will allow Canada to lead the world in economic growth for 1993 and 1994. As Canadians learn more about our plans they will regain the confidence required to invest in Canada and to spend.
Some of our plans were previously announced in December and are already showing benefits. Canadians have invested in shares of business enterprises at record setting rates in each of the last four months. Our February gross domestic product grew at a rate of 0.4 per cent, a post-recession high. Employment has grown each month this year.
Even this past weekend was one of the warmest in many months and the Toronto Maple Leafs won their hockey series. It is amazing what a good budget can do.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on this date over two centuries ago the Polish Parliament met in 1791 and affirmed the fundamental principles of democracy, freedoms which today we often take for granted.
In the same spirit of the democratic movement which swept across Europe and the Americas the proclamation of the constitution of 1791 came to represent a kind of bill of rights for later generations in Poland.
Tragically, the May 3 Constitution was crushed by invading armies of Europe, mostly out of fear of the liberal democratic movement. However the lessons of the past still hold true today.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. [English]
For example, in the former republic of Yugoslavia today there is a glimmer of hope for peace. The lesson is that we must always practice freedom of religion, we must always respect basic human rights and worship peace instead of war.
That is as true today as it was 202 years ago in Warsaw.


NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note recently that the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has forecast the strongest economic growth in the Atlantic region for the province of New Brunswick.
According to APEC, New Brunswick has regained all of the 12,000 jobs it lost during the recession and is looking healthy in recovery. The labour force is expanding again as new companies begin to open new businesses throughout the province.
The unemployment rate has declined to within one percentage point of the national average. The fixed link and federal funds for road building will help fuel the pace of economic growth in New Brunswick.
May 3, 1993

In spite of this rosy forecast APEC did point to the provincial deficit as a problem area. This underscores the need for all governments to work together to control deficits and debts.


BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Canadians in communities across our country observed the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic.
Our navy had become the third largest allied power with more than 100,000 sailors, including 6,800 women who served in shore establishments in Canada and
overseas as wrens.
Tragically, we lost 59 merchant ships and 32 naval vessels, 24 of them in the Battle of the Atlantic, and over
3,000	lives were lost.
Today, to those brave men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy and merchant marine who returned safely to our shores from the icy cold of the North Atlantic and to those who did not return, to those who went down to the sea in ships whilst serving their country, we honour their dedication and their defence of freedom.
Their service and their sacrifice still inspires us here at home and serves as a noble example to those many Canadians still serving in our Armed Forces in hostile places around the globe.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, because my hon. friends across the floor are usually remiss in reporting good news to Canadians I feel compelled to rise in the House today.
Over the weekend The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian economy grew 0.4 per cent in February. This is consistent with the economic indicators of the last three months, which show Canada's GDP rising.
That is only part of the good news. The other part is that February's surge in output brings the total value of
Canada's goods and services, our GDP, to its highest level since March 1990, when our economy took a downturn. In other words, not only is the recession over but our economy is now stronger than when the recession began.
For many months the opposition has called for an end to our efforts at restructuring. It has said: Cancel free trade, cancel the GST, cancel NAFTA, increase spending.
By rejecting these so-called alternatives and remaining committed to our goals of freer markets, fair taxation and fiscal prudence we have laid the foundation for a higher quality of growth and a stronger economy for the long term.
If I can quote the reaction to Saturday's figures of the assistant chief economist at the Royal Bank: "We are on the right track. Things are-"


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


PARTY LEADERS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker:
While Brian Mulroney will travel the globe all decked out in a fancy wardrobe he will spend a million to find a new job won't give a hoot about the loud angry mob
While he takes a jet and the Cadillac tour all the while scrimping on this country's poor there's a leader who cares and I'll gladly mention that that man is none other than Jean Chretien
Fresh from a tour in Hamilton/Niagara by bus veejay Erica Ehm made a big fuss over Chretien at Stelco and Chretien in Toronto and with a man in touch with the needs of the people
While Kim Campbell says she wants users to pay for a medicare system Chretien says no way it's a right, he says, it's a right they forget So don't place your money on that foolish bet
After being promised jobs jobs jobs back in '84 and the only one you've had is to mop the floor ask if you're better off today than you were back then bet you'll say no but will trust Jean Chretien
You can change the label you can change the name but that can of tuna's still tainted all the same all I want to do, is ask one simple question will you be better off with the same indigestion?

May 3, 1993
5. O. 31 JUSTICE


Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the fact that all Canadians have the desire to feel safe and secure in their homes our government has placed justice issues high on its list of priorities.
However only so much can be done with legislation alone. Each Canadian citizen has a responsibility to help the system do its job by being involved in the community and taking an active part in helping local police by being alert and co-operative.
Parents also have a special responsibility to teach then-children that police are to be respected and not feared and to instil a belief in law and order.
To be good citizens we must be cognizant that making laws to protect Canadians is only the first step. All of us must help to enforce those laws if they are to be effective in combating crime.
In many cases the greatest weapon criminals have against us is our reluctance to get involved.


TREE PLANTERS
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, they began arriving a short time ago with unique hair styles, pack sacks, shovels and other gear into communities throughout Canada to help replant our forests. It is tree planting time.
Tree planters, a lot of them university students, are the unsung heroes of our forests, out to help the environment and make a few bucks to finance their education.
Yesterday in Prince George, B.C. there was a tree planters picnic to give everyone a chance to say hello and wish them well, and there were events in Ontario and other communities and provinces across the country. Whether it is for government or the private sector tree planting is an important part of the sustainable development of our forests.
We urge the government to reconsider its budget decision that plans to eliminate forest agreements with the provinces. These agreements have helped replant our forests and fund much needed research.
We say to the tree planters: Work hard, be careful, and when you take some time off, go easy. Thank you.


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians across the country are celebrating National Forest Week. The theme this year is Our Common Ground.
The purpose of this theme is to encourage greater public awareness of the ways in which forests affect all Canadians across all of Canada.
No one knows the value of our forests better than the people of British Columbia. Forests shape the beauty of British Columbia's landscape and are critical to the economic and social stability of everyone who lives in our province.
During National Forest Week I hope we will all reflect upon the hundreds of thousands of people who live in communities across the country that are dependent upon the forest resource. For it is they, the people who live in these communities, who truly understand the need to manage our forests in a sustainable manner. They will ensure our long-term health and productivity which will benefit their communities for the future generations.


PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, every summer hundreds of thousands of people visit parks, lakes and picnic grounds in conservation land set aside with foresight by successive Ontario governments. These are people who do not have a cottage, access to a lake or even a cool backyard. To them the 38 conservation authorities in Ontario offer a place where they can go with their families and enjoy a day in the fresh air surrounded by nature.
We learn now that some of these lands might have to be sold as part of Premier Rae's austerity program. Budgets of conservation authorities will be reduced, possibly forcing the sale of publicly owned lands. The people of Ontario should tell the premier that these precious public recreational areas are not for sale. His unwarranted decision must be reversed. The 38 conser-
May 3, 1993

vation sites belong to the people and must be preserved for the benefit of present and future generations.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, many amazing and wonderful, in fact weird things are happening during the current Tory leadership convention.
Ministers who have sat in the cabinet for an entire term are repudiating this government's fiscal strategy which was laid out in last week's budget. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Defence are competing to see who can come up with the wildest plan to repudiate the Minister of Finance.
The Canadian public should look closely at these plans. They tell us a lot about the values and priorities of these aspiring Tory leaders. Let us look at the plan advanced by the hon. Minister of National Defence. She has a plan that would balance the federal budget, among other things, by imposing user fees on people who are sick and in need of medical care. No matter what our income, the hon. minister feels we should pay an extra fee to get access to the health care system we are already paying for through our taxes.
She is dead wrong. A new tax on the health care system will not cut health care costs. The only thing user fees do is make health care harder to get at for poor people. If the minister of defence is really interested in containing health care costs, she should begin by looking at pharmaceutical prices which are going through the roof in large part because of policies of the cabinet in which she sits.
Canadians will not forget this change of Tory policy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Some two years ago in this House we had a vote on the universality of medicare, and said that free medicare was for everybody with no user fees. Over the weekend the Minister of National Defence said that she intends to have user fees for medicare.
I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister if there is a change in the policy of the government or if the government is still of the same view as expressed many, many times by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that the policy of the government is to have free medicare for everybody and refuses to bend under pressure to have user fees.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is very clear. It has been enunciated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and other ministers on many occasions.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows very well that this is an issue that is generating public debate because there are cost pressures.


Mr. Fontana:: The only debate is on that side.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member suggests that the debate is only on this side. This is an issue that finance ministers have been discussing. This is an issue that health ministers have been discussing. This is an issue that health and finance ministers have been discussing together. It is quite clear that the objective here is to try to provide health services to Canadians consistent with the principles that are outlined in the Canada Health Act.
What we are trying to do is to look at ways and means to contain costs, and we are doing that in a co-operative fashion, with the provinces and the federal government working in concert with the health sector.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to ensure that the candidates for the leadership of his party do not create confusion about this? Because the Minister of the Environment made the same statement about universality a few weeks ago and everyone knows that is the only program now which remain universal, because the Conservative government has taken universality away from all the other programs.

May 3, 1993
Oral Questions
Will the Acting Prime Minister do what must be done so that sick people in Canada do not have to worry that very soon they will have to pay to go to the hospital


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has had some experience in being engaged in leadership campaigns. He has been through a couple of them in the not too distant past and he knows very well-.


Shirley Maheu: They are lying.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, did I hear someone across the way say they lied? Are they lying? Is who lying? The leadership candidates. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure but I do not believe that is the kind of language that should be hurled across the floor of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: If necessary, I will examine what was said. The hon. minister has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an issue that should be debated publicly. Leadership candidates are expressing points of view as are many other Canadians, but clearly the policy of the government with respect to adhering to the five principles of the health care system as prescribed for under the Canada Health Act is very clear, and that remains the policy of the government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If it is
the case I would like to know if the Deputy Prime Minister would tell us when the minister of health and welfare will make a statement to that effect. On March 18 of this year the minister of health and welfare said that he was not going to be a leadership candidate but that one thing was sure and that was that if anybody among the candidates were to attack the universality of medicare, he would attack them.
When will the minister of health and welfare come forward and make a statement attacking the candidates who want to destroy medicare?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare is out of the country on
government business but he was here all last week and he is here most of the time. He has expressed the same policy as that of the government time and time again. My understanding is that in the House on April 30 my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization, quoted for the record the exact quote of the Minister of National Defence, as follows: "There are disagreements over user fees. You know I am of the school, so for medical programs I am of the school of Benoit Bouchard", that is the current minister of health whom the hon. member just praised.
That can be found at page 18739 of Hansard for April 30.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
There is a great principle at stake here. The government has said time and time again in the past that medicare is sacred. Yet ministers are now saying that nothing is sacred, that medicare is not sacred.
The government has promised a white paper on social and health policy and now it is hiding it during the leadership campaign. Canadians have a right to know: Is medicare sacred to this government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question. The position of the federal government is very clear.


David Walker: It may be
very clear to the minister but he is not making it clear to the House.
The principle of medicare requires proper financing, proper commitment and the establishment of programs in support of the Canada Health Act. All of these measures are not being followed either by the minister or by anybody in this government. Instead, the Canadian people are receiving exactly the opposite signal.
I ask the minister again: Is medicare still a sacred trust to this government, yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course it requires proper financing and of course when all governments are faced with extreme pressures on their financial resources they have to find ways and means to do things better.
May 3, 1993

Every premier and every health minister across the country recognizes that point. The five principles that are enshrined in the Canada Health Act are clearly the basis upon which the Government of Canada bases its policies.


POVERTY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in an interview this weekend the Conservative member for Don Valley North said, and I quote: "There are many people who go to food banks and who are not there because they absolutely need the food; they are there because that gives them more money to spend on other things".
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister this: The member's comments are clearly insulting to the two million people whose only choice is to rely on food banks, the one in six children in Canada who live in poverty.
Does the Acting Prime Minister share the views of the member for Don Valley North or does he believe that instead of blaming the victim his government should come in with a program to really address poverty in this country?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, we know that unfortunately there are poor and hungry people in this country. Our approach has been to improve the well-being of all of our citizens. This we have been doing through our economic initiatives and the agenda that has been put forward by the finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister. The best form of assistance is a job. We wish that everybody could contribute in a meaningful way to the building of our society.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. There was no answer as to whether this government agrees that in fact we should be addressing the issue of poverty.

It is shocking, it is incredible that the chair of the poverty committee thinks that the solution to poverty is just to change the definition of the word.
Oral Questions
Does the Deputy Prime Minister as well deny that one child in six lives in poverty and that 4 million people are poor in this country? Does he too deny that poverty really exists?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have already taken some initiatives. We increased the child tax credit to $2.1 billion and the new "Brighter Futures" program announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare provides about $500 million.
We are suffering from the current situation in our country, and we want all citizens to have an opportunity to contribute to a better life.
I am working with all community groups, which are doing an outstanding job in this field to help people who need a hand, and I appreciate all they do.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the minister responding should work with the Minister of Finance who has cut many of those community groups that were in fact defining poverty in the community. The reality is that one in six children in this country lives in poverty. The minister says the answer is greater employment. We agree.
My question is: When is this government prepared to bring in a jobs plan for Canadians, when is this government prepared to admit that poverty exists, that employment is the solution? We agree. Where is the jobs plan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would have to agree that the latest GDP statistics are very encouraging: .4 for the month of February which means if we take the last three months, December, January and February, we have got annualized growth of something in the order of 4 per cent. There have been over 200,000 full-time new jobs created since last August. The employment growth rate since November on an annualized basis has been growing at the rate of 2.8 per cent.
It clearly demonstrates some of the initiatives that we took in last February's budget and the complementary actions that we took in the December statement, such as the investment in physical and human resources, the investment in infrastructure, the investment in more training, the incentives for small business, the initiatives

May 3, 1993
Oral Questions
for stimulating the housing sector. All of these things are now starting to pay off and we are seeing some vety positive growth and some very positive indicators in the Canadian economy.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We are all aware that the chair of the subcommittee on poverty has renewed her role as tormentor of the poor. The government's leading poverty revisionist would have us believe that if poor Canadians are taught how to shop and how to cook they would not need food banks.
I ask the minister why he has allowed his poverty chief to tell Canadians that poor people are as stupid and useless as the government that rules them?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I guess the question would be more properly put to the member for Don Valley North who I do not believe said what is reported to have been said about her.


Mr. Marchi:: Where is she?


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: I heard her on the radio this morning.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I am pleased that you heard it. I have not had a chance to read it at this point.
I recognize the situation that there are poor and hungry people in this country. We are attempting to do everything to help all those people. I personally have been involved in my own community in every way possible to be supportive of just such organizations. We hope we will find a way to achieve full employment or to find an opportunity for everybody to participate fully. It starts with a job. It starts with better education. It starts with a good health care program which we already have in this country. We are hopeful we will continue to see progress on behalf of those families at risk.
There have been significant programs put in: the $2.1 billion of increased spending in the child tax credit and the $500 million introduced by the minister for Brighter Futures. Those are all assisting families in need.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, this government may try to hide hunger but it cannot hide its contempt for the hungry.

The government's high priestess on poverty says that many people who go to food banks do not really need to. These are the very words of someone whose experience of poverty is limited to that of a mere spectator who never even visited the largest soup kitchen in the country, which serves her own riding.
I ask the minister why his government acts on poverty with all the sensitivity of a sledge hammer.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for citizenship I particularly commend all those who contribute both their time and financial assistance to the support of those who are less well off in our communities.
I have tried to indicate publicly my own personal support. I have had long experience with Sun Youth in Montreal, as an example. It is a very noble and fine institution that has been providing the community with the type of help the member would like to see.

It is not easy; times are tough. Many families experience hardship in such times. There is no need to blame anyone, because frankly we all want to make life easier for our fellow citizens. We are continuing to work toward this goal and I am sure that goes as much for members on our side as for those on the hon. member's side.


EDUCATION
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Student unemployment in Nova Scotia stood last year at 24 per cent. Tuition fees in Nova Scotia universities have gone up 50 per cent since 1985. In the same time period SEED job funding is down 44 per cent. Student loans are slashed. No jobs, no loans, equals no education.
May 3, 1993

When can students expect action from this government to relieve their desperate situation?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is pointing to a very bleak picture of the situation of students in Nova Scotia. Given the fiscal restraints all governments at all levels have to acknowledge and face, the minister of youth increased the amount of money, not by a big amount but by a bit, available for Challenge to allow students to obtain summer jobs.
Under the circumstances we have to highlight the economic steps being taken to ensure the economy recovers so that jobs can be created in the summer for our youth.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the minister is correct when he said it was not very much. In actual fact the amount the funding was increased 3.5 per cent against a 44 per cent cut over the previous six years. It is a drop in a leaky bucket. If that is Tory economics we really need lots of education in the country.
Now the government says that Challenge '93 will favour employers who hire high school students. In my riding of Halifax, Dalhousie tuition is set to rise another 50 per cent over five years.
Why can the government not help all students instead of making high school and university students compete against each other for too few dollars?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is so concerned about the fate of young students she should congratulate the Minister of Finance for not having cut the transfer to provinces for education in his budget.
At a time of fiscal restraint the good news about the budget is that all those funds directed and targeted at human resource development have not been cut. They constitute a net increase relative to other government expenditures, which just goes to show that students are a priority of this government.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the thousands of students who are now leaving university for the year and are looking for jobs will not be very convinced by that kind of answer. They might be
Oral Questions
attracted to the answer being provided by President Clinton who has borrowed an idea from the New Democrats for a national youth service and has linked that as well with a reformed student loan program and student grant program which will help low income students gain greater access to colleges and universities.
The federal government's new life-long learning policy talks about maximizing access. My question is for the Secretary of State or her spokesperson. Is the government prepared to consider in all programs of that sort particularly ensuring accessibility to post-secondary education among those who are now discouraged by the new policies on student loans and the lack of money being provided for summer student employment?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been carefully reviewing the student loan program. I am quite aware, having served in the capacity for a brief period of time, she is attempting to bring forward a plan which will be able to assist those students the member is referring to.
We should not forget some one-quarter million students are assisted by this particular program. It is a very important program that has been ongoing for some 25 years, I think since the mid-1960s. It is a program that has been very helpful to many Canadian students. We look forward to her bringing forward a revised plan which will be helpful to more people who are actually in need.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the federal learning strategy quite specifically says its goal is to maximize access to continuous learning opportunities.
I want to ask the spokesperson for the Secretary of State about the new restrictions on student loans that have already been introduced, the cutbacks in transfer payments to colleges and universities, and the essential cutbacks in funding for summer employment. We heard it, 3.5 per cent when student unemployment rates are at 18 per cent.
Does he think this is in keeping with increasing accessibility, or is there some hidden agenda the government has we are not yet aware of that will reverse this trend to restricting accessibility in the face of a policy that is supposed to expand it?

May 3, 1993
Oral Questions


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the effort at the moment is to make sure that those students really in need are the ones who are deriving the maximum benefit.
If the member is having some difficulty with some of the due diligence that has been put in, I might remind the member this was an area that perhaps lacked some of the accountability some other experiences require in terms of dealings with financial institutions.
There was some tightening of the criteria. There was a need to have those people who take out the student loans be mindful of the need to repay their loans, and that has been instituted.
I only want the hon. member to be patient for a little while longer. They have done a very thorough consultation across this country. They have listened very carefully. I think the member will be pleased with the plan that will be brought forward very shortly.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the United States administration has admitted that Congress would not pass NAFTA if it were introduced today. It does claim that the environmental and labour side accords will eventually make the agreement acceptable to Congress.
Could the minister of trade explain what kind of environmental and labour agreements Canada will accept in the efforts of the administration of the United States to appease Congress?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I should say this is not a question of appeasing Congress.
Canada has been proposing environmental and labour agreements since February of last year. We have been at the forefront of trying to involve labour organizations and environmental groups in developing the types of agreements I think are quite appropriate for Canada and would be acceptable by the United States and Mexico.
We have extensive consultations on the environmental programs under way right now. We are looking at upward harmonization of standards, setting maximum levels for certain pollutants, raising public awareness of the concept of sustainable development, looking at ways we can co-operate with the other countries in the event of an environmental disaster, and the whole question of how to lead to a greater degree of enforcement of these regulations.
These things are being discussed now. No conclusions have been reached, but my hon. friend would be quite pleased with the results of the negotiations when they are completed.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of enforcement.
He will know that in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate there is a substantial block in favour of enforcement through sanctions. Senator Baucus, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on trade, recently said that he would not support NAFTA unless the side accords contained provisions enforceable by trade sanctions.
What is the position of this government? The minister said recently that this government would not accept trade sanctions as a means of enforcement. Is that still the government's position, or does the government intend to walk away from NAFTA if the United States insists on trade sanctions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend puts a question and then he gives the answer. The answer is a pretty accurate answer.
We have indicated that we do not agree with trade remedy laws or trade sanctions. We think that can lead to all sorts of difficulties. The requirements of environmentalists and those interested in the protection of our environment can be well satisfied with a type of enforcement that is not dissimilar to what is in the free trade agreement with the United States under chapter 18 wherein there is a broad airing of the problem and a recommendation from a panel. As my hon. friend is well aware, the recommendations of chapter 18 panels have been pretty well accepted by the two countries in this case.
May 3, 1993


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, over the past four years 15,400 or 32 per cent of Canada's steel workers have lost their jobs.
Why is the government bulldozing NAFTA through Parliament without a steel pact in order to end unfair U.S. trade harassment of Canadian producers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is well aware of the efforts we have made to engage in discussions with the United States administration.
I am sure he is well aware of the efforts that have been made by the Canadian industry to engage in similar discussions with its counterparts as well as efforts made by the Canadian labour movement in trying to engage in discussions with the U.S. labour movement on this very question.
He is also well aware that neither the government nor industry nor labour has been successful in gaining the support necessary for the type of agreement he proposes. We still are working at trying to find ways of raising the understanding of the integration in the steel industry between the two economies. That work will continue and hopefully will have some results that will recognize this integration in a relationship between the two countries in a very important industry such as steel.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister's one big lever is NAFTA. Why does he not use it to get a steel pact?
One of the reasons Canada is losing manufacturing jobs, including steel jobs at more than twice the U.S. rate is the very low labour standards in the United States. Twenty states in the United States have either no minimum wage or else their minimum wage is $4 an hour or less. There are 20 U.S. states that have right to work laws.
Will the NAFTA side agreement on labour conditions look not only at Mexican working conditions but also at unfair U.S. labour practices that will continue to siphon jobs out of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is being somewhat idealistic when he asks that question.
Oral Questions
He refers to 20 states that have certain labour requirements. He might reflect on the fact that the other 30 states have not been able to convince the 20 states of the error of their ways and cause some changes in those labour requirements.
Does he believe that Canada will have more influence over those 30 states when some of the states are some of the most populous in the country? Let's get realistic.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration who received notice of this question this morning.
A woman refugee from Iran, Sima Sedghi, was detained for seven days, tortured and whipped for wearing sunglasses and nylons. Now she is wanted by the Iranian state for peaceful political activity in a country where dissidents are arrested and without trial, tortured and even executed. She has now been ordered deported from Canada.
Ms. Sedghi clearly qualifies under the new guidelines for women refugees. I ask the minister to put a hold on her deportation and review her case under the new guidelines.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this case will be reviewed under the new guidelines.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response and I will be anxious to hear how that review goes.
Another 35 or more women refugees are also facing deportation because the old guidelines did not take into account the lack of protection for women from violence or the severe consequences for disobeying laws designed simply to control women.
The Canadian government is now saying it is wrong to deport women in these circumstances. Is it not just as wrong for the women who have already been ordered deported?

May 3, 1993
Oral Questions
Will the minister announce today a moratorium on the deportation of these women refugees and make a commitment to re-examine all of these cases under the new guidelines?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated that all the cases that come before the IRB are now subjected to the guidelines that Madam Mawani announced in March. Every case before the final review before deportation made at national headquarters encompasses a review under those guidelines.
The hon. member should thank this government and congratulate us on having updated the guidelines in order to give protection to these people. Indeed all those cases are reviewed in light of those guidelines.


MINING INDUSTRY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In its federal budget of last week, the government announced that it would not renew the agreement on economic and regional development in minerals.
Can the Minister tell us today whether the Canada-Quebec Mineral Development Agreement, which was signed in December 1992 and represents costs of $100 million, will be maintained until 1998 in Quebec?


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague that, indeed, this agreement will be maintained while complying of course with the budget cuts which were announced.
I also want to remind the hon. member that with the Whitehorse initiative, the federal government, the provinces, the company, the workers and all the other stakeholders in the mining industry are presently working to make this sector more competitive again, and this is precisely what we will continue to do in coming years.


FORESTRY
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the start of National Forestry Week which is sponsored by the federal Department of Forestry.
The purpose is to increase awareness of the importance of forestry to Canada. I participated in the signing of an agreement for the Fundy forest model just last week in my constituency.
I know that many of us are aware of how important the health of our forests are to our tourism sector, our environment and our economy. Our forest sector annually sells $20 billion in exports and supports the economies of hundreds of communities. Yet in last week's budget we learned that the government has decided not to renew the federal-provincial forestry development agreements which have been operating in every province and every territory.
My question is for the Minister of Forestry. Is this an indication that the federal government is withdrawing from forestry? Does the government plan to honour its obligation as part of this government's agenda for sustainable development?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague points to the fact that fiscal realities have forced us to plan a phase-out of the forest resource development agreements over the next four years.
Fortunately most of the objectives that were assigned to these agreements have been met. In fact the volume of our operating forests has increased by 15 per cent over the last 10 years. The area that has been properly regenerated is twice the area harvested. This now permits the federal government to pursue new priorities such as the ones that we have assigned to the model forest program and to our international obligations.


PEACEKEEPING
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may question is for the Minister of National Defence.
May 3, 1993

I think we can all take some small ray of hope from the peace proposal that was initialled this weekend, brought about in some part by the U.S. administration's threat to use air strikes in Bosnia. What is not clear is Canada's position on this very important decision.
On Friday the Canadian ambassador to Washington said he is opposed to air strikes because of the implications it may have for our troops. Yesterday the minister's colleague, the secretary of state, said that we have not ruled out any options, including the use of air power.
Has the minister been in touch with her U.S. counterpart to discuss this very critical issue? In particular, what implication may it have for the safety and security of Canadian troops? Can the minister say which is the position of the government, that expressed by the ambassador to Washington or that expressed by her colleague, the secretary of state?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, discussions are ongoing today in Washington at several levels. Officials from the Department of National Defence are meeting with their counterparts in Washington and the Prime Minister is meeting with the Secretary-General of the United Nations today on this very subject.
Clearly we are encouraged by the statement of the Bosnian Serbs that they will support the Vance-Owen plan. That must be supported by concrete action; a ceasefire and a commitment to uphold the plan. We are in consultation with our allies on a variety of options should the peace plan break down. The fundamental value which we uphold is the safety of Canadian troops in that theatre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. I think we all recognize we will be faced with some very important decisions in a very short term.
In the past the minister has said that Canadian troops would be pulled out if there was any fighting whatsoever in which we had to use arms.
I want to ask the minister this specifically. In discussions with counterparts in the United States, what is the contingency plan that would be used by Canada in order to evacuate our troops in the case of air strikes? Are we prepared to use our troops in major peacekeeping operations under the Vance-Owen plan if it means that we would have to use force to protect civilians?
Oral Questions
Perhaps most important, will the minister agree on behalf of the government that it is time to have a serious, open, honest debate in Parliament before any more decisions are made that will affect our peacekeeping role in Bosnia?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is exactly what I said. I did not say that we would pull our troops out if they were fired upon. In fact, as the hon. member will know, we have assured members of this House that should there be a fire situation, our troops are in a position to defend themselves.
We have contingency plans. We are working with our allies on contingency plans. The safety of Canadian troops is uppermost in our mind.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Yugoslavia today through May 5. She is in Croatia today and tomorrow. She will be in Sarajevo on May 5. She is working on the ground to assess the situation. We will participate in whatever operation we can to the extent of our resources where there is an agreement reached through the United Nations.
The hon. member knows that is a very difficult challenge which the international community is grappling with. None of the industrialized countries is in a position to make enormous military commitments to this field. We are looking to secure peace and we are hopeful that the diplomatic process will do that.
We are evaluating the situation on a day by day basis, but I repeat again, the primary priority for the Government of Canada is the safety of our forces in former Yugoslavia.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Since the release of the Carter report on barley marketing, four members of the round table have dissociated themselves from both the process involved and the conclusions reached. As well, many farm groups and

May 3, 1993
Oral Questions
economists have expressed serious doubts about the findings and the methodology used by Dr. Carter.
In light of all the controversy created by this report, is the minister now willing to let farmers decide the issue. Can he assure us today that no decision will be made until a consensus is reached among all the stakeholders?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, since my colleague is not here, I will say that, indeed, this study, which was made public on April 19, is being reviewed by officials of the department and that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has had several meetings to that effect.
When we talk about the market for barley, it is important to make a distinction between the national and international markets. This does not at all jeopardize the Canadian Wheat Board and its operations. I believe that, in due course, the Minister of Agriculture will announce how he will follow up on this particular issue.


John Harvard: Yes, and we are concerned about that follow-up, Mr. Speaker. We think it will undermine the Canadian Wheat Board.
My second question is for the same minister. If there were a continental barley market we could not discount the possibility of American retaliation. It is feared that the U.S. would slap on import quotas or fees if private entities are allowed to sell barley directly into their market. If the minister does not want to believe me, he just has to check the record.
Is this not one more reason why the minister should be listening to producers and oppose a continental barley market?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, as you know, many companies, producers and associations have indicated that they want to have some alternatives to the Canadian Wheat Board. The
system we have is good but it is not perfect. What we are trying to do is improve it, as we have done in the past.
We have done a lot with the free trade agreement to bring more competitiveness into the North American market. It is working well.
I remember my hon. colleagues opposed everything we did to have a stronger market in North America and in the rest of the world. I think so far, so good. If we can do anything to improve the system we will do it.


THE ENVIRONMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It relates to the government's refusal to conduct a full and proper environmental review of the Kemano completion project, a major water diversion project in northern B.C. Officials from the minister's own department say there are some 83,000 pages of information on this project in the government's possession.
Will the minister release all of this information to the inquiry that has been launched by the B.C. government so that we can get to the truth behind this project?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, we are perfectly satisfied with the agreement that was entered into by the British Columbia government and the federal government several years ago on this project.
We are co-operating with the provincial inquiry that has been launched into the project. We have told them we will give them any assistance that we can and we will give them any information that is deemed relevant from the point of view of our department. We are satisfied that our responsibilities for environmental assessment have been met.
This inquiry that is now under way is entirely a provincial matter. We are co-operating with them and we will continue to co-operate with them.
May 3, 1993


Brian L. Gardiner: The minister and the government may be satisfied with the process reached to approve this project but the people of northern B.C. certainly are not.
My supplementary to the minister is this: The minister knows of the inquiry launched by the provincial government, the final hope that the people of northern B.C. have to have a look into this project. Is the minister prepared to consider changes to the 1987 settlement agreement that was signed behind closed doors which governs flows in the Nechako River? Will the minister consider any changes or recommendations brought to him by the provincial government on this matter?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have not had one sensible proposal brought to me by the provincial government on this matter to date. If we did happen to have a sensible proposal brought to us by the British Columbia government that was agreed to by all parties which entered into the original agreement-which was the B.C. government and we entered into it because we were satisfied it was a proper agreement and it was at the insistence of the B.C. government-some proposal that we and all parties agree with, then we would be very supportive of it. In the meantime we are giving the technical information that we are requested to give.
We realize that this is a political hot potato for the hon. gentleman's party in British Columbia. It adopted an unrealistic and unreasonable position and it is now stuck with it.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow an allotted day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Peter L. McCreath: Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Routine Proceedings HOUSE MANAGEMENT 90TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 90th report of the Standing Committee on House Management regarding change in the membership of standing committees.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-112, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Access to Information Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Federal Court Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and a related act, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-429, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).


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


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very similar to one that I introduced earlier this session. The bill has been debated in the House and was talked out in private members' hour and so was dropped from the Order Paper. It was not made votable. There were some criticisms levelled against the bill by certain government members opposite. I have made some amendments to this bill reflecting the concerns expressed in their speeches which I hope will make the bill acceptable to the other side. If it happens to get drawn for debate and is made votable again I am optimistic it might pass this time.

May 3, 1993
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Mr. Milliken moves that the bill be read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.
He *	*



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 90th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we will consent to this particular motion, but I do want the House to know that on this side of the House we were not consulted that the government would be proceeding with this particular matter today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia who are very concerned that it appears the government is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the call to exempt water in the North American free trade agreement.
They put their names on this petition asking the government to state categorically that water is an exempt category, as has been done for unprocessed fish on the east coast of Canada and raw logs.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have here five petitions containing the signatures of over 1,000 persons from Ville St-Pierre in my constituency.
For many years the people of Ville St-Pierre had full postal service but during the last year it was taken away from them. In this respect they say they are being unfairly penalized in that they are not getting the equivalent postal service as neighbouring municipalities.
In this petition the people of Ville St-Pierre ask Parliament to require Canada Post to provide, without delay, a full service postal branch in Ville St-Pierre.


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


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition requesting the reinstatement of the death penalty for people convicted for the murder of children. It is signed by about 10,000 Calgarians.


Alex Kindy: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, which I will read. It states: We the undersigned call upon Parliament to stop the special treatment of convicted sex offenders and house them in with the general prison population. It is signed by thousands of people.
May 3, 1993


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition from many residents of British Columbia which is certified as being correct.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the proposed North American free trade agreement has resulted in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada; that if implemented this trade agreement will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future to assist Canadian industry, conserve Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefit and advance needed social programs.
Therefore they call upon the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by some 41 signatories from the village of Creston, the communities of Wyndel, Lister, Kitchener, Wasa, Ta Tk Creek and the cities of Kimberley and Cranbrook in East Kootenay and the city of Revelstoke in Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The petitioners express their concern that the proposed North American free trade agreement has resulted in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada and they fear that this agreement will cause Canadians to lose more good jobs.
They also point out that the North American free trade agreement cannot be remedied through negotiation. They call upon this House to reject the North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 that requests the Government of Canada to revise the laws of Canada to replace the
Routine Proceedings
Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years. It is signed by 1,000 Albertans.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 477, 489, 490 and 491.


Mr. Barrett: With respect to computer tapes, discs and other electronic records within the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, (a) what is the government's policy regarding the archiving, erasure or destruction of those materials, since January 1, 1991 (b) how many computer files have been deleted, destroyed, (i) in the Prime Minister's Office (ii) in the Privy Council Office, and (c) how many of these files have been sent to the National Archives?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The response to Question No. 477, part (a), is that the policy related to the disposal of records of government institutions, including electronic records, is prescribed in the National Archives Act.
In regard to parts (b) (i) and (ii), and part (c) there is a nil response.


Mr. Worthy: What is the number of people (or families) classified as farmers and how many (a) gain all or most of their income from farming (b) receive most of their income from outside sources?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: In
1991, the number of families classified as farmers was 294,381. (a) 148,088 families; (b) 146,293 families.


Mr. Worthy: What is the minimum gross farm sales which are required in order for a person to be classified as a farmer?


Charles James Mayer: There is no single definition of a farmer or farm. The 1991 census of agriculture defined a census farm as a farm, ranch or other agricultural holding which produced at least one of the following products intended for sale: crops, livestock, poultry, animal products, greenhouse or nursery products, mushrooms, sod, honey, or maple syrup products and did not require a minimum gross farm sales. According to the Income Tax Act, for tax

May 3, 1993
Routine Proceedings
purposes, there is no minimum gross sales requirement to be considered a farm.


Mr. Worthy: How many persons are employed by the Department of Agriculture and what is their average salary and cost of the total payroll?


Charles James Mayer: Fiscal Year	Person Years	Average Salary	Total Cost of Payroll1992-1993 (estimate)	11,477	$52,846	$606,520,0001993-1994 (estimate)	11,865	$50,638	$600,822,000[English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 381, 386 and 450 could be made Orders for Returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Fisher: With regard to the dollar value of government advertising since January 1, 1992, what has been the value of placement of advertising by each department, body or agency in (a) each daily newspaper or chain in Canada (b) each radio station or network in Canada, and (c) each television station or network in Canada?
Return tabled.

Question No. 386-Mr. Karygiannis:
With respect to the Interstate Unemployment Insurance Claims agreement (a) since 1988, how many non Canadian citizens living outside of Canada have received benefits (b) how much has been received by these beneficiaires (c) how much was collected in U.I. premiums from these people (d) in what states do the recipients live (e) what is the anticipated cost of provding interstate U.I. benefits to Mexican seasonal agricultural workers?
Return tabled.

Question No. 450-Mr. Brewin:
For each year since January 1985, has the Department of National Defence incurred expenses for public affairs and related matters and, if so (a) how much (b) were outside contracts awarded and, if so (i) to whom (ii) when (iii) for what purpose (c) how many person years are involved in such matters?
Return tabled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 381, 386 and 450 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will recall that on Thursday, April 29, in Hansard at page 18638, I rose on a point of order with regard to Questions on the Order Paper.
I indicated to the Chair that an inordinate period of time had elapsed in which the government did not respond to the questions put on the Order Paper for ministers and departments to respond to.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention Question on the Order Paper No. 307, which stands in the name of my colleague from Ottawa South. It goes back to April 27, 1992, and 371 days have elapsed.
Question No. 317 in the name of my colleague from Acadie-Bathurst is dated May 4,1992 and 364 days have elapsed. On Question No. 318, 364 days have elapsed. Question No. 326 in the name of my colleague from Acadie-Bathurst is dated May 14, 1992, and 354 days have elapsed.
Finally, Question No. 328 in the name of my colleague from Egmont is dated May 15, 1992, and 353 days have elapsed.
I would suggest with respect that members of the cabinet are showing contempt of this Parliament, are demonstrating disrespect to the Chair, and are in violation of the Standing Orders of this House. As we know, as all members know, the normal time frame in which to respond is 45 days. There is no excuse for ministers of the Crown to be running off across the country doing whatever they have to do in terms of their departmental responsibilities but thumbing their noses at you, Mr. Speaker.
May 3, 1993

I find that to be very disrespectful. I want to hear from my colleague and friend who is assuming the responsibilities of parliamentary secretary today as to what he intends to do about this.
We have not raised a point of privilege. I was clear to point out it was a point of order. I gave notice last Thursday morning hoping that the government could give us a full and comprehensive response as to why.
I guess we are being forced to raise this as a point of privilege but we seek the guidance of the Chair about this frightful and unbecoming behaviour and conduct of ministers opposite.
We on this side of the House all know, as I am sure Canadians from coast to coast know, that they have lost the will to govern but surely they should assume the responsibilities and provide the necessary information in accordance with the rules which we are all bound to follow.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond briefly to my hon. friend.
He did bring this point up last week as he said. One thing that is clear is that the rules say that questions are supposed to be answered in 45 days. It would be fair to say that is certainly a fact that is well-known by all ministers of this government. It is certainly the intent of our House leader and I think of our cabinet to attempt to see that all questions are answered.
What my colleagues may sometimes lose sight of is that some of these questions can be very complex and take a great deal of time to respond to. I refer particularly to questions that some might consider fishing expeditions. They start off with phrases such as: Since 1984 have any departments or agencies, et cetera.
Such a question requires consultation with 85 different departments and agencies of the government. It is a very complicated process. It can also be a very expensive process for the taxpayers, because when we set public servants at 85 different agencies to work trying to track down information which my hon. friends opposite feel they cannot do their jobs without and which they are perfectly entitled to, then the time will be taken and the cost will be borne by the taxpayer.
I would hope this is indeed essential information. However I would remind my hon. friend and the House that under a motion of this House on April 19, as a result
Routine Proceedings
of the matter being raised not only by my hon. friend the opposition House leader but by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, this whole matter has been referred to the House management committee. I think it only appropriate that committee be given an opportunity to carry out the request this House and the Speaker have made that it look into this matter. It might appropriately look at the whole matter of Questions on the Order Paper to see that it does always serve a useful public function.
My hon. friend is absolutely right. The rules are clear. Questions are to be answered in 45 days. I will again bring the matter to the attention of the ministries to see if they cannot do their best to see that it is complied with.
Meanwhile I would suggest that this matter be left where the House has already referred it, the House management committee.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary who has attempted to provide an answer to this inexcusable behaviour of ministers of the Crown.
I do not wish it to be left or omitted from the record that the purpose in changing the Standing Orders to limit each member of Parliament to a finite number of questions was for the very purposes he referred to in his remarks.
Prior to amending the Standing Orders members were allowed to have an unlimited number of questions which they could put to ministers of the Crown in order that they seek information. We have changed that and reduced that number to four. Therefore the number of questions each member can put is restricted to a finite number.
As the hon. member knows despite his verbal gymnastics today, although they may be appreciated by some of the viewing audience who may be watching the hon. member, the reality is that many of these questions are direct, succinct and to the point. I do not find it to be reasonable that members have to wait in excess of 300 days.
My colleague has made reference to the House management committee. That was a particular issue involving the Minister of Finance and certain documents and obligations with regard to that minister. The text of that

May 3, 1993
Routine Proceedings
subject matter involved a great deal of negotiations, consultations is perhaps a better word, between the two parties. It was thought best that subject matter be referred to the House management committee.
What we are seeing here, Mr. Speaker, which I think you have to take into due consideration is a deliberate action, not only an attempt, by the Government of Canada and numerous ministers of the Crown to frustrate members of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, just a minute. You are signalling me to sit down but this is an important aspect of parliamentary procedure, of the doings of the House and the interference with members of Parliament who quite rightly put questions pursuant to the Standing Orders and have not received answers or responses from the Government of Canada.
This is a deliberate attempt by members of this cabinet to frustrate members of Parliament on this side of the House in a collective way. It is a kind of behaviour that I would hope the Chair would take due notice of and give due consideration to for we as members of Parliament, if the subject matter was worth raising in the first instance through a question, must pursue this on other days at other times in terms of trying to get answers to these important questions.
I want to thank my colleague, who happens to be a distinguished member from our great province of Nova Scotia, for attempting to shed some light on this particular matter. However I would hope that the Chair would give due consideration to the kind of inexcusable behaviour of ministers of the Crown that will force us, as members of the opposition, to get up day after day to raise questions of privilege and points of order in order to get answers to these questions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as you, I and hon. members opposite know, the House is due to close for the normal summer recess when members return to their constituencies on June 23. We have been waiting for these questions in excess of 371 days. You can see what is going on. They are trying to rag the puck just as the Detroit Red Wings tried to rag the puck. We know what happened there. The Leafs won.
I suggest to my hon. friend opposite that notwithstanding the inexcusable behaviour of the members of his own cabinet which he now agrees to, they are trying to rag the
puck, they will suffer when the Canadian people go to the next general election.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, I share my hon. friend's joy at the great victory of the Toronto Maple Leafs the other night.
I have already made the points that we wished to make. I do want to assure my hon. friend that the motive he attributed to the ministers of the Crown with respect to these questions is certainly not the case with respect to this government. The government will do all it can to see that the questions are answered as expeditiously as possible.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 395 on the Order Paper stands in my name. I would like to seek consent of the House to be allowed to withdraw it.
I have had meetings with the Department of Transport, specifically the Coast Guard, on a matter relating to the B.C. Ferry Corporation and ship safety. I have been provided with a significant amount of material which responds to my question.
I am prepared to withdraw my question on the understanding, which I believe is acceptable to the government, that the material supplied would also be provided on request to any other interested persons. The department has agreed that if I have any further questions arising from the material I can return to it for clarification. Therefore I would seek the consent of the House to allow the withdrawal of Question No. 395 standing in my name.


Peter L. McCreath: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has indeed been considerable discussion with the hon. member and the Department of Transport. An ongoing dialogue has been taking place. The government would certainly agree to his request. If there are other members wishing to receive the same information they need only ask and the Department of Transport would be most willing to go over the information with them. The department would look forward to any further questions my hon. friend may wish to raise.
I want to thank the hon. member on behalf of the Department of Transport for his co-operation and for his interest in the matter which generated this question in the first place.
May 3, 1993


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, in his response the parliamentary secretary indicated that if any other member wanted to receive the information he or she could. I think the understanding was that if any individual wanted to obtain the information he or she would be able to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I therefore take note that this question is withdrawn from the Order Paper.
I would now like to come back to the question raised by the Elon. Etouse Leader of the Opposition. The Chair is not insensitive to the concerns expressed by the hon. member. Other members have already raised the same concerns, in particular the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.
The more general question is now before the Committee on House Management and I am sure that the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition will follow very closely the representations made to that committee, as will the Speaker.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your intervention and we will certainly pursue that at the appropriate time.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on another subject matter.
On April 29, 1993, as reported in Hansard at page 18680, my colleague from Saint-Henri-Westmount rose on a question of privilege concerning comments which were made during Question Period. The Speaker then indicated that he would examine the "blues" and report back to the House.
I supported my colleague in his intervention and reminded the Chair about the seriousness of the issue at hand and that I would duly like the House to be informed. I believe the Speaker said at that time:
Privilege
I want to say to the hon. House leader for Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition the Chair recognizes it is a serious matter. We have had
to deal with these things in the past.
If I feel it is necessary to have further argument or further
comment I will give sufficient notice.
I have not heard from Mr. Speaker with regard to this question. I am wondering whether or not I could flag that for the Speaker or perhaps for the Clerk who might want to apprise me by telephone of what he intends to do with regard to this particular matter. More appropriately the Speaker could rejoin us in the Chamber to give us his views with regard to the matter that my colleague from Saint-Henri-Westmount has raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would like to remind the House that the comment referred to by the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition concerned a committee report which has not yet been officially presented to the House. Therefore the Speaker will not comment before the House is presented with the report to which the hon. member refers.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Chair is correct. The Chair did not receive the report to which my colleague for Saint-Henri-Westmount made reference on Thursday, April 29, 1993.
If the Chair were to check the record, I believe it would see that the report of the committee has been tabled. If that is the case, I am wondering whether or not the Chair would at that time take a look at it and confer sufficient notice to members so that we may take a look at the matter.
If I am incorrect and the report has not been tabled, I suggest to the Chair the report will be tabled within the next number of days and I would like to revisit the particular matter. I would like to have sufficient notice in order that we may pursue the subject matter at the most appropriate time and to deal with the question of privilege my colleague has raised.
I am not seeking clarification from the Chair today. I am seeking from the Chair a clear, unequivocal undertaking that when the report is tabled it will trigger the question of privilege my colleague for Saint-Henri- Westmount has raised and we will be given every opportunity either to buttress or to add further arguments to a lock-stock case with regard to the question of privilege so we can assist the Chair in adjudicating a

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
wrong we believe has been done to all members of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: This is just to say that I checked and found out that the report has not been tabled in the House. The Speaker will surely be interested to read the remarks of the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-109, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act, be read the third time and passed.
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak once again on Bill C-109. This bill was tabled by the Minister of Justice and includes Criminal Code amendments as well as changes to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act.
My colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys has dealt rather extensively with the wire-tap provisions in the bill, surveillance by electronic methods. I understand from listening to him and hearing his concerns there are some problems with that aspect of the bill.
I understand they relate quite specifically to police rights to tap telephones with no accountability and very little criteria. I also understand the burden of proof within our own system has always been on the perpetrator. This time it is sort of a reverse onus and the police must prove the bona fides of what they have gone ahead and done. I presume it is lawful. They presume the police have been right unless there is a defence that can prove otherwise. That is contrary to the normal procedure. The police must satisfy a judge in present circumstances, the way the Criminal Code reads, that the wire-tapping has been necessary or is necessary.
Now the police can move ahead and do the wire-tapping if they believe or have just cause to believe-and I would presume they would do this with a great deal of care-according to their own subjective standards they will prevent a crime by their interference. I certainly would not want to stop the police from this kind of activity. However, as long as this can be justified even after the fact, it would seem there is no formal accounting procedure in here. I would say it is somewhat worrisome to give the police this much latitude. It is fine but there should be some kind of accountability.
As I am not the major critic in this field, I have just highlighted it. I call on those who have an interest in this matter to read the remarks of the justice critic, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. He points out they can now be even more invasive than they were in the drunken driving bill where one could presume the driver was drunk and therefore call for a breathalyser test.
I was a participant in that bill on the opposition benches and I supported the government in that undertaking. As a matter of fact it was the same time we were trying to bring in the amendments that led to the Deschenes commission and the seeking out of war criminals. It was quite an interesting broad stroke.
However, the police will now be able to take blood samples and a lie detector test before they even lay a charge. That is quite invasive. I wonder if there is not enough reason there to revisit the bill to tighten up the criteria found within it.
I would particularly like to focus on the cellular communications and the privacy aspect of the bill. Let me say at the outset Liberals believe we need to achieve greater privacy in communications. I believe we need a number of concerns addressed. The fight continues against the so-called nuisance junk phone calls and others that bother seniors and families at home and often interrupt their privacy. We must find a way to stop the nuisance and the junk fax messages that are now causing trouble for businesses and frankly are quite costly. We finally got telephone companies to agree to block caller identification services which the phone companies at first resisted. Fortunately they have now relaxed their opposition to it.
May 3, 1993

I highlight all these items because they are an accumulation of the invasion of privacy which more and more is becoming a serious concern. Some of the areas are within provincial jurisdiction, but notwithstanding members of the House are now involved in the gathering of information about ourselves and about citizens out there without their consent and without their knowledge. That kind of invasion of privacy is becoming veiy worrisome. Personal information is being gathered, assembled and circulated electronically by all sorts of enterprises.
Were you asked and did you give permission, Mr. Speaker? I know I was not asked. Nor did I give permission. We need to look into the matter very seriously. I would suggest these concerns are all part and parcel of legislation and public policies that must be looked at today. We have increased technological access in this information age.
The particular bill addresses the question of cellular privacy, but it is just one example of how the age of technology is making matters of personal information and personal privacy key issues in the nineties. Clearly the communications and information revolution will continue bringing forward new issues into our daily lives that never existed before but which must be dealt with expeditiously before technology essentially runs away with our privacy.
In terms of the cellular telephone and cellular privacy let us take a look at the problem. I addressed it fairly extensively on April 26 when at report stage the government refused to accept a number of the amendments I brought forward. I thought they were enlightened amendments, not because I thought them up but because they came from an experience the Americans had with which I will deal in a moment.
I was trying to point out, and I point it out again, that Canadians have traditionally looked at their telephone as a safe, confidential, no snooping, no drop-in, no eavesdropping kind of exchange ability with a neighbour, with a friend, with the family, with their doctor, with their lawyer and with their stockbroker. They have felt a sense of comfort that no one has been listening in and no one can steal their information.
They could go about deciding how they were going to react to certain information in the stock-market or in the bond-market. They could talk about their financial
Government Orders
obligations, what they were going to be purchasing, et cetera, over the normal system. There was a sense of confidence this would remain private within the confines of the two-telephone system they were using.
However cellular telephones are quite different. They are really radio phones as I tried to point out the other day. They pass calls along a whole series of cells out there along the highways and byways of our country called the public domain. It is in the area of the public airwaves. They are not private.
The key difference is that the public generally does not recognize that every cellular phone user is basically using a radio. We even see people in restaurants walking around with their cellular telephones. I personally happen to find that totally abhorrent. If they want to have private conversations or need to talk to someone, let them go and use the telephone or let them go outside. I find it kind of rude in the middle of a conversation in a restaurant around a table. However, I suppose maybe that is a macho new look with a new toy but it is not macho. Whatever it is, it is poor manners in my view.
They are making radio calls on these little devices and it is as if they were shrieking inside that restaurant. Instead, they are shrieking outside on the general airwaves. Their conversations can be picked up by anyone who cares to eavesdrop.
I guess it is the old adage of buyer beware in this new age of information. The other day I said perhaps people who sell cellular phones should have people sign a paper which says: "I am aware of the fact that this is not a traditional telephone. This is a radio phone and I am aware of the fact that I can be easily overheard, that there is no confidentiality that is concomitant with the use of this telephone. I therefore acknowledge that this is free and open air". Maybe if we get people to sign this kind of statement when they buy their telephones they might be a little bit more sensitive to the problems that can crop up.
I do not think we can expect that in the fulsomeness of the measures we need to meet the goals of this particular bill. The goals of this bill are to stop interference and protect the privacy that people have become used to on their wired phones at home or in the office.

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
Let us recap. What is the minister trying to do here? I am going to go into some detail about the specific provisions which the government has stood by. It has refused to listen in its narrow-minded and very unsympathetic thought to something that could be practical. The puffery here is what it was interested in. From the first reading until today even with the disinformation the Department of Communications managed to give the committee during the hearing stage, the government was not prepared to budge. We want the public to know what the minister is doing in this bill and what the disinformation is all about.
We are amending the Criminal Code to make it illegal to intercept maliciously or for gain a radio-based communication on a cellular phone which is really this radio phone. The principle behind the action is that we as a party, the Official Opposition, support the principle. It is very important.
The problem is that this bill makes anyone who overhears a telephone conversation by accident, not by design, guilty of an indictable offence, liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and a fine of $25,000. I would say that is a very strong measure. Until we get to that point we have to look at what our options are. Is there any answer other than criminal sanctions with such a serious impact given this new and evolving technology? We all know how expensive it is to keep people in prison and how overcrowded the cells are.
Does this go too far? Does it hit with too big a hammer? In our view after committee study at report stage we still believe the answer to these questions is yes. The minister has taken the wrong step at the wrong time in a bill that is flawed.
This section would create the indictable offence in clause 12 for willfully disclosing the existence or the contents of intercepted radio-based telephone communications without the expressed or implied consent of the originator or the intended recipient of the communications. That is a very weighty move by Parliament. In other words people are used to the ordinary telephone and sometimes, as they are wont to do when they had a party line, they hear something which they might in all innocence pass along. When there were party lines they would have had to pick up the phone deliberately because they knew they were on a party line.
Here people can pick up their telephones and quite by accident because of a crossed wire they can listen to a cellular telephone call to someone else. Or they can be using a scanner which is a piece of equipment that can be used to decode and listen in. It is like those big muffs the television cameramen use to be able to hear what is being said more clearly.
People can use scanners and if they hear some information they are allowed to listen to it in this bill. They are allowed to have this scanner in this bill. If they repeat what they have heard then they are subject to a fine. They can repeat something in all innocence and it can be blown all out of proportion. It can be misunderstood and they can still be called before the criminal courts for a crime.
Without the express or implied consent of the originator or the intended recipient of the communication we get this move by Parliament that using or disclosing the knowledge of a cellular phone call is an indictable offence. Is that the best way? It is questionable.
After serious consideration we still have problems with this aspect of the government's approach. The basic question remains whether it can be reasonably enforced. Is this the most practical approach to solving the problem?
We conclude that the government has acted hastily, specifically following the Wilhelmy scandal. This was a visceral reaction to something that was really to be regretted from many points of view. I am not going to bring back all the history and issues behind this except to say there was not agreement and therefore it was malicious and had a very negative effect.
The government has gone to the Criminal Code rather than proceeding with a more technical means to solve the problem which we all think should be addressed. We know there are encryption methods. We know there are ways of protecting those phone calls. Ministers and senior members of the Crown certainly have access to these encrypters but they are very expensive. There was no reason in the Wilhelmy case for not using an encrypted telephone. I sometimes wonder if there was something more to this whole story than meets the eye.
If we look at the Radiocommunications Act amendments that are in this bill, in principle these amendments
May 3, 1993

that we have brought forward move in the same direction as the prohibitions being introduced into the Criminal Code. Clause 24 would prohibit making use of or divulging radio-based cellular communications unless the originator or the intended receiver consented to the disclosure. The term, making use of, might be interpreted as divulging the existence of a communication without divulging its contents. Section 25 sets out penalties for those contravening the previous section. Section 26 creates a right of civil action for an injunction or damages against persons or corporations who divulge or make use of these cellular communications.
The spirit of the Radiocommunications Act changes is in keeping with the Criminal Code changes proposed by the minister, possibly sending people to jail for even divulging the knowledge that a cellular call has occurred. Again I think this is too harsh a step.
Given the level of concern expressed over this bill, the Official Opposition proposed amendments at report stage. Our amendments which the government rejected reflected the concern we have about this approach. In our view our approach was very balanced and reasonable. While we agree there is a problem there is a way to go about this and the government took the wrong approach.
Our amendment would have removed the provisions for jailing people, at great cost, who intercept cellular phone calls. We did not say, however, to do nothing. We proposed as the most important and fundamental first step the banning of the use, manufacture, importation, distribution, leasing or offering for sale of scanners capable of receiving transmissions in the cellular frequencies.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental and important matter. I know you were in the Chair when we had this discussion and I know you said it was outside the purview of the bill. In my view this should never have been in the bill. There is disinformation about 900,000 scanners being out there. It is an unfounded reality if we are talking about cellular telephones and the ability to unscramble in that area. The minister had the option of banning scanners. He should have brought in a bill to that effect, very much like the Americans have done in the United States. They are removing the right to have a scanner.
The privacy commissioner has made it very clear that he does not prefer this kind of approach. He has said he
Government Orders
favours a technical answer if one can be found. If limitations on the manufacture and distribution of scanning equipment is the answer he favours that too.
We are not convinced by those in the Department of Communications who said that a technical approach would not work. I think we have to try it first and it has not been tried. I suggest it would be best to ban the scanners, remove this act from the Criminal Code and remember there are provisions already in the radio act if people misuse telephones.
In conclusion I believe the communications aspect of this bill leaves too many questions for us to have any comfort level. There is serious concern that the heavy hand of the Criminal Code being brought in at this time to improve the cellular telephone privacy is inappropriate. However, we must find answers to the whole serious question of invasion of privacy in all aspects of our daily lives.
I question whether it is even enforceable. I hope the government will give serious consideration to voting against its own bill.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate at this particular time but after listening to the comments of my colleague from Mount Royal I was rather stimulated and feel I should put a few thoughts on the record.
I want to say first of all that when the so-called Wilhelmy affair cropped up last fall during the debate on the Charlottetown accord I was really offended. I was offended as a politician, as a citizen of the country and also as one who spent 30 years of my life in journalism. Most of those years were with the CBC.
A story like the Wilhelmy affair is very titillating. I can understand why reporters got very excited when they heard certain comments that were going to be embarrassing to the premier of Quebec, the Prime Minister of Canada or any particular group of people. I can understand how the reporters jumped on the story with alacrity and enthusiasm and felt they were doing something for the country.
I was offended, maybe because it really was an invasion of privacy. A senior Quebec civil servant was talking to another senior Quebec civil servant. They both believed their conversation was private. They believed as most people do that cellular phones are telephones and not sophisticated CB radios. They are telephones. We find out later and they find out, much to their chagrin and

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
horror I guess, that these are not phones, they are sophisticated CB radios. Believe it or not, people using sophisticated scanners can listen in to conversations and tell the world about them.
.(1555 )
I find that an invasion of privacy. I think it is totally uncalled for. I think that the government of the day as reflected in this bill has the right to move on that particular front to solve that problem. I think that when two people are talking on what they believe to be a real telephone they have a right to privacy. It is as plain and simple as that. They have a right to privacy. I do not think anybody has a right to poke their nose into someone else's business, regardless of how titillating it may be to journalists, radio reporters, television reporters, and certainly the public at large.
I think the government was on the right track when it brought the bill in. It saw a problem and felt it had the answer to it and that was to sort of-I am not a lawyer-to criminalize this area. If you are found scanning these conversations, if you report them in a certain way and the matters come to public light, you would be violating under this bill, the amended Criminal Code, and either go to jail or face a fine.
I along with my colleagues believe that notwithstanding the good motivation of the minister in this particular case think he is prescribing the wrong antidote or the wrong solution. There is a better way. It is through a technical answer.
When a problem of this kind faces us, do we go to the source of the problem or do we seek an answer elsewhere? I would humbly submit that we go to the source. If you prevent someone from being able to invade a conversation in the first place, if you can do that with technology, through some technical means, surely that is the best way of doing it. Apparently the Americans as recently as 1992 did exactly that by banning scanners instead of allowing people to snoop, to invade people's privacy. If people hear something that they find rather titillating that they would like to relay and actually do relay, they would find themselves in trouble under this bill.
Why not nip it in the bud? Why not go to the source and stop the snooping in the first place through technology? Surely that makes much more sense than allowing the process to proceed to a certain spot and then have the law intervene and say: "Sorry, you have gone too far; you have gone too far, you have broken the law, you have violated the Criminal Code, and because of that you are either going to go to jail or you are going to be fined".
Let's face it, that is an expensive process. It costs the state money to fine people; it costs the state money to send people to jail. How many are we prepared to fine? How many are we prepared to send to jail if we are really going to ire serious about this.
In some ways it is rather impractical and there is a better way. We have proposed the technical solution. As the member for Mount Royal said earlier, our privacy commissioner favours just that, a technical solution. I want to quote him. He says: "I favour a technical answer if one can be found". He went on to say: "If limitations on the manufacture and distribution of scanning equipment were the answer, I would favour that, too".
That is what they are doing in the United States and I think that is what we should be doing here. This government is very fond of talking about a level playing field. In many ways we have turned Canada and the United States into a common market. Well, what about telecommunications? What about this area of using this new technology called telephones? Does it really make sense that the United States of America bans almost all kinds of scanners while we take a different approach?
We say it is fine to use the scanners but if you snoop or go too far then we are going to throw you in jail or fine you. I think this is one place where perhaps the two countries should be moving in parallel lines. They should be moving together.
The United States attacked this problem first through banning scanners. I think we should do the same. Perhaps not all scanners should be prohibited. If we were to revisit this matter at some other time and look at it from a different angle, we may decide that there should be one or two kinds of scanners allowed for particular purposes.
We could discuss that at length. We could really study that. That is something that we could put off to another time. I think right now we have to reiterate and make the
May 3, 1993

point that there is a technical solution. It is there and we should try to take advantage of it.
Let us not forget the United States has gone down this road. Why do we not do the same? One other thing that my esteemed colleague from Mount Royal said was this: "There are already some prohibitions in the Radiocommunications Act." It is possible if we are intent on criminalizing, fining or sending people to jail. Maybe it can be done already under the Radiocommunications Act.
I wanted to put those remarks on record. I hope that the government will take them into account.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, here at this third reading of Bill C-109, it is a useful point in time for me to perhaps reflect on our role in opposition in this place.
We have a bill that addresses several pressing concerns in the public interest. There are elements of the bill that we in opposition have some difficulty with. There are other parts of the bill with which we do not. Therefore one has to address the issue of how one would deal with the entire package at third reading.
I am rather inclined to support the bill at third reading, notwithstanding some of the deficiencies which I would like to note now.
Over the last three or four years there has been a series of decisions emanating from the Supreme Court of Canada which in effect have called upon the state to regularize and create a framework within which the police and agents of the state carry on their work of law enforcement.
In the initial instance, those decisions were interpreted as being a real negative toward our law enforcement officials. One of the either intended or unintended effects of those decisions which were known as Wong, Duarte and Garifoli was the prohibition by the Supreme Court of Canada on our policemen wearing what has been called the electronic lifeline.
This would be a body pack, a transmitter, a recorder that enables the police officer to be in touch on an audio basis with his or her command. That electronic lifeline was used frequently and most notably in undercover operations when a policeman or police woman would be inserted into a crime situation where one can understand
Government Orders
there is danger. The support crew for that undercover officer would be able to hear what was going on.
In the event there was a problem, those people could respond appropriately without having to wait for the 25-cent phone call, which would never come in some of these cases. The Supreme Court said that was illegal, even though that was not otherwise prohibited in Canadian law. Even though this House, this Parliament had never said it could not be done by the police, the court said it may not be done.
While I have reservations about the way we arrived at these conclusions I accept that the court has a role in interpreting our charter and in giving direction to Parliament and Canada's provincial legislatures. We now have a provision in this bill which regularizes and creates a framework for the use of that electronic lifeline.
Canada's police forces have been operating without that lifeline for approximately two to three years. I am not aware of any unfortunate implications of it for police forces. It may be that investigations or certain investigative techniques had been abandoned temporarily but in any event we now authorize within a framework the use of that electronic lifeline.
There are other minor portions of the bill that one could question. One that I had noted earlier and I would bring to the attention of the House now for the record is the prohibition section in section 193.1 which purports to prohibit a number of things including the wilful disclosure of the radio-based cellular phone call data. Not only does it prohibit the disclosure of the contents of the phone call, but it also very expressly prohibits the wilful disclosure of the existence of the phone call. It was my sense that that may be going a little bit too far from a practical point of view.
There are a number of people who would in the ordinary course of their work become aware of simply the existence of a cellular phone call, including the people who make up the cellular telephone bills. With regard to this section, wittingly or unwittingly, because really notwithstanding the fact that I attended the committee hearings, I did not hear a good explanation. I will just paraphrase the material words here: "Every person who wilfully discloses the existence of such a communication is guilty of an indictable offence", the communication being not the content of the communica-

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
tion but merely the existence of the cellular phone call. That is an indictable offence.
If I were a phone employee now I do not think I would want to send out a bill and say "Mr. Customer, you made a cellular phone call on March 24", because wittingly or unwittingly this section appears to make that an indictable offence. However, that is a minor flaw. We will see how that evolves in the fullness of time.
The government has taken an approach here in dealing with cellular telephone calls that does not prohibit the interception of cellular phone calls. It does not prohibit the interception. The government decided that it would only prohibit interception where there was malice, where it was made for gain or where the interception was made of a cellular communication that had been encrypted. In those three instances the government decided that would be an offence. I am sure most members agree that those should be offences.
What the government has not done is proscribed and prohibited all interceptions of all cellular telephone calls. My colleagues here today have made reference to that. One of the reasons why the government says it did not want to do that is because, and I think I have got the answer right, there are too many scanners, that is the equipment that intercepts these phone calls. There are too many potential offences, too many potential interceptions, therefore we should not prohibit them. I dispute that logic. I think it would have been most appropriate to prohibit the interception. That is the act we are all targeting here. That is the act we do not want to see.
If the government's logic holds true, which is there are too many interceptions so there would be too many offences taking place, why does it not use the same logic in relation to theft? I am sure there are many thefts going on in society: big thefts, little thefts, thefts of cigarettes, thefts of pencils, thefts of automobiles, thousands of thefts.
If the government says there are too many of these offences out there so it will not bother prohibiting them then why do we not get rid of the offence that is known as theft under $1,000. Why do we not just write it off the books if there are too many out there that we cannot keep up with them all and let them all go? That is not logical.
The government should not have been prepared to abandon all cellular telephone users to fate. I would remind the House of what has been is known as the Wilhelmy affair in which a bureaucrat within the Quebec government had her cellular telephone conversation intercepted and disclosed. What would have happened if either the existing law before this amendment had been interpreted to include cellular phone calls or if there had been a law in place that said people may not ever intercept or disclose a cellular phone call?
If those laws had been in place in that fashion we would never have known about that particular phone conversation because whoever intercepted it would not have made it available to the media. If he or she had made it available to the media illegally the media would not have published it because the existing law says it is an offence to disclose and make public the contents of a private communication.
All the government really had to do here was to prohibit the simple interception of a radio-based or cellular telephone conversation or amend the law, as the private member's bill which I introduced into the House and which was spoken to on Friday proposed, so that we would simply treat cellular telephone conversations the same as regular telephone calls. Ordinary telephone line-based communication is protected and we simply had to do the same thing with the cellular telephone call.
In any event the government chose not to do that. It chose as well not to follow the route chosen by our neighbour to the south in the United States. It has banned at a date in the near future, I think it is 1994, the import or manufacture of all scanning equipment that is capable of intercepting cellular telephone calls.
Presumably the effect of that would not be to outlaw existing equipment which could continue to be used on into the future but over time existing equipment would become outmoded by changes in technology. Therefore the U.S. Congress avoided what would have been confiscation of the existing scanning equipment from its owners.
It has chosen a date in the future to ban the import or manufacture in the United States of all such equipment. Ultimately reality would catch up to the law, technology would overtake the existing equipment's ability to intercept, and it would have achieved its purpose.

In this country the government has chosen to do a fancy foot dance in an attempt to address its perception of the difficulties. It is not the route I would have chosen as a legislator. It is the one that has been put before the House and we will simply have to live with it the way it is.
The defence bar, the body of lawyers across Canada who usually are retained for the defence of those charged with criminal offences, has given evidence to the justice committee and to the legislative committee that reviewed this bill. It has concerns about some provisions in this bill.
Its concern is with reference to provisions that make it easier for the Crown to convict those charged with offences, that make it easier for the Crown to collect and introduce evidence into criminal cases. To be fair to the defence bar it also has a very real concern for the rights and liberties of the subject. The rights and liberties of someone charged with a criminal offence are the same rights and liberties that we all have and the bar has concerns about those.
Throughout all of our history there has been a continuing movement of the line between what our rights and freedoms are, what our obligations are as citizens, and what our crimes are. That line is moving every year around here. It moves back and forth, assisted very ably by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defence bar has brought these matters to our attention. I for one am cognizant of them.
The provisions of this bill that would authorize certain testing of individuals, all with a judge's order, and authorize the collection and use of evidence, all within a statutory framework, perhaps make it easier for the state to carry on its functions of prosecuting, apprehending, investigating and seeing to the due application of the Criminal Code. However I do note, as do other colleagues in the House, the concerns that have been raised. Hopefully we will not have to look back at this and see that we have made a mistake.
I will close with one item that should be on the record. I have not heard it articulated yet in this debate. In this legislation we are in a sense sending the pendulum back a little bit from the direction it was perceived to have been going in over the last decade or two. That has been in favour of individual rights and liberties and away from
Government Orders
some of the collective liberties, some of the collective rights that we had established for ourselves in this country.
As that pendulum now swings back toward the collective rights we place certain authorities and powers in the hands of our police forces, in the hands of our agents of the government. What I wanted to note was that as we do that this House will have to continue to be vigilant on how the state, the police, and agents of the state use those powers. If the authorities granted under this statute are to be used and used properly then we as Canadians will not have difficulty. If there is somewhere out there one agent of the state, one policeman, who unwittingly, foolishly makes a mistake I cannot forgive him or her in advance. They will pay whatever price is appropriate.
I would register for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of the record my concern on the issue and my hope that these powers, these authorities, these mechanisms, these legal devices, the framework which the Supreme Court of Canada has called for and which we are now legislating, which will be put back into the hands of the police for the due enforcement of our code, will be respected in the letter and in the spirit and we will not have cause to reconsider them in the future.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reassuring you that I am going to stick to this bill and I am not going to talk about the funeral in Toronto last week at the Scarborough van plant where 3,500 people lost their jobs, direct jobs, which was a direct result of this government's policy over the last four years.
What concerns me about this bill is with regard to the small business person. About eight or nine years ago when the cellular system became very popular many small business people contracted with a cellular company to take up the cellular phone system. There was never any question at that time that the discussions they were having were anything other than private discussions.
For most small business people who use the cellular phone system today it is no different than the regular phone. People actually operate their entire businesses from their cars with the use of their cellular system. Quite often there will be situations in which sales forces

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
will be out in their cars and they will be making reports to their offices, reports on sales calls, prices on sales calls, they might talk about discounts they are giving to their clients, and they will talk about marketing strategies. Most of the small business people I have talked to are not aware that discussion is like talking on a radio and the chances are pretty high that everything they are saying is being picked up by someone else.
This can lead to a type of espionage. As more and more people develop the ability to use the scanning systems then people's efforts to sell their products and services can unknowingly be subverted. Even though we are sympathetic to the fact that the police must have support and access so that they can use electronic surveillance where there is a potentially dangerous situation, and even though we are sensitive to streamlining the Criminal Code, we have to be very forthright with the people of Canada that these cellular phone systems are not what most people think they are in terms of security.
I realize more and more people are buying these scrambling systems but I think that these scrambling systems should almost be a part of the cellular phone itself in order to make these conversations we are having on these phones secure.
If we do not address this notion of privacy and protection for the small business person then eventually the cellular phone companies are going to experience a tremendous backlash. That backlash will not only affect their business but it will also affect the efficiency of the small business person.
Remember, many people started using these phones many years ago to help improve their business efficiency. In my city of Toronto, where there is a lot of traffic, one can get up in the morning, drive to work and use the phone while sitting in traffic. One might be stuck in traffic for an hour but all the time one can be communicating with various business colleagues or customers or making appointments and setting up meetings. This has improved the efficiency of our small business sector which has helped the bottom line and ultimately helps the treasury of Canada. A highly profitable business ultimately is of benefit to all Canadians.
If all of a sudden small business people lose faith in the cellular phone system, it is going to slow down the efficiency of our greatest job creator. It will not just be the cellular companies that will end up being hurt by this backlash, where people will fall away from using the system, but it will also cause the price of the product to go up because the same efficiencies will not exist.
In my view, the way to counteract the current dilemma is maybe to get together with the cellular system and say that we want a system that when a cellular phone system is sold, included in the package is a scrambling device so that privacy will be maintained.
The other thing we are duty-bound to communicate to those people who are using cellulars is that they are in fact highly susceptible to scanning devices that are in the marketplace right now which allow people to listen to all conversations. I really cannot imagine people using a cellular system if they thought that the difficulties they were having with their bank manager were public knowledge.
I cannot imagine people using a cellular system if personal difficulties they were having within their own companies with other employees were public or other people were listening to this in a designed way. They would not continue to have the same eagerness to live on the cellular phone.
I cannot imagine real transactions of a substantive nature, whether they be ideas for selling, or cost of selling product or service, or marketing designs or ideas, or real tactical exchanges that go on within a company in order to have a competitive edge, going on over a cellular system if the people who had these systems realized that their conversations were open to the public, not unlike the conversations you would have with a radio talk show host that would be going out to maybe 200,000 to 300,000 people.
As my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River said earlier today, there are some areas within this bill to which the government has not been sensitive. I certainly could not support it in its current form.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, again I rise on this matter, having spoken to it both at second reading and report stage, and again draw to the attention of all of us who will be voting on it-and those reading

their newspapers-that this bill has a lot of inherent danger.
Bill C-109 is an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act.
My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, introduced amendments to the bill that would enhance the security of using cellular phones. The general intent of those amendments was to remove the Criminal Code offences and the radio telecommunications act offences because we believe they are the wrong instruments for dealing with cellular privacy.
The point is that the government is using a cannon to kill a gnat. One of our first amendments was to strike out the Criminal Code section, making it an indictable offence with a five-year prison term for anyone convicted of maliciously or for gain intercepting a radiobased telephone communication.
On our side of the House, in our party, we agree with the Privacy Commissioner who said that he would have preferred a more technical means of dealing with cellular privacy. We too believe we should try this approach before charging and ultimately convicting people who overhear a cellular phone conversation.
It seems so simple. Why? I ask this question with the greatest of respect to those drafting the bill on the government side of the House. Why not ban the scanners? Is this difficult? Is this hard to figure out? Is there something we are missing over here?
We have asked this question in committee. We have asked this question in the House. We have asked this question of any number of people on the government side and we have yet to receive any kind of answer, not even an audible one. The question remains, why not ban the scanners?
There is need for the government to take this technological approach to the matter. The Federal Communications Commission in the United States has rules requiring that scanner receivers be incapable of tuning or readily being altered to tune within the bands allocated to the domestic public cellular radio telecommunication services.
Government Orders
This seems relatively simple. This seems relatively sensible. This seems to be the kind of response that you would want to have in this particular situation. Why would you want to bring the full weight of the Criminal Code to bear on this relatively inconsequential situation?
This is interesting. I have just come from a briefing by officials of the Department of Justice on some other legislation. We talked about the fact that the legislation, again amendments to the Criminal Code, was what we call an electable offence. It was one of those offences where the Crown can decide whether to go by way of a summary or an indictable offence.
When I questioned why not go by way of an indictable offence in this area, one of the things that the justice officials reminded me of, and I think is an important thing to be taken into consideration here, with an indictable offence with a five-year penalty, is the added cost to the provinces of pressing an indictable offence charge.
First of all, you must have a preliminary hearing with its attendant cost, the bringing in of witnesses, the Crown prosecutors and possibly the police officers and expert witnesses. If a magistrate decides there is enough evidence to warrant binding over for trial, then you go back and do the whole thing over again at even more cost to the public purse to go through the trial.
How much simpler it would be to ban the scanners. I am really asking. I do not understand this.
The rules and regulations will prevent and prohibit frequency converters being used in conjunction with scanners that receive or can easily be modified to receive cellular transmission and require scanners be incapable of converting digital cellular transmission to voice audio.
I do not see the problem with passing this kind of law rather than using, as I said before, a cannon to kill a gnat.
Canada should follow. In so many cases, we blindly follow the Americans. We blindly follow the Americans [DOT] in policy. We blindly follow them into the OSS. We blindly follow them on this, that and the other thing. Why, for a wonder, when they have done the right thing through their Federal Communications Commission do we not follow their experience and use the proper technological legislative response as opposed to using the Criminal Code? In this respect the government is simply putting the cart before the horse. It is telling Canadians they can have the equipment but they cannot use it. The government also proposes that persons be

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
imprisoned up to two years or fined $25,000 who use or disclose a radio-based telephone communication or who use or disclose the mere existence of such a communication. Although we are not encouraging the interception of cellular calls, we have great difficulty on this side of the House with creating an offence that could jail people unnecessarily.
As I have said before, as my colleague from Mount Royal has said before, as my colleague for Scarborough-Rouge River, my colleague Cape Breton-The Sydneys, my colleague for Broadview-Greenwood and on and on and on, my colleague from Hamilton I am sure will be adding his voice to this when he speaks later in the debate, ban the scanners. Do the sensible thing. Do the simple thing. Do the least costly thing. Do the least intrusive thing.
It is absolutely amazing that the government, which is constantly saying there is too much government, adds another layer of amazing criminal law in an area that could be handled by technological amendments. It is bizarre.
We support the banning of scanners, but at the same time we do not want to fill our jails with people who intercept cellular telephone calls. In the grand scheme of things this certainly may be a manner of breaking the law. It is a form of an offence, but a jailable offence? There are other things in this country with which we should be more concerned. There are other things we should be thinking of putting people in jail for rather than intercepting cellular phones.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Anyone who uses a cellular phone without knowing that half the world could be listening probably should not be allowed to have that kind of technology at his or her disposal. Everyone from politicians in British Columbia to the Prince of Wales have had bad experiences with the interception of cellular phone calls.
When I spoke at second reading on this matter I mentioned the somewhat unhappy experience that the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia had last year during its leadership convention when a senior executive with the telephone company, and who should have known better the ways and means of intercepting cellular phones than a senior executive of the telephone company, actually
phoned into the computer centre to find out what the tallies were in our non-existent vote. That was overheard by some young computer expert in Halifax who then sold the tape to the CBC, who then with great glee published the tape.
I can assure you it was not a stellar day for the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia for a variety of reasons. However as most of us were saying at that leadership convention, we all knew this could happen. Most of us in this Chamber have cellular phones in our cars or in our brief cases. Is there any one of us who is not aware of the possibility of interception?
I have said before and I will say again that I have had an experience where I have been speaking to colleagues over the cellular phone and I have had to go home and phone from my own telephone to find out what it was we were talking about because we have become so oblique on cellular phones just to make sure that we will not say something we would not want to read in a daily newspaper or hear on television. We have all had that experience, every one of us.
The idea that Canadians have to be in some measure protected because they do not understand the technology and protected by the Criminal Code of Canada, I am afraid I just find it ludicrous.
I can hear a phone ringing right now, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very interesting. It is obviously an omen. It may be for the Minister of Labour. Does he think so? No, he is shaking his head. It is not for him. The Minister of Labour is far too knowledgeable about technology to depend upon cellular phones.
We support the banning of scanners but at the same time we do not want to fill our jails with people who commit these offences. There has to be a more tangible and more sensible means of monitoring scanners and monitoring and controlling the use of these transmissions. I believe, and the Liberal Party believes, that the technological approach is obviously the best.
We should take steps to inform Canadians. This is really important. I know the Minister of Communications has said this on occasion, but I think it needs to come across more that cellular phones are radios. They are not telephones like the telephones we use in our homes. They are radios. Radio waves are different from
May 3, 1993

telephone communications from house to house and from house to office. It is not a regular phone. It is subject to interception by scanners. Anyone among the Canadian populace who did not know that these conversations are susceptible to interception must have spent the last several years on Mars. However, for those people who did not know that we as members of Parliament and the Department of Communications, the minister and so on, can all bring our considerable abilities in communication to bear to let Canadians know that they are subject to interception on these cellular phones and to act accordingly.
Even as we speak, the technology of cellular phones is being improved. As we move from the current analog system into digital cellulars it will become increasingly difficult to intercept the calls. Yet here we are rushing to judgement and changing the Criminal Code for something that we do not need to do. Until such time as we know that the technology will prevent the interception let us deal with technological means to control the interception. No matter what steps we take people are going to keep on using cellular phones because of their convenience, obviously. This is sensible and we all know this. Some people are going to continue to intercept them.
On the grand scale of things it does not really rate up there with major criminal offences in this country. It does not. If what happened to the Prince of Wales several months ago happened 500 years ago the interceptor might have been decapitated. We have perhaps progressed from that stage to the 1990s and we do not need to use such extraordinary means to deal with what is ostensibly a fairly minimal offence.
Canadians need to be informed of the consequences of using their cellulars. They do not need to be jailed because of their use.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate 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 Parkdale-High Park-National Defence; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Montreal Economy; the hon. member for Hillsborough-Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands-Trade.
Government Orders


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, as always I am privileged to have the opportunity to rise in this place on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West in my hometown, this time to speak to Bill C-109. It is a bill being tabled by the Minister of Justice. It includes Criminal Code amendments as well as changes to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunications Act.
I know my colleagues are dealing with its wire-tap provisions with which we are generally agreed. I want to focus for a few minutes on the cellular communications and privacy aspects of the bill, as have been discussed even as recently as by my colleague from Halifax.
Let me say from the very beginning that I and my Liberal colleagues believe that we need to achieve greater privacy in communications. There is no question of that. We believe there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed. We have attempted to do that, be it at first reading of this bill, second reading, report stage and even prior to that at committee stage. We sat in committee and discussed privacy matters with members of the House from all sides.
The fight against the so-called nuisance junk phone calls that bother seniors in our ridings and families at home continues. How many times have we had to get up? It always seems that these marketing firms always think things through and assume that the most likely time people will be home is at the dinner hour. We are sitting with our family, enjoying our chicken, potatoes and com and then the phone rings. Who is it? It is somebody selling something. Even more insulting, it is some computer voice that is kicked onto the telephone line.
Then there are the business people and professional offices that are often interrupted. Their privacy is interrupted. We also have to find a way to stop the nuisance of junk fax messages that are now making trouble for businesses and professionals.
In my own constituency office in Hamilton the fax machine kicked in and out came a request to purchase comics books at a discount rate from an American

Government Orders
distributor. An American firm was doing the faxing. At the top it said: To MP Stan Keyes. They do not even know what MP means or anything else over in Buffalo.


Mr. Bellemare:: How come you are on their list?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: How did I get on their list? I have no idea. The list of members of Parliament is a quick list and maybe some of us would be interested in that stuff so they take their chance and fax out their message. Then I looked quickly to find out where it came from. I wanted to call these people and let them know that I was a little more than disappointed that this kind of stuff is sent to my fax machine without my being asked.
Fax paper is expensive. Cling-cling, cling-cling, it just keeps chugging out of the machine for these marketers to attempt to get their message into our offices and to us.
Of course there is no listing of the company that is sending out this material to our offices. It is rather disappointing. I even had a letter just last month from a doctor. I did not check with him so he will not be named. I did not ask him if I could use his name. He is a surgeon at St. Joseph's Hospital at McMaster University. He wrote to the Minister of Communications. He writes:
I understand-the above bill which was tabled in March 1992 includes the misuse of fax machines for the purpose of transmitting unsolicited information and advertising.
I am writing to strongly protest the use of fax machines for the above purposes.
The fax machine which I use for my surgical practise is for the transmission and receipt of medical documents, many of which are urgent. In the past few months, this machine has been bombarded with unsolicited advertising from companies offering jobs and computer equipment for sale.
I urge you to bring about an early resolution to this problem.
It is not a problem that is unfamiliar to anyone in our ridings. Just imagine. A medical practitioner, a surgeon, quickly makes a call to a outfit that deals with something that is important to his practise or what he may be doing in surgery in the operating room in short order and he wants a response. Yet he has to wait for the "Will you buy a comic book faxed from Buffalo?" to finish going through his fax machine before he can get this information that is critical to him and his work as a medical doctor.
A blocking caller ID service was something the phone companies first resisted but have now fortunately relaxed their opposition to. In a very general way we need to take steps, although often at the provincial level, to restrict the flow of people's personal information from being gathered, assembled or circulated electronically by all kinds of these new enterprises, enterprises I suspect that probably originate right out of someone's basement.
What is the cost of putting a fax machine or a piece of equipment on a phone line out of your basement and saying: "No problem, you want your material known to individuals for purchase, I have a list". Maybe this enterprising individual has a master list of thousands of names and phone numbers and he or she may be able to disseminate the information and the availability of a particular product right out of their basement.
These concerns are all part and parcel of the concerns that we as legislators and the public policy-makers face in this information age. So many new questions have come our way.
While the list of issues in this area is quite long, suffice it to say that the bill we are dealing with on cellular privacy is just one example of how the age of high-tech is making matters of personal information a key public policy challenge of the 1990s and in particular of the baby-boom generation, I might add.
What is the problem, Stan? That is the question people are asking. Canadians have traditionally used a telephone that hangs on the wall or maybe in the bar downstairs, the old-fashioned one with the big, black, heavy receiver and the dial on it. This is a wired system and pretty private for the most part. Cellular phones are a very different ball of wax. In fact they are radio phones that pass calls along a series of cells in the public domain on the public airwaves.
The key difference is that this problem is not readily recognized by every cellular phone user. Let us face it, everyone who uses a cellular phone must realize that he or she is in fact making a radio call on that lightweight and very portable phone. Maybe we should adapt the old phrase, "let the buyer beware" to our new information age and let the user beware, cellular calls are radio calls. In short, people should stop expecting the same privacy they achieved with their hard-wired telephone in their
May 3, 1993

kitchen or in their bedroom as they would with the cellular call.
Let us talk about what the minister is trying to do with this bill. I guess it was Joan Rivers who said: "Can we talk", and we are going to talk. We are going to talk about the government that has stood by this bill the way it is despite all the sensible amendments that were brought forward at report stage and prior to this in committee.
My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, put forward all these sensible amendments. We want Canadians to know what the minister is doing with this bill. The Criminal Code, as we have been told by this bill, is being amended to make it illegal to intercept a radiobased communication or cellular call.
The principle behind this action is supported by this side of the House, members of my party and myself. But the problem is that this bill is making anyone who does so guilty of an indictable offence, which is anything over two years in prison and liable to imprisonment for a period or term not exceeding five years. Over two years and under five years is a very strong measure to take, to say the least. Have we tried some other more common sense approaches, maybe a little simpler? Does it go too far? Personally, yes, I think it does go too far. An indictable offence? Does it hit with too big a hammer? Probably in the first instance, yes I think it does.
In our view, after the committee study and the report stage, we have to say this is the wrong step. We gave the government the suggestions on this particular aspect of this bill.
On this issue we concur in fact with the Privacy Commissioner who said at the legislative committee: "I favour a technical answer if one can be found". A technical answer is not such a difficult concept. We can put a person on the moon but we cannot figure out a way to scramble a message off a cellular phone.
If the minister opposite is in his car or I am in my car and we want to call home or we have an important call to make that may have to be private for one reason or another, there must be some technical way of scrambling that signal. There has to be a way and I am sure we could find it. We pride ourselves as Canadians as being
Government Orders
advanced in this area. I think we could find an answer to that.
The Privacy Commissioner went on to say: "If limitations on the manufacture and distribution of scanning equipment were the answer I would favour that too". There is an interesting concept, limitations on the manufacture and distribution of scanning equipment.
What if we sat back and asked are we going to put into the court process all these individuals who are listening on their scanners and then jump in on them at home or wherever they are listening on their scanners and charge them with an indictable offence, something over two years, fine them maybe to boot, take up the court's time, fill up our jails? Or, we could say: "Wait a minute let us put the brakes on that for a second. Maybe an easy way of doing this would be to ban the scanner".
You are sitting in your livingroom with a device that listens in on private conversations between two or more individuals. That seems rather odd. Because you have an inquiring mind and you like to have some fun or you enjoy listening in on a scanner, you decide you are going to sit at home and listen in on the cellular telephone conversation between myself and my wife or myself and a minister on behalf of a constituent with a legitimate concern.
Why do we not prohibit the use of that scanner? In other words why go through this process of going through the court system, jamming something else in there and filling our jails with people who are eavesdroppers? Let's ban the device that allows them to eavesdrop. In other words, like the Privacy Commissioner, we are not convinced by those who said a technical approach would not work. I think we have to try it first. After all it has not been tried so let us give it a shot. Should we not try that balanced approach that makes sense before this hasty move into the Criminal Code? It makes a lot of sense to us.
Clause 12 was another interesting section that would create an indictable offence for wilfully disclosing the existence or contents of intercepted radio-based telephone communications without the express or implied consent of the originator or intended recipient of the communication.
A very weighty move by Parliament, to decide that using or disclosing the knowledge of a cellular phone caller is also an indictable offence. After serious consideration we still have serious problems with the

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
aspects of the government's approach. The basic questions remain.
Can it reasonably be enforced? Is it the most practical approach to solving the problem? Elaving read through what we have attempted to do with this bill, C-109, having heard my colleague, the eloquent member for Mount Royal, attempt to make not outrageous, not even sensitive suggestions to this government by amendments, we concluded that after the committee process the government had acted hastily in resorting first to the Criminal Code rather than pursuing a more technical means to resolving the problem. I think we have just got to say no, it just does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and this House for the time to comment.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I too take pleasure in debating Bill C-109, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act.
It is interesting how quickly the Minister of Justice is prepared to bring changes to the Criminal Code over something that probably could be prevented, as the member for Hamilton West said, by technology. We have very sophisticated technology and I think we have the technology to probably solve this problem with modem sophisticated technology instead of trying to work it in to the Criminal Code.
It is interesting how after four years of representations in this House by the Official Opposition the present Minister of Justice and the former Minister of Justice would not make any changes to the Criminal Code to make communities safer against repeat sex offenders, against hard core criminals who have served part of their sentences and then are released back into the community. That is where Canadians were asking for changes to the Criminal Code. Somehow all of our representations there fell on deaf ears.
My residents are approaching judges and the police now to even prevent some of the hard core criminals from receiving bail. I know it is the right of every Canadian to receive bail and to be out on bail while awaiting sentence, but there are some criminals who if
they are out on bail will repeat the same act whether it is another molestation of a child or another rape of a young girl or even leading to a more severe crime of murder. The residents of Parkdale-High Park are saying: "Your Honour, this person should not be given bail because he or she would be a danger on the streets".
I am pleased to say that some judges are now listening to the residents. Residents can actually make representations in front of judges. I know of a few cases where the judges have listened and refused to allow bail for someone because the community has convinced the judge that by releasing this person the person may be a danger to the community.
Any changes that we bring to the Criminal Code, whether it is protection of cellular phones, whatever, I think we have to keep in mind the safety of the community, the safety of the individual homes, be that home in an apartment or in a condominium, be it a private dwelling. Any changes we make to the Criminal Code must always take into account the safety of individuals and communities.
We have stressed for so long in this country the rights of the individual and that we should not lose sight of. But I think we have come to a stage in the development of our society in Canada where we have to ask: "What about the rights of the innocent victim?" The police and the residents of the communities are complaining that the criminals are given more protection than the community. We made many representations in this House about the minister bringing in changes to the Criminal Code to prevent drug pushers.
Many times I have drawn to the minister's attention how the residents can identify the crack houses. They will give this address in my riding, they will give that address. They know the drug trade that is going on in this 24-hour doughnut shop. They know the drug trade that is going on in this restaurant. Just last week another stabbing occurred in a local restaurant in my riding. I will try to avoid using names for the protection of these businesses in my riding.
For years residents have been saying: "Please close this 24-hour doughnut shop because that is where the crimes are committed". "Please take the liquor licence
May 3, 1993

away from this restaurant because that is where the crimes are committed". It took another act of violence to maybe finally close some of these locations.
Elow many times, Mr. Speaker, have you heard me talk about the problems of the prostitutes on our streets and how they are wrecking, ruining, beautiful communities because parents are afraid to send their children to school. They are finding condoms on the street. They are finding syringes in the sand-pits. If the children go to play in the sand-pit the parents are afraid that they will get stung with a needle that may carry AIDS. The children from playing in a sand-pit can also pick up AIDS.
I am very proud of my residents in Parkdale because they finally said: "Enough is enough. If you the court system won't do it, if you the police won't do it, if you the politicians won't do it, we will do it". They are taking to the streets and they are doing it.
Five or ten years from now, Mr. Speaker, you will be reading headlines about our community in Toronto, how the community through community involvement is reducing and driving out the criminal element from our community because we got to the stage where the criminal element was stronger than the community element; stronger than the combined businesses, and they are organized under the business improvement association; stronger than the ratepayer groups, because we have ratepayer groups in every quadrant of my riding; stronger than the educational system which works closely with the community. The criminal element was stronger than all of these community institutions and organizations put together. No more. Now the community is getting stronger.
I am very pleased that our party has put forward a position paper on how we intend to reduce crime in our society, how we intend to make amendments to the Young Offenders Act and how we intend to bring standards back. With regard to deregulation, I mentioned in this House before this government seems to have a psychosis about deregulation. It feels that society runs better when we remove all regulations.


An hon. member:: You sound like a Conservative.


Jesse Philip Flis: The member said I sound like a Conservative. If the Conservatives practised their ideology and their philosophy then we would have safety in our communities, but they have abandoned governing, they have
Government Orders
abandoned management. They said: "We'll just let the private sector do it". The private sector can do it, but the private sector needs rules and regulations.
When we take all these regulations away, what happens? Since I spoke on a similar topic just a week ago, I have received another letter from a constituent, Mr. Sterling. He is very involved.
He is helping people with heart conditions, stroke conditions and lung conditions through CB radios. They have saved lives. Through CB radio they can contact an ambulance and contact the police. They have saved many lives doing so.
They cannot do so now because this government has decided to deregulate CB radios. The Minister of Communications even said that cellular phones, which we talked about in Bill C-109, are not like the regular telephones. Cellular phones are like CB radios. If the government will do to cellular phones what it has done to CB radios, many in my community are going to take up arms or something. They cannot live with what is happening now.
Mr. Sterling wrote to me indicating that foul language, threats, warnings about Mafia, co-ax being cut, echo mikes, roger beeps, music, sound effects and all this are supposed to go against the rules and regulations set forth by the Department of Communications.
When CB radios were regulated and this kind of interruption went on, they soon got a visit from someone from the Department of Communications who put a stop to it. They cannot seem to do this. Someone from the Department of Communications paid some of these abusers a visit. They came back to Mr. Sterling and said: "Yes, we did visit the person who was doing all these interruptions but sorry, we cannot do anything about it". They are the ones who have low respect for others, especially women. I mentioned before in the House how they will curse women, run down women and use foul language on the airwaves.
Unless we get back some regulations the same thing will start happening on cellular phones. Anything that will help clean up the airwaves, be it cellular phones or CB radios, I am all for. As our critic always says we need some regulations that will bring order to our communications system. They will give us certain standards to live by.

May 3, 1993
Government Orders
In a letter dated April 27 a constituent wrote:
Dear Jesse:
I called the Department of Communications today and I spoke to the inspector I have been communicating back and forth with and once again I mentioned to him about Chicono, the ham licence operator who is still getting on the CB radio and making the noise that he is not supposed to be making. Tony, the inspector, said that he paid this guy a visit and was told to get the/out of here. Tony said that he had to leave as there is nothing else that he could do.
Jesse, this is wrong. Here is a person who paid for a ham licence and he gets away in talking this way to a guy who works for the government. Yet he can still keep his licence. What kind of world are we living in?
Yes, Canadians are asking what kind of world are we living in. What kind of society are we building? We were categorized as the number one country by the United Nations in 1992. If this government continues any longer will we get that distinction again? I doubt it. We will probably be in 25th or 30th place. Let us clean up our act. Hopefully this bill will help us in this regard.
I would like to refer to another issue I am pleased the bill addresses. It addresses the whole area of electronic surveillance used by the police. The hands of the police are being tied more and more.
When I have town hall meetings with ratepayers the police are invited from No. 11 Division and No. 14 Division. I talk to the police individually and in groups with the community. There is no greater co-operation among police, educators, ratepayers and businesses than I have in Parkdale-High Park.
Every time we have these meetings we end up with frustration because the police say: "I lay a charge and I see the offender on the street the next morning". Some say: "I lay a charge and I see the person prostituting the same evening". They know who are the drug pushers. They know who are the purchasers but it is the pushers they are after. They cannot make charges stick. It goes to the courts and there is not enough evidence. The judge throws it out. After a while I am sure the police must throw up their hands and ask: "What is the use?"
I am all for anything in this bill that will allow police to use electronic surveillance where there is a potentially dangerous situation. Anything in this legislation that will allow judges to authorize such surveillance with the
consent of one of the parties involved in the surveillance has my full support. I am all for anything in this legislation and in the amendments that are brought in to allow judges to issue similar authorization in other circumstances where it is clear the request for authorization meets the tests prescribed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I have a great concern about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for which I spoke in caucus. I fought very hard for some items to be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our own party constitution respects the rights of the individual. I joined the Liberal Party so that I could represent the whole spectrum of society. I do not have to take my orders from the multinationals. I do not have to take my orders from the big unions. I can respect the rights of the individual by representing the individual as a Liberal member.
I am concerned whether we have gone too far in granting individual rights to people. Have we forgotten about the rights of the community? Have we forgotten about the rights of the family which is falling apart more and more? Maybe we had better rethink our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Maybe we had better even rethink our constitutions in our parties.
We cannot look at the rights of the individual at the expense of the poor victims, of the poor children who are being sexually molested as infants. Child pornography is coming into this country. Why are we so helpless? Why are we so gutless that we cannot even stop that literature from coming into our country? Where are the standards of this country? We all have to take blame: you in that chair, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in my party, my colleagues in the Conservative Party and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. We all have to share a bit of responsibility. If have we allowed this country to lower our standards to that level then I share some of the blame.
I hope everyone will look at Bill C-109. I hope they will support all the clauses which give the police more teeth. Enough is enough. We cannot send our police out without any tools. Let us give them back the tools they once had and they want. It is not only the police. The community wants the police to have these tools or this authority.
May 3, 1993

Something I know about Canadians is that they do respect authority. Canadians do respect law and order. Just give them the opportunity.
Canadians do respect others. I saw a wonderful theatre play in my riding in Parkdale on Sunday. Young teenagers and young adults put on a play warning young children how not to become street kids. What an excellent idea.
In this play a girl got pregnant being a street kid. She had nowhere to turn. This theatre group gave alternatives where this girl could turn so if a girl found herself in a similar situation the information given by this theatre group would help her.
Solutions are coming from the children in the community. I know you are telling me to sit down. Thank you for allowing me to again express the concerns of my residents of Parkdale-High Park as well as concerns of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.


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:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate NATIONAL DEFENCE
['The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, on April 26, I posed a question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the Minister of National Defence.
I asked about the crisis in Srebrenica where 150 Canadians soldiers have put their lives on the line as UN peacekeepers. They have found themselves in a very dangerous situation because the government did not take the advice of the opposition about holding a full parliamentary debate about the nature of the mandate of our peacekeeping troops in light of the changing role of the United Nations and in light of our role changing from a peacekeeping nation to a peace-making nation.
We know that Britain and France refused to send any additional soldiers. We know that additional Canadian soldiers were stopped by the Serb soldiers so they could not come.
I am pleased that today another peace pact has been signed. I hope that all three parties will live up to this new peace agreement. We have had so many signed before but never honoured. It is one thing to sign the peace agreements but it is another thing to honour them.
I hope that the minister is here today because the critic for the Liberal Party asked in Question Period today: "Madam minister, what is the mandate of our Canadian peacekeeping troops?" He also offered a full parliamentary debate on this issue to the government side. As late as today we still do not know what is the role of our peacekeepers. Is it to shoot in self-defence? Is it to protect the inhabitants of Srebrenica from whom all guns were taken and they are left there like sitting ducks?
I agree with the guns being taken away, but I think guns should have been taken away from both sides. Usually in peacekeeping, all arms are taken away from both sides. Our peacekeepers come in and make sure that this is honoured. Any little incident that breaks out, our peacekeepers then through negotiations, not through shooting, try to bring about a settlement. But our soldiers today do not know what is their role, they do not know what is their mandate. We have put them in a very dangerous situation.

May 3, 1993
Adjournment Debate
I liked the headline I saw in one of the Ottawa newspapers today which read: "Trained to fight, sent for peace". That is true. We train our troops how to be fighters. What do we do with them? We send them to be peacekeepers.
We have to rethink the whole training program for our army. We have to start training them as peacekeepers now. That is why they are so respected even now, because they are peacekeepers. They have self-discipline. They know how to negotiate. But we are sending them into a much more dangerous environment and many of our troops are going to come back with very deep psychological problems, with very deep psychiatric problems, unless we address the situation and address it seriously.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will have some answers for us.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear that the mandate is not clear. I think the mandate is quite clear. The over-all mandate which stems from UNSC Resolution 819 is to increase the presence of UNPROFOR with a view to monitoring the humanitarian situation in the safe area agreed to by the parties.
Demilitarization of Srebrenica was a step agreed to by the parties, not one proposed by the UN. In order to save some lives, UNPROFOR is helping both parties fulfil commitments made to each other.
Their task includes receiving weapons from the defenders of Srebrenica for the purpose of demonstrating to the attackers that they have no reason to attack. Their task also includes patrolling the safe area and establishing observation posts as a confidence building measure for the parties.
Another problem my colleague raised was the rules of self-defence which are equally clear. Should Canadian peacekeepers be attacked, they would fire back in self-defence. This is to say that they would use force if armed elements attempted by force to intrude into the demilitarized area.
Some 200 peacekeepers cannot be expected to resist a full scale attack. Should this occur, they would take shelter and other measures for their self-protection like everyone else and, as necessary, redeploy.
It should be remembered that the Canadian forces were deployed to Srebrenica in the context of an agreement and that UNSC Resolution 819 called on all parties to treat Srebrenica as a safe area.
Another point raised was training and equipment. The Government of Canada simply would not send a poorly trained and improperly equipped contingent on any mission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.



William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on March 22 I asked the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to consider some new action to stimulate the Montreal economy and in particular to approve the municipal infrastructure program proposed by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. This would be a tripartite program supported by the federal, provincial and municipal governments to fund the reconstruction of roads, sewers, water systems, bridges, garbage disposal units and so on. Not only would the infrastructure be restored, but in turn business investment would be attracted and create jobs.
The Montreal economy is in extremely bad shape, with stores boarded up all over the city, business after business failing, factory after factory closing. Here are some of the sad facts. The official unemployment rate is at 14 per cent, but the actual rate is 27 per cent if we count those who are no longer looking for work. Twenty-two per cent of families in Montreal are living below the poverty line which is higher than any other city in Canada. Another very sad figure, 25 per cent of Montrealers have less than grade nine education. One in five are living on unemployment insurance or welfare and about 10,000 youths are living on the streets without any homes.
There are 170 agencies receiving help, such as food banks to feed the poor. Last year those fed by food banks in Montreal increased by over 35 per cent. We understand there are 30,000 Montrealers dependent on food banks.
In terms of unemployment, income per capita and participation in the labour force, Montreal is now at the bottom of the list of North American cities with one
May 3, 1993

million or more population. These are shocking figures. The causes are many, some structural, some cyclical, some political. It has been due in part to the free trade agreement, in part due to high taxes, in part due to political instability with the continual threat of separatist politics and the restrictive language laws.
A week or so ago a panel made up of Marcel Cote, Louise Roy and Pierre Pettigrew said that the alienation of the English population in Montreal carries a heavy burden for that city with lost head offices, lost job opportunities and lost investment. More than 200,000 individuals have left Montreal since the passage of Bill 101 a few years ago. The city is not in good shape.
Once again, I ask the federal government to get together with the Quebec government and the city government in Montreal to help the city come out of the sad situation that it is in. In particular, I ask the federal government to participate with the provinces and the municipalities in the municipal infrastructure program. All the provinces are ready to go ahead with it. The cities are ready to go ahead with it. All we need is the participation of the federal government. It would give a great shot in the arm to Montreal and other cities right across this country.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the hon. member's question.
This government announced a program of strategic investment in infrastructure that will stimulate economic growth and job creation in the short term and will actually increase Canada's potential economic growth in the longer term.
I remind the hon. member that last December 2 the Minister of Finance announced new investments in public infrastructure of more than $2 billion over the next five years. These investments will directly create from 4,000 to 5,000 jobs a year.
In particular, this initiative provides up to $125 million in new funding for the improvement of Champlain and Jacques Cartier bridges in Montreal. This is in addition to what the federal government has already committed for the work under way on Montreal's bridges.
Adjournment Debate
The investment program also includes funds for establishing partnerships to develop strategic transportation projects with the provinces.
The Minister of Transport is now working with the Government of Quebec to identify to which transportation projects the province gives priority. Good progress has been made in the discussions and construction work should begin this spring.
Although the infrastructure investment program applies to national transportation infrastructure, it will improve transportation systems and make it easier to travel in Montreal and several other urban centres across Canada. These investments will bring the city of Montreal important economic benefits.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my comments tonight flow from a question I put to the minister on March 30 with regard to water exports under NAFTA.
The government pleads that Canada's water policy prohibits the large-scale export of fresh water. But the federal water policy is a paper tiger that is not backed up by tough legislation. Legislation that would have expressively forbid the export of Canadian water died on the Order Paper in 1988 and it is not being revived.
The government also pleads that the implementing legislation for the FTA exempts large-scale water exports. But this legislation is now superceded by the free trade agreement as an international agreement and there is nothing in the free trade agreement that specifically excludes the export of water as it does raw logs and unprocessed fish.
Dr. Frank Quinn of the Federal Inland Waters Directorate admits that the Tory government is now reconsidering its position on water exports. At a recent water export conference Dr. Quinn noted: "There is every indication from comments made that this government is moving toward an export policy for water". The question remains whether the free trade agreement and the NAFTA endanger Canada's water.
Although the government argues there is nothing in either agreement which compels us to sell our water Canada's chief trade negotiator, Gordon Ritchie,

May 3, 1993
Adjournment Debate
concedes that nothing in either of those agreements would prevent the Canadian government from redirecting water to south of the border.
Mel Clarke, former senior trade negotiator for Canada and a strong opponent of the agreements says the FTA and NAFTA endanger Canada's control of its water resources. Noted resource economist Wendy Holm and the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Sciences agree.
It is interesting to note that annex 301.9 which specifically excludes the export of raw logs and unprocessed fish is silent on the exclusion of water from export. Indeed, article 1401 of the draft NAFTA document contained a specific clause relating to non-energy pipelines. Through this provision the NAFTA document extends the possibility of water exports to include transport by pipeline. This is certainly cause for grave concern.
Even though water exports can impact dramatically on the environment, the FTA ensures that environmental reviews will be almost useless unless water is specifically cited as an agricultural good in the FTA.
The chapter of the FTA which defines the use of environmental concerns as justification for trade restrictions specifically pertains only to goods other than agricultural goods. Therefore water export cannot be stopped for environmental reasons.
There is grave concern about water exports. In my own province there is particular concern. The new government in British Columbia has initiated a public discussion on water management and has included water export as an issue. It has specifically asked that the public provide their views regarding safeguards required for bulk water export.
The previous Socred government issued six approvals for bulk exports and twenty more are currently under review. In March 1991 a moratorium was placed on the approval of any more bulk export licences and in May, just a year ago, that moratorium was extended.
Canadians have reason to be concerned about NAFTA and water export. I ask this government to stop the NAFTA deal.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to briefly respond to my hon. friend.
I have to say in all honesty that on this issue of water the NDP is doing what it is doing in a lot of areas with respect to NAFTA. It is trying to see bogymen in the closet and trying to convince Canadians that terrible, villainous, heinous things are going on that quite simply are not, as my hon. colleague has been told in response to questions raised in this House. Large-scale interbasin transfers of water for export would clearly be in violation of the Canadian federal water policy of 1987.
My colleague suggests that agreements signed by this government will allow the large-scale export of water. This is simply not the case and not true. Water in its natural state is not a product or a good capable of being traded any more than trees in the ground or oil and gas in the subsoil.
Only when water is harvested by taking it out of its natural state, allowing it to enter commerce by bottling it or shipping it in tanks for example does it become a good in the rules set out in trade agreements.
Interbasin transfers of water are something completely different as they do not involve the trade of water as a good but rather the diversion of water in its natural state from its existing course. Water in its natural state is not covered in any respect under any international agreement including the NAFTA.
The government is aware of the concerns of Canadians in this question. I note that my colleague's own province of British Columbia has imposed a moratorium on water export that reflects our federal water policy. This government's position on water export is clearly stated in the federal water policy and the implementing legislation of both the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and the North American free trade agreement. Nothing in these agreements gives either the United States or Mexico access to Canadian waters.
The bottom line is that Canadians governments, both now and in the future have the freedom of action required to regulate the exploitation of our water resources.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.41 p.m.