1993-03-08

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice.
Over the weekend, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada announced that it would hold a leadership convention in June and that the co-chair of the convention would be the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot.
The problem I see for the House of Commons is that the hon. member is our Deputy Speaker and the chair of Committee of the Whole House. I suggest, given contemporary usage and given the duties the Deputy Speaker now regularly performs, the office of Deputy Speaker is not properly compatible with that of co-chair of a national political party's leadership convention. In accepting those latter duties, the hon. member has shown contempt for her responsibilities as an officer of the House.
The parliamentary authorities-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could assist the hon. member. First of all I want to thank him for giving notice of this matter. I wonder if it might not be the better course to hear this matter fully later on today at three o'clock. It might also be advisable, now that this is public, if the hon. Deputy Speaker be advised that the matter has been raised, as I am sure would be the appropriate thing to do.
I am seized with the matter now and of course I am going to hear it carefully. However, I would prefer to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond more fully at three o'clock this afternoon.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to put my intervention on the record now. We did give notice to the government House leader and I presume he has spoken with the opposition Whip, who is aware of the matter.
My remarks are relatively brief with regard to the subject matter and if the Chair needs time subsequent to my remarks to hear others, I would be more than willing to accommodate that. But I would prefer if the Chair would allow me to proceed with my intervention.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed this matter has even been brought to the floor of the House but since it has been and since the hon. opposition House leader has insisted on putting some points on the record in spite of your suggestion, Sir, I think a brief response is in order.
This would be to the effect that you, Sir, of course are the arbiter in this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Again in the interests of trying to be helpful, I suggest it might be appropriate to hear this more fully at three o'clock.
I am conscious of another matter. This is private members' hour and I wonder what courtesies the House wants to extend to the member who has a bill, as this could take some time. Perhaps the House could think about that as well. I am in the hands of the House, but my own feeling is that this ought to be pursued this afternoon rather than now.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Of course I defer to your guidance, Sir. I respect private members' hour and so I will only take a few seconds.
Since the hon. opposition House leader had an opportunity to put his points on the record, I simply want to respond and ask him to reflect on this point before the ensuing discussion later on. The Deputy Speaker, by accepting such a position with a leadership convention, demonstrates her neutrality in that particular race and it

March 8, 1993
Privilege
is totally congruent with the neutrality which she traditionally displays in this House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, this is a House matter and I would like to pursue it now unless the Chair so directs that I cannot pursue it at this time. I would prefer to make my intervention which I indicated earlier is very short, succinct and to the point.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been a bit of a discussion about the matter. I think the hon. member has the right to proceed if he wishes.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary authorities in Canada are vague on this particular point. In Britain however there is no doubt. Once a member accepts a position in the chair of the House, any position, he or she abandons all partisanship, even refraining from voting in any divisions.
Canadian experience is less clear. With regard to the Speaker, Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 168, indicates how a Speaker must remove himself or herself from partisan activity. The most noteworthy quote is:
Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality.
Beauchesne goes on to indicate that there has been less stringent inhibitions put on junior chair officers with regard to partisanship.
Citation 184 reads:
Deputy Speakers have not taken a consistent position with respect to attendance at their political party's functions. During divisions they have voted but have not attempted to participate otherwise in the debates of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that contemporary usage does now impose a stricter discipline upon chair officers, especially the Deputy Speaker and most especially the present Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker is no longer merely an occasional substitute for the Speaker. The Deputy Speaker occupies the chair more often than the Speaker during most debates and it has become the regular practice of the present Speaker to permit the
Deputy Speaker to take the chair for one Question Period at least one day every week.
In addition, the present Deputy Speaker is a member of the Board of Internal Economy, not as a representative of a party, but as a representative of the House as a whole.
I want to make it perfectly clear I am not questioning the performance of the Deputy Speaker, not in debate, not during Question Period. She has retained her membership in her political party but in accordance with that tradition has not made a great deal of this and I think all members recognize that.
However, the Deputy Speaker intends to make a very big show of her partisanship. She intends to be the co-chair of her party's leadership convention using, whether intentionally or not, the prestige and public familiarity that she derives from her office as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons to attempt to enhance the prestige of the partisan proceedings over which she intends to preside.
How can an officer of the House appear to be impartial or claim to be impartial when she undertakes so active a role in the partisan activities of her own political party? How can members of the House who belong to other parties put their trust in the impartiality of the Chair under such circumstances, especially in the heat of the most partisan part of the parliamentary day, Question Period?
There is no satisfactory answer. If the Deputy Speaker were to remove herself from this obvious conflict of interest, I think the matter would die. However, if the Deputy Speaker is unwilling to do so, I wish to inform you that I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as I said a little earlier, I am disappointed that this matter has even been raised.
As my hon. friend for Cape Breton-East Richmond has conceded, the performance of the Deputy Speaker is not at issue here. I would submit to you, Sir, that is the only issue which could be before us. Her performance is not in question nor has it even been suggested by my hon. friend opposite that her performance would be degraded by this. I think what he is getting at is the
March 8, 1993

appearance of the matter and perhaps that is where the debate ought to focus.
I would argue that in accepting the co-chairmanship of a leadership convention of a national political party, far from displaying partisanship or partisan activity, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot would be called upon to preside in a parliamentary role over the proceedings of the national convention. Her rich experience of presiding in this distinguished chair could in fact reflect positively on that activity.
There are two co-chairs in this particular proceeding. One is a retired former premier and distinguished Canadian statesman of my own province. No one I think would even accuse that individual of using the co-chairmanship of this leadership convention for partisan aims.
I submit that what the hon. Deputy Speaker would be contributing to in this activity would be to the parliamentary proceedings of a party event. I would submit that she will, as all of us would expect, conduct herself in such a way that her behaviour and comportment would only enhance the dignity and impartiality of the activities that she is called upon to perform in her duties as Deputy Speaker.
My hon. friend has mentioned that the Deputy Speaker is a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I cannot see the relevance of that point to the argument before us.
In conclusion, the citations which my hon. friend used go a long way toward supporting my side of the argument rather than his. I believe the House ought to find, and you, Sir, of course will be the judge of that, that this particular hon. member is proposed to accept an honour from her party that recognizes her impartiality and her fairness, in a party context in this instance, as she has demonstrated among all the parties here in the House.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is really unfortunate that we need to have this kind of discussion in this House today. To use the words of the hon. member who spoke before me, no one questions the Deputy Speaker's performance in this House. I think that is a fair assessment. I do not think any of us are questioning her impartiality or abilities in the House.
To use the analogy that the other co-chair of the Conservative convention is going to be a retired premier
Privilege
and no one is suggesting that he would be using the convention for partisan reasons is quite different from having a sitting Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, who is not retired, as the co-chair. Surely from among the ranks of the Conservative Party there could be found a woman to be the co-chair whose ability and prestige matches that of the Deputy Speaker and who would not raise the questions that are being raised here today.
Mr. Speaker, I recall the great lengths that you went to during the pre-election period and election campaign during the 1988 election to ensure that in your role as Speaker you maintained the impartiality, the non-partisan role required, probably far beyond anybody's expectations. I think people respected you for that imagery of impartiality. Everyone knew that you came from a political party but everybody respected the fact that you campaigned in the impartial way you did.
We are not only talking about the rules of impartiality but about the appearance of impartiality. The role of the Deputy Speaker in the House after fulfilling this role for the Conservative Party would be made very difficult. When she returns then the question of impartiality becomes a much greater question after people have witnessed her leading a convention for the Conservative Party.
While we have a great deal of respect for the Deputy Speaker, I would hope that she would do something to eliminate the possibility that she would be put in a position that would create suspicion about her impartiality.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have five brief points. My first point is that I said very clearly that I was not questioning the performance of the Deputy Speaker in debate or during Question Period, not at all. The key issue, which the chief government Whip has failed to recognize, is that we are talking about the office of the Speaker, the office of the Deputy Speaker of this Parliament, which is essential to the impartiality of the proceedings which follow.
Second, with regard to the Deputy Speaker sitting on the Board of Internal Economy, I raised that issue so that members opposite would understand that appointment, that position is there to represent the entire House and not one political party.

March 8, 1993
Privilege
I sit on the Board of Internal Economy representing my party, as does the House leader for the New Democratic Party and as do members opposite. This particular appointee is not a representative of any particular political party but of the entire House.
Third, I want to remind the chief government Whip that we are not in the United States where the common practice has been in various conventions, both Republican and Democrat, to have members who have served as speaker or in the chair given some capacity to assume responsibilities at convention time.
Fourth, the chief government Whip is trying to inform the House and thereby the Chair that the neutrality that this present Deputy Speaker exercises in carrying out her responsibilities as Deputy Speaker on the floor of the House of Commons is the same and would be the same, and thereby she would be performing the same neutrality at a Tory convention.
Twenty-five cents and a cup of coffee, come on, give us a break. That is absolutely ludicrous.
My final point is that the impartiality of the Chair is the cornerstone of our deliberations here in the House of Commons. We are elected as commoners and come here to present our views, whatever they may be from whatever political ideology.
The impartiality of the Chair is first and foremost. I suggest to the chief government Whip that the perception of the impartiality of the Chair would be severely ruptured as a result of the Deputy Speaker assuming the responsibilities as announced by the president of the Conservative Party. For the chief government Whip to indicate otherwise or that this is somehow a mean trick against the Deputy Speaker means he is being less than candid with himself, with members of this House and with the Speaker who now occupies this Chair.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of such nonsense as 25 cents and a cup of coffee. The interest of this House has nothing to do with a Progressive Conservative convention that will not be held on Parliament Hill and will not be a matter of Parliament. Members of the opposition party have nothing to do with this convention. They are not going to be invited but will probably be there because they like a good show.
They do not have to come. They are not directed to be there. What members of this Parliament do in their private capacity as a member of a political party at a political party convention has nothing to do with this House whatsoever. This is not a matter of this House.
If they want to attack the Deputy Speaker in this House and say that she is not an impartial member then they know how to make that motion, they can move that the Deputy Speaker be dismissed if they want to. They can force a vote if they want to. But this Deputy Speaker is a member of Parliament and this member of Parliament is entitled when you are in the chair, Sir, to vote in this House. She is entitled to vote in a partisan matter in this House. There is no reason why, being given that freedom, she does not have the freedom to be at a political meeting somewhere else off this Hill.
I see nothing but specious nonsense in this suggestion by the House leader of the Official Opposition. This is absolute craziness. I suggest that this point of privilege be dismissed outright as an affront to the House and as a waste of time.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this motion before us is not only an affront to this House but to private members' hour, which is almost half gone now. I will not belabour that but will simply respond to his points.
The hon. Deputy Speaker is of course a member of a political party. That is how virtually all of us arrive in this place. She ran as a Progressive Conservative in two elections and if she offers again she will in all likelihood run as a Progressive Conservative once more, just as my hon. friend runs as a Liberal.
I would submit that if there were anything to be criticized in the potential conduct of a Deputy Speaker it would be if that individual were managing or prominently involved in the leadership campaign of a candidate for the leadership of our party, or any other party as the case may be.
The point is that the Deputy Speaker has proposed to accept a position presiding as a parliamentary officer over a political party convention. There is no getting away from the fact that we are all involved with political parties. Being involved in a Conservative convention is somehow shameful for my friends opposite, but we do not pretend that kind of outrage and virtue. We do not suggest that being involved in a Liberal convention is
March 8, 1993

offensive to this House, because there are Liberals. That is a fact of life, lamentable as it may be.
As a House officer I submit that the Deputy Speaker in accepting to preside over a leadership convention, a joyful event which will require some poise and some equilibrium, is simply being recognized for the virtues which she has displayed time and time again and the impartiality which she has displayed in presiding over this Chamber.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one brief point on the matter that we are discussing.
I heard the hon. member for Mississauga South say that the Deputy Speaker was entitled to vote in this House and therefore it would not be inappropriate for her to preside as co-chair of the Conservative convention. If I am not mistaken there are circumstances, although they are limited, under which the Speaker of this House can vote. Does that mean that it would be appropriate for the Speaker of the House to preside over a party convention?
The point is that we are dealing with appearances. We are not talking about the personal integrity or qualities of the Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with appearances and how these appearances apply when we are talking about somebody who holds the position of Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. Therefore, I am very happy to support my House leader in arguing that it would not be appropriate for someone holding the position of Deputy Speaker to preside over a party convention. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take my comments into account in your ruling on this important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with great care to what has been said. I am going to reserve on this matter. It may well be that the House ought to hear from the Deputy Speaker. If that is appropriate then arrangements can be made to that effect.
I do want to emphasize, because this is a matter of great interest to all members, that it has been clearly expressed in the House that the point being raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is not a personal attack on the Deputy Speaker. As far as I can see there is no suggestion that there is any criticism of
Private Members' Business
any kind at all of the manner in which she is fulfilling her duties in this House. I accept that.
I am going to have to consider the matter and I will return to the House as soon as I can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface) moved: that Bill C-339, an act to eliminate the payments of bonuses in the public sector of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this particular private member's bill is really quite simple in intent. It wants the government to look at the current approach to the payment of bonuses to a very small group of individuals and to see whether or not it is in fact fair.
I contend it is not and I shall advance arguments to that effect. I contend that we need to look at it with the intent of eliminating it unless we can come forward with an approach that is fair to every single man and woman who works for the Public Service.
I recognize subsequent to hearing concerns expressed by Canadians, people such as myself, that the government has decided to freeze the payment of bonuses to public servants for now and into the future. I hope that is in fact going to happen. I point out if that is in fact so and they can live without that payment why can this policy not be continued in the future?
It was frozen not only because of the concerns that were voiced, but as well because there was the recognition that the Public Service has been limited to zero, zero and three per cent. It has also been frozen because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves today.
We are not without knowing that we are talking about
1.6	million unemployed Canadians. We are not without knowing there are roughly five million Canadians living

March 8, 1993
Private Members' Business
at or below the poverty level, most of whom are women and over one million of whom are children. We are not without knowing that 2.2 million Canadians are receiving social assistance. We are not without knowing that over two million Canadians are fed at food banks, 40 per cent of whom are young people and children. The situation is very serious indeed.
I have not even spoken about that huge deficit which is over $30 billion and the debt which has climbed from $170 billion in 1984 to over $450 billion today. Clearly this area can be looked at in terms of reducing costs. Clearly this area needs to be looked at in terms of fairness and that is the first priority.
Let us look at the arguments being advanced on why there is a need for bonuses. Some people suggest there is a relationship between compensation and productivity. To some degree that is no doubt true under certain circumstances. I have no doubt about that. Elowever, let us look at it in this particular situation. Is it true that perhaps 1 per cent of people who receive a bonus affect productivity in a significant kind of way?
People point out to me that bonuses are not permanent. They are not permanent in the sense that everyone gets them on a regular basis. We will look at that phenomenon as well.
Finally, people tell me that it is to retain the very best. As a former senior civil servant, a deputy minister, I can say I knew of no one who had and kept a job because he or she might get a bonus. They kept it because they were excellent, because they had a commitment to the work they were doing and because they were the kind of people that they are: first-rate, competent professionals. Therefore, that argument does not hold a lot of water.
Let us look at the other side of the coin. Why might or should we eliminate bonuses? The link between productivity and bonuses is very difficult to show clearly in government. A lot of people would argue that it cannot be done. How does one accurately measure productivity in a government environment? Are people really satisfied that what is being done today is in fact correct, fair and just? I do not think so.
It is also contrary to the concept of team-work. We recognize increasingly that if we are going to be more productive then we have to establish a culture of
co-operation. I cannot be immensely productive by myself, but with the people who assist me, I can become increasingly productive. If I am rewarded, what about the people who have made me increasingly productive? Should they not get some consideration? I would contend it goes counter to this concept of team-work which I think is absolutely necessary not only today but in the future.
Finally, I would like to ask a question. What is the appropriate size of a bonus? Should it be $800? Should it be $3,000? Should it be $100? Should it be $10,000? How do you determine that fairly? How do you put a price-tag on that, particularly in terms of the approaches being used here?
Let us look at how many people get these bonuses. I am told there are about 4,500 managers in the Public Service who are eligible. We are talking about managers in the SM and EX-1 to EX-5 categories as well as the GX category. I am informed that the average payment is
4.5	per cent of the departmental payroll and it cannot go over 10 per cent of an individual's salary.
I received this information in response to a question on the Order Paper. When the last bonuses were paid it was an average of $3,198.35 at the SM level and $7,192 to the EX-5 level. I emphasize that these are averages.
When one looks at the situation today in Canada, my own province of Manitoba has one of the highest rates of poverty. Some of those bonuses are in excess of what a family has to feed itself and to respond to the needs of the family. Therefore, I cannot be persuaded that what we are doing is fair and in the best interests of all Canadians.
Unless my colleagues opposite suggest this is an idea that I have come up with myself, let me quote certain studies that I have requested. Treasury Board guidelines suggest a range of 7 per cent to 10 per cent for those without standing evaluations, 5 per cent to 7 per cent for those with superior evaluations and 3 per cent to 5 per cent for those with fully satisfactory evaluations.
It is important to note as well that only 30 per cent of evaluations may fall in the top two categories but almost 95 per cent of managers receive an evaluation of at least fully satisfactory. In other words almost every one of the
March 8, 1993

4,500 managers in the Public Service is eligible for the bonus.
For the 1990-91 fiscal year bonuses of about $17.8 million were paid to the eligible managers in the Public Service. The study says that this performance pay has long been an annoyance to other groups in the Public Service. They see it as a way around the wage and salary limits that hold for the majority of the Public Service. Even those within the management category have expressed dissatisfaction with the performance pay system.
Let me quote from the 1989 report of the Auditor General. The Auditor General cited several sources of grievance with respect to the system. These are: deciding on performance ratings without documenting or formally reviewing performance; documenting performance and deciding on a performance rating without input or discussion with the employer being evaluated; rotating "superior" performance ratings among employees for reasons other than performance; granting two ratings, one used in determining pay, generally lower, and the other for performance assessment purposes; allocating a greater proportion of "superior" ratings to senior levels, thus limiting the possibility of recognizing or financially rewarding equivalent or better performance at the lower levels of the management category; as a departmental policy, refusing to consider or acknowledge superior performance, whatever the performance, for people seconded to other organizations, participating in task forces, et cetera, to give more to those who were in the department during the same period; failure or inability to recognize special or exemplary contributions of employees not rated superior or outstanding; and granting merit increases or bonuses without input from or consultation with the immediate superior of the employee being rewarded.
These are serious concerns that have been expressed by the Auditor General.
The question of fairness and performance pay in the Public Service therefore has at least two aspects. The first is the perception of unfairness voiced by these groups that are not eligible. The second is the perception
Private Members' Business
of unfairness voiced by some in the management category, especially those in the lower rungs of the category.
That the bonus is not being paid for the 1991-92 fiscal year adds a new element of perceived unfairness and also highlights one of the flaws. In some instances people have been used to receiving this on a regular basis. Because they have been receiving it and since they no longer will be receiving it until the freeze is lifted, they believe they are being doubly penalized.
In addition to the managers in the Public Service, heads of Crown corporations and Order in Council appointees have in the past received performance pay. At the time that the pay freeze for the general Public Service was announced, there were rumours that about 800 would receive such bonuses.
In fact, and I want to correct the record or the rumour if you wish, there were only about 250 Order in Council appointees who were eligible for these bonuses. The bonuses for that year were roughly $800,000. That is still a lot of people and it is still a lot of money.
Let me emphasize another point. The performance bonuses for managers are concentrated on a small group of Public Service employees. Those in the management category make up just over 1 per cent of all of the employees.
Almost every manager receives a bonus. The typical bonus is about 5 per cent of the manager's annual salary. Being widely spread even over a relatively small proportion of Public Service employees, the performance pay of managers may be too little, to quote this study, to provide an incentive to increase productivity.
We have also been looking at the Public Service in the future. Public Service 2000 is an initiative to renew the Public Service of Canada. It was announced some will recall in 1989. Its objective was to improve the Public Service in light of the probable demands of the 21st century, a very laudable objective.
As a first step, several task forces were set up and they reported in 1990. Not surprisingly, compensation and benefits including performance pay were areas examined by the task forces. Public Service 2000 recognized the deficiencies. It was not just Ron Duhamel, member of

March 8, 1993
Private Members' Business
Parliament for St. Boniface. It was not just the Auditor General for Canada or Parliament.
Public Service 2000 recognized the deficiencies in the current structure of wages and salaries. As the report of the task force on compensation and benefits put it, and I quote:
The current Public Service approach to compensation and benefits is highly uniform, centralized and rigidly controlled. Such an approach tends to treat all employees, exceptional and mediocre, alike. Therefore, it cannot be utilized in any strategic manner as a management tool to influence the effectiveness of the Public Service.
It makes little attempt to recognize and reward exceptional efforts, initiatives or accomplishments nor does it provide disincentives for poor performance.
That is taken from the executive summary, pages 1 and
2.
The future, according to this task force, would have to be different. The task force believes that the modem Public Service should have a flexible and comprehensive approach to basic compensation benefits and performance based rewards. This approach should be managed strategically.
This comes very close to recognizing that the bonuses should try to match their ideal attributes. Therein lies the flaw. In as huge an organization as this government, can it really be said with any degree of certainty that 1 per cent of the people who are getting these bonuses are the only people who are entitled to them?
Can it be said that those people who are receiving those increases are receiving fair increases? Can it be said that those people who are receiving those bonuses are in fact influencing the productivity of the civil service?

I would contend that any improvement in performance would be due to the efforts of all those men and women who work in the Public Service. The number of employees receiving this additional compensation is relatively small at 4,500. That very fact, I am sure this is true, has a negative impact on the Public Service culture. Those who do not belong to the groups I mentioned earlier cannot earn the bonus and that, I think, is deplorable.
I suggest two alternatives. First, let us have a system that would cover the entire Public Service. Let receptionists, secretaries, assistants and all those people who contribute to the efficiency of the Public Service receive the same consideration, fairly and squarely. I do not want to exclude a particular group, if that group or that individual helps improve performance.
But how do we do that? And if it cannot be done, is it worth it? Do not forget what I said, and I will say it again for the benefit of my colleagues. The argument in favour of these bonuses is that there is a very close link between improved performance and additional compensation. The additional compensation is needed to keep our best employees in the senior ranks. As I said earlier, I do not think that is true. I think these very competent men and women are there because of their interest and commitment. Public Service bonuses have been frozen without causing an exodus of employees who prefer to go elsewhere. I maintain that if the bonuses remained frozen and this particular compensation package were dropped, it would not have a negative impact on this group of managers. I think they would stay in the Public Service because of their commitment.
In concluding, I just want to stress that the purpose of this bill is to get rid of the bonuses. As I said in my press release, this bill proposes to treat all public servants the same by abolishing performance pay for senior management.
I suggest we get rid of these bonuses and give some consideration to performance across the board. If we cannot do that in a manner that is fair and equitable, I think we should get rid of bonuses all together.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to be only able to have one speaker because of the business of the House preceding the introduction of Bill C-339.
Bill C-339, which proposes to eliminate the payment of bonuses in the public sector of Canada, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the performance bonus system in place for senior public servants.
March 8, 1993

I mention again that in 1981 when the management category was created, it was then decided to allocate a portion of the senior level compensation package to annual re-eamable performance awards or lump sum payments rather than having these sums permanently built into the base salary. The Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service, a private sector group made up of senior executives from the Canadian business community which has been providing advice and recommendations to successive governments for the past 24 years, first recommended and still supports the performance bonus approach to pay.
The principle that a certain portion of the compensation package for executives should be put at risk, that is individual rewards determined on the basis of their contribution to the organization, is also widespread in the private sector.
Performance lump sum awards were introduced for public servants by reducing-and I say that again-by reducing by 15 per cent the salary range maxima to compensate for lump sum performance payments. Therefore, the replacement of the base salary adjustments with bonuses represents a cost saving because the lump sums are not compounded from one year to the next. Performance lump sums do not represent an extra payment but rather an alternative and a more cost-effective and efficient method of distributing the same compensation envelope.
I would like to point out that the elimination of the performance bonuses would mean moving to a system which provides permanent base salary adjustments equal for all, regardless of their level of performance or contribution to the organization. I can only say that it would not only be counterproductive but also unfair and most of all more costly.
I would like to add that the passage of this bill would be going against the current trend in the private sector as reported by the Conference Board of Canada and other consulting firms on the increasing portion of the compensation package that is variable or performance related.
Finally, the proposed act would have the effect of reducing the flexibility of the compensation system in favour of a rigid and more costly method of compensa-
Private Members' Business
tion simply in reaction to a lack of understanding of the objectives of the performance bonuses in the manner in which they are administered in the Public Service.
The government has a responsibility to ensure that the public servants' compensation is fair and equitable compared to the compensation paid in other sectors of the Canadian economy. While being attentive to the interests of the Canadian taxpayers, to date the advice of bodies such as the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service has been a determinant in establishing the current compensation system for executives which is recognized as one of the best systems by many other countries. I think we should continue to rely on those with the necessary expertise to make the compensation recommendations.
I conclude, therefore, by saying that I do not see any immediate or prospective gain that would be achieved by passing Bill C-339.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, while this bill seeks to correct the oversight found in Bill C-29 which dictated the wage freeze for most workers in the federal public sector and did not include bonuses which are paid to senior public servants and heads of Crown corporations, if one recalls, people on this side of the House opposed Bill C-29 and opposed the wage freeze of public sector workers, indicating that the proper place for this to take place is at the bargaining table.
On that same principle, the proper place for wages and compensation for senior Public Service workers is at the bargaining table. It may not be at the bargaining table with the union, but it is certainly at the bargaining table where salaries are established as is the proper place for salaries for heads of Crown corporations, if indeed Crown corporations are included in this bill, in a negotiation process, not in a bonus built in roll-on chunks of money.
The fact is that the average public sector worker who is under the Public Service Staff Relations Act earns around $30,000 with a wage freeze for the next two years. Then there is the fact that in 1991 over 4,750 managers whose salaries are way in excess of that, many of them in fact up in the six-figure salary range, were eligible for this performance pay bonus. That is the world's biggest boondoggle.

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
If in fact workers in the public sector, in this House, and others in Canada are receiving zero salary increases for, on the government's argument, good reasons in its view then why is this group of people, this strata of privileged people getting performance bonuses? We certainly are supporting that if no one gets a salary increase, these people do not get performance bonuses as well.
I think it is important for us to consider who is getting performance bonuses. If we are talking about the Crown corporations, which I hope are included in this bill, there is some question about whether we are going to have to amend when we go to committee stage to ensure they are included.
Let us look at this. The senior executives of CN, PetroCanada, and Canada Post, the top guys all earn $300,000 a year and they still get a performance bonus? That alone speaks volumes about where this government is going. Those who are privileged and special get a bonus; those who are the workers and the people who in fact produce the productivity in our public sector are the ones whose wages are frozen.
The place for salary increases is at the bargaining table, in the area where the union and free collective bargaining process should be taking over. Those who are the managers and the corporate elite should be doing it at their own bargaining table when they establish their salaries, not getting this backhanded bonus at the end of every year.


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.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-17, an act to amend the Copyright Act,
the Industrial Design Act, the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, the Patent Act, the Trade-Marks Act and other acts in consequence thereof, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 5, consideration of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to speak on Bill C-73 today. I really wish there were more positive things I could say about the bill and about Canada Post, because I know a lot of the employees of Canada Post. I meet them in my constituency and in Ottawa. They are fine people who are trying to provide an excellent service, but I regret that the environment and circumstances under which they are struggling to do their best are very difficult.
They are made difficult by the government and have been so since 1984, particularly 1986 when a corporate plan was announced essentially affecting rural Canada. More specifically 5,221 rural post offices were to be closed, privatized, amalgamated or whatever, laying off
10,000	people and affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadians in rural Canada.
It should be apparent to the government and to members who sit across the way who have to support this government initiative that in rural Canada it probably ranks with the goods and services tax and with the 38 tax measures in the last eight and one-half years of this government as being a very unpopular measure.
I know that running a country is not easy. They have to take some lumps for the unpopular decisions they have to make to achieve the leadership they have to show irrespective of party. The public outcry is so great that tens of thousands of petitions have been presented, crying out to be heard, crying out to reconsider the
March 8, 1993

decision to close rural post offices. It is incumbent on the government to pay attention or to heed the cry of those who see it as another blow essentially hurting or trying to dismantle those elements that hold rural Canada together.
This would be bad enough without the present circumstances of a recession and the difficulty that rural Canada is experiencing but there are other aspects that bother me. I am not going to dwell on the social aspect of a post office being the only real federal presence in small communities or on the aspect of Canada Post providing a service above and beyond Canada Post where seniors and people with various difficulties would inevitably get assistance from the affable postmaster or postmistress who always seemed to be present in post offices.
The policy of Canada Post in amalgamating post offices and closing down over 5,000 rural post offices is very much against two other policies. One is autonomous living for seniors, a policy of this government, and the other is affirmative action for women. There are some inconsistent policies.
The idea of autonomous living for seniors was that they would be able to live alone with minimum help. Normally seniors would go to post offices. The warmth and cheer of the post service would be topped up by seniors being able to get their mail from post offices. That does not happen now. Seniors quite often-and I have seen it happen-have to go to postal boxes. Particularly in the wintertime, this time of the year, it is almost impossible for them to get to their postal boxes either to get their cheques or mail from their loved ones, mail that is so important to them.
With respect to affirmative action for women the closing of the 5,221 post offices, with an average of two to three people and in some cases one person losing their jobs, would mean just over 10,000 jobs disappearing with this policy. It is significant that 83 per cent of the
10,000	jobs are held by women. I do not have to refer to the difficulty of women getting jobs. It is the subject of continuous debate and continuous media discussion, both printed and on the airwaves. For the government to pursue a policy and to insist on a policy that goes against
Government Orders
the employment of women, particularly in rural Canada, really bears another look.
I cannot help but say it is a source of personal sadness to me as I drive around the 250 rural communities I serve as a member of Parliament to notice the inevitable disappearance of post office buildings, in some cases very small, that used to have the Canadian flag flying over them.
When it comes to profit margins I may be told it is not a big concern, that they are in it to make money. Making money is one thing but the purpose of Canada Post as espoused by the Prime Minister in 1984 was to give service to Canadians. Closing post offices and replacing them with impersonal post boxes or retail post offices is not giving the best service possible to Canadians. It is denigrating the over-all effort of community living. After all, one of the purposes of a government is to provide leadership and encouragement for living in smaller communities at a time when jobs are scarce, almost non-existent, when the economy of the country is so bad and when the debt situation is nothing less than depressing.
This is a bill to privatize Canada Post. It does not address the service to Canadians about which I spoke in the last five minutes. It does not provide specifics of the share offering to employees. It does not place any value on the assets or on the shares. It does not, above anything else, protect the employees about whom I spoke in glowing terms at the outset of my presentation.
The bill is indicative of the things happening in Canada Post upper management. The president of Canada Post makes in excess of $280,000 to $300,000 a year and supports this kind of a policy.
What do I see in the media? I see things like, for example, what went wrong with Canada Post that it is not going to make the profit it said it would make? I see a really gruelling example that has been the subject of discussion in the House, a private company getting $700,000 to send mail abroad. Even government agencies are saying that it is cheaper and more efficient to use private companies than to use Canada Post. The signals from the government are not very good in support of all the things Canada Post is doing.
Two and a half weeks ago I had a meeting in Spaniard's Bay, a community just short of 3,000 people. They are very worked up and concerned that their post office is

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
going to close because, they have been told, the natural opportunity has come to replace the postmaster and postmistress. As I have said in the House, this happened in the Prime Minister's riding and on five occasions the post office was not closed.
As if to add insult to injury, it does not give the public much confidence. I do not like zeroing in on individual members, but one government member was so frustrated that he had to rise in the House of Commons and basically castigate his own government. I am talking about the member for South Shore who on February 19 made a statement about the latest business of having to pay 43 cents to relocate mail.
There are 400,000 Canadians who move every year. This means that service will not provided. It is incredible. In fact it is so frustrating that the member for South Shore said on February 19 that there were no limits to the ways Canada Post would go to infuriate the Canadian public, and the public is infuriated. He went on to say:
It is nonsense. It is an outrage with which Canadians will simply not put up, nor should they. This measure will not result in Canada Post getting its revenues in order. It will simply result in a lot of mail being thrown out that should be delivered.
This is a member of the government castigating his own government and the efforts of Canada Post.
In wrapping up I can only say that in viewing the mandate of Canada Post, in the words of the Prime Minister to provide a better and improved service to the public, it has not been met. It would appear that the government is taking every step it can to make sure this aim is not achieved.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak on report stage of Bill C-73, in essence a bill that would be a first step toward the privatization of Canada Post.
The people of Canada, especially the people of the regions of Canada, are very well aware of the effects of privatization when it comes to service whenever this government has privatized in any way, shape or form. I remind them of what happened to prices in the airline industry and to the fiasco we are in now after Air Canada was privatized. Do the people of my riding pay less for their fares? No, they do not. They pay a very high price for transportation because the private companies are busy trying to promote flights outside the country. As a
result it is cheaper to fly to Florida from Sudbury or to fly to Europe from Toronto than it is to fly from Sudbury to Toronto. I venture to say that privatization of Canada Post would lead in the very same direction.
The services of Canada Post have certainly deteriorated in past years. There is no doubt in my mind that the latest blow has been the advent of the twin boxes which are supposed to be more efficient. The people of Canada will know what twin boxes mean. If they have a piece of local mail they put it in one box and if they have a piece of mail to go anywhere outside the area they put it in another box.
All the mail for northeastern Ontario used to be sorted in Sudbury. Of course that is not done any more. Apparently it is far more efficient to take all mail and ship it to Ottawa so that it can be shipped back to all outlying areas and municipalities.
With the advent of these twin boxes we thought the local mail would be distributed in a more timely fashion. Let me recount some of the things that have happened since the advent of these twin boxes. It appears that any local mail deposited in the box on Friday afternoon, Friday evening or Saturday in essence is also shipped to Ottawa. If you think a letter posted in Sudbury on a Friday night or Saturday will get to its destination on Monday, that is local mail, think again. It is not likely to get there much before Wednesday or Thursday. I am told it is somewhat more efficient to ship all of that mail to Ottawa and have it sorted here because they have these brand spanking new machines that can sort mail very quickly. What they have forgotten is that you have to get it there and back. So the mail is just not getting where it is supposed to go the way it used to.
What has happened to service? We sure pay for it, but are we getting it? In another attempt to save money, a large number of postal boxes were eliminated because it was too costly to collect mail from all these boxes. In some instances, I am sure that it was. We have areas in our country where a high level of seniors live. They have very few ways of mailing and paying their bills. They now have far more difficulty getting to the postal boxes.
I have one instance where there are a number of high rise apartment buildings in a fairly small area together. The postal outlet has been moved. I have had petitions complaining of this, that now they have to walk down

March 8, 1993
quite a steep incline and back up again to mail their letters.
When you are young and healthy, it is easy to say you will just run down and throw the letter in the mailbox. Even though it is a hill you are in good shape and can do it easily. Let me say that when you are a senior living in northern Ontario in the wintertime and you have to walk down a steep incline, you are going to be very worried about falling. It is going to be far more difficult to post that letter.
The services have been changed. They are not accommodating and we wonder why they are having the problems they are having. I always thought that if you offered the best possible service, people would use what is there.
This government goes on about business. It says everything has to be run like a business. I say right now that businesses that do not provide customer satisfaction do not do well. They inevitably go out of business. If it is the idea of offering the best possible service to the consumers out there, Canada Post certainly is not in that kind of business.
I do not know who Canada Post has been trying to serve, but I can say we are not getting our mail like we used to. Away back when, we put a letter in the mailbox and it was a rule rather than an exception that we would get our mail delivered within 24 hours. Nowadays the only way we can have any form of guarantee is if we pay extra and get priority post.
That is one reason why people are relying less and less on the post office. It is less and less likely that their mail will get to its destination on time. Now Canada Post is going to have to compete with faxes, telephones and with a lot of private services which do a very good job, by the way, in making sure that mail gets there on time.
I want to remind Canada Post that it is there to serve the public. Yes, it is fine to try to break even. It is a good idea. However, if it discourages people from using its services, whatever services remain have to be more and more costly because it is the only possible way of recouping the dollars that it is spending.
I would suggest that Canada Post try to instil in its upper management the idea that it is really there to serve the people of Canada. It is there to guarantee that
Government Orders
those people who live in the regions that are very far away have access to the materials in a similar fashion to those who live in densely populated areas. That has been the essence of our country, to ensure that no matter where one lives, there will be at least a semblance of a similar service.
Canada Post somehow is forgetting that. It is forgetting that at the expense of the Canadian people and it is forgetting that at the expense of its own employees. The employees are being asked to do more and more with less and less and are having a hard time providing the kind of service they would like to provide.
Door to door mail delivery is not being expanded in any area of Canada, certainly not in my riding. You see these postal boxes more and more. People are being charged for postal boxes because Canada Post does not want to be in the business of postal boxes any more. Every time you turn around it is shedding another part of its responsibility.
It is absolutely essential that we stop worshipping money only because money does not know people. It is good to have a healthy bottom line. The only way to have a healthy bottom line is to serve the people that you are supposed to be serving. I suggest that Canada Post go back to the drawing-board. Yes, it can offer shares to its employees but make it that the shares which are being offered will give the employees a voice.
This proposal gives the employees no voice whatsoever in the ongoing workings of Canada Post. It is only when the employees have a say in what is happening in the services they are delivering that they can really improve. They have some real insight into what should be done and which way we should be going. They see what is happening every day in Canada Post. They see the number of problems. They live with them.
Do you not believe that if you are going to be a shareholder, you should have a voice or a vote in the matters which you are going to share in? This particular bill, although it will sell off perhaps 10 per cent of its shares, will not give the employees any say in the direction of Canada Post. That is a great shame.
I ask that we not pass this bill, that we send it back and ask Canada Post to consult with its employees, to come

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
up with the best possible package to serve the people of Canada because that is what it is in the business of doing.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome joining in the debate on this important bill which is changing Canada Post once again.
One of the most frustrating things I have experienced as a member since I have been elected is dealing with Canada Post. Coming from Saskatchewan and having a riding that is largely rural, there have been a number of rural post office closings in my riding as there have been right across the country.
What is most frustrating is that Canada Post will come into a community and advise the people that they are losing their post office. It holds a public meeting and tells people it is there to improve the services of Canada Post. It is going to give better service. People respond that they already have good service and like the present service. However Canada Post says it has to make some changes because it is costing too much money.
If Canada Post would be honest and open with rural Canadians I could understand it. If it would come into a community and tell people it was costing x thousands of dollars to run the post office and it is only bringing in x thousands of dollars in revenue, they could try and work something out so that they could keep their service and the post office could have a better bottom line.
I do not have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the fact that Canada Post comes in and dictates what is going to happen. It simply closes post offices with no real consultation. For a long time I wondered what Canada Post was doing. It is clear that what it wants to do is privatize this corporation.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is right.


Rodney Edward Laporte: The hon. member across the way says that is right. The problem is this. Canadian Post should come into a community and tell them it wants to provide good service and that the community should work with it. For example, there is a community in my riding that offered to buy the building for Canada Post. They wanted to give Canada Post a free building and save it money.
In places like Briercrest, where people like Bub Hill were working for the community they said: "Give us shorter hours. Give us fewer days. We would be happy with that".
Another community offered to let one of the town employees work part-time at the post office. Canada Post refused all those offers. It would not work with the community. It simply said that the community would be getting better service and it was closing the post office.
That only makes sense from the point of view of shutting rural post offices down. If this government had the interests of rural Canadians in mind, it would have a different approach to the rural post offices.
Some of these rural communities are struggling to survive. When the post office goes, it is their last contact with the federal government. Every post office in this country cannot remain. Things change. If there was only a more reasoned approach to how Canada Post buildings and rural Canada Post offices were operated, then we could deal with that.
This bill is simply an extension of the unwritten government policy. I note that last May the minister for Canada Post stated that immediate privatization was not in the cards. He made a comment: "If I had to bet, I would bet that in the next couple of decades you will see post offices being privatized all over the world. I would not mind seeing Canada first". Pure and simple, this is one more move down that slippery slope to privatization.
If the government would work with the union instead of ignoring it, we would have better labour-management relations. This idea of trying to placate the union by offering it 10 per cent of the shares without any real consultation with it is ridiculous. It should start dealing with some of the over 100,000 grievances that exist with Canada Post. That is almost two grievances per person. These things have been backlogged for years. There is some frustration that the Canada Post employees are feeling. This is an area where the government could start dealing with problems at Canada Post. It should not unilaterally come in with a bill saying: "Eureka, we have the answer," telling the union, Canada Post and Canadians what is good for them. That is the same attitude it had in closing rural post offices.
March 8, 1993

I have had people contact me when they were trying to save their post offices. Canada Post told them they could call their MP but it would not do any good because it was going to do what it wanted anyway. That is a really nice arrogant attitude to have. It reflects the arrogant attitude of this government.
When there have been two majority governments for eight or nine years, there is a tendency to become pretty cold, pretty callous and pretty arrogant. Canada Post is reflecting that. That type of attitude is certainly not going to endear Canada Post or the government to rural Canadians.
We are saying on this side of the House that Canada Post should be reasonable. Let us work together to provide Canadians with a good postal service. Let us be honest with Canadians. If the government wants to privatize Canada Post, why does it not have the guts to come out and say what it is doing instead of hiding behind these veils of deceit?
It is the same as the Prime Minister in 1985 making the comment that some people wanted to buy the CBC but it was not for sale. Neither was Air Canada for sale. These are famous last words. Since this government has been in power, it has been saying one thing and turning around and doing exactly the opposite. It has a privatization mentality without any regard for the consequences of its actions.
If Canada Post took the objective that what we want to do in this country is provide Canadians with good postal service, then we have some place from which to work. Instead what it is saying is: "We want to privatize Canada Post. We have to do this one step at a time so that we can hoodwink Canadians into believing that it is not going to be privatized".
Mark this member's words: If this government, this party ever forms the next government Canada Post will be privatized before the end of that term. I just thank the heaven above that we have an election coming up in the next few months and that the government is not going to have enough time to privatize this corporation. Rural Canadians certainly are remembering the callous attitude this government has had toward them.
Government Orders
I would like to comment on and underline the frustration that I have felt. I have never been so frustrated in dealing with any aspect of the government or Crown corporations as I have been with Canada Post. Employees of Canada Post, people in management, have told me and others: "You can do what you want and you can say what you want, but we are going ahead with our agenda regardless". I find that disgusting. I find it underhanded. I find it deceitful. If this government wanted to endear itself to the people it should take a little different attitude. It should tiy to understand what rural Canadians want and what Canadians want in a postal service.
In the city of Moose Jaw we were told by people like Dave Byas, who is one of the PR boys for Canada Post, that Moose Jaw would not be touched. He said there were no plans for Moose Jaw. The fact is that the wicket service at Canada Post in Moose Jaw is going to be closed. It will be re-establishing all the post offices in Moose Jaw and will have four retail postal outlets.
We found that out through someone in Canada Post speaking out of turn. Then we phoned people in Regina, the people who are supposed to know, the public relations people, and they said there were no plans to close Canada Post, there were no plans to change Moose Jaw. That is a lie by those Canada Post employees. That indicates that Canada Post employees are deceitful. That is the kind of attitude that is hurting Canada Post and hurting the reputation of this government.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to speak at the report stage of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. Perhaps it would be useful to provide some background on the Canada Post Corporation, with emphasis on the 10 years since 1982, when it was created to replace the post office department.
The purpose of creating this Crown corporation was to avoid the problems there had been in the past under the post office department. At the time, the objective was to provide better service, improve labour relations and balance the books. I must say that before the Conservatives came to power, Canada Post Corporation had been well on its way to reaching the objectives set by Parliament in 1982. However, that was not to be. I see I have just roused a few Tories. Maybe they should sit up and

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
listen. They might understand a little of what has been going on in an area I happen to know very well.
So what did happen in 1985? First of all, in 1982 the Department of Finance had set a timeframe for balancing the books which would extend over a number of years. As I said before, the corporation was well on its way to reaching that objective. However, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget in February 1985, he decided that appropriations would be cut and they would have to balance the books starting that year. A few months later, the government introduced Canada Post's corporate plan, which, as you know, caused a regular revolt across the country, with the so-called supermailboxes people could not open because they were frozen shut, and they are still a big problem today. We remember the indignation of rural Canada, still very much alive today, because the government decided to close thousands of post offices in small towns and villages. These offices were the only federal presence, the only place one could see the Canadian flag.
I will not go into all the details because it would take hours, but as far as this bill is concerned-and that is why I have trouble supporting the bill and in fact, I am against it-what is the government doing about the situation? It is doing a little PR. The corporate plan was imposed by the government on Canada Post, and members of the board of directors who did not agree were obliged to resign.
We know what happened. We had two strikes during the last two terms of this government. Every time contracts had to be renegotiated, there was a strike that cost the country millions of dollars, with violence and the rest. Then in 1992 the minister responsible for Canada Post introduced a bill to say it would try and do some PR. Canada Post would offer 10 per cent of its shares to its employees. The catch is, they would buy those 10 per cent, but nobody knows how much it would cost or what they were worth.
The funny thing is, this government claims it is going to run the show and know how to run a business. As I see it, when you are in business and you decide to sell shares and put them on the market, you need a plan, and you have to know how much it costs. In this case, we have nothing. But the worst thing is that they are practically
insulting employees by saying: "You can buy 10 per cent, but you will not have a say in how things are done. You will not have any voting rights".
A shareholder buys shares in a company, whether or not it is a Crown corporation, and has no say in how the company is run. I do not think we can tolerate that today, in 1993. Whenever we ask the government about this, it keeps saying there is a corporation and we should let the corporation decide how Canada Post should be run.
However, in 1985 the government imposed a corporate plan. And all the problems we have seen since then were caused by this plan, which changed the original mandate given by the legislator, by this House, in 1982 when Canada Post Corporation was created. As I said before, at the time this was done to improve services and labour relations and to balance the books. But in 1985, it said: "Forget labour relations, forget services to the consumer and balance your books starting now, because we are not going to give you one more cent". In the process it destroyed something that represented and united us across this country.
Sure, according to the hon. member from Mississauga, the real reason is that it wants to privatize. Sure, sure, but listen. Are we going to privatize the House of Commons? There are some things that cannot be privatized. And our postal service is one of those things, especially in a country like Canada.

I am not joking. Imagine if we privatized Canada Post. In Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver a private enterprise can run the post office and make a profit. But what happens in the small towns and what happens in the north? It is the philosophy of this government that the country is just Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and these days even Montreal is being shut out.
We have to stop this mentality and put people first, put service first. That is what we are here for. We have to provide the service and make sure that we can afford it. However we cannot just say that is the priority, because that is what this government did in 1985. The Minister of Finance presented the budget and said from now on, with the next fiscal year starting April 1, the government would not continue with a deficit and the books would be balanced.
March 8, 1993

In 1982 the postal corporation was given a very clear mandate to give better service, have better labour relations and balance the books in a due and gradual period so that the corporation could organize and reach its objective. Instead, what have we had as a result of that business plan of 1985? We have had two violent strikes that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. We had to pay through postal stamp increases.
There is no more because of that business plan. Any members of the board of directors of Canada Post Corporation who refused to go along with the government were forced to resign. Therefore the government did what it wanted to do and forgot the original mandate of that corporation. Today, with this bill it is a joke because it wants to recreate the good labour relations that it had in 1982 and which stopped in 1985. Now it wants to give the employees the chance to own part of the corporation. They do not know what they are buying and they have no vote, so this is a joke and an insult.

So far, I was discussing the problems at Canada Post and relations between the corporation and the government, but I want to take this last minute to give another example from my riding.
In Saint-Leonard, there is only one post office, which may soon be closed and just look at the way these things are done. Canada Post did not ask the neighbourhoods around the post office what the town of Saint-Leonard thought about it. So what is it doing? It is looking around for a comer store that can buy the equipment needed to operate a post office. This means there will be no more counter service on Jean Talon Street. Of course there will be fewer problems with the union, because a number of employees will no longer be there.
Did it consider the service aspect? Will people get better service? There you have the whole philosophy of the Canada Post Corporation, reflected in the corporate plan imposed by this government in 1985: Listen, we have to make a profit and the rest does not matter.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, you have no doubt heard people say, "There is nothing there". Well, that is a good way to describe Bill C-73:
Government Orders
There is nothing there. There is nothing in it for workers and nothing in it for the people.

This is, no doubt, the first step toward privatization. I think we all acknowledge that. We recognize that the workers can buy up to 10 per cent of the shares, but there are no prices, there is no precision, and there are no voting or decision-making powers incorporated within that 10 per cent. That is, if they decide to proceed. That is really very unfortunate. This is a first step.

I am convinced that it is the first step to privatization. My colleagues in all parties indicate that they agree with me. I believe that is unfortunate, because the government has a wonderful opportunity to address a basic issue, namely the services which Canada Post provides to Canadians.

This was a wonderful opportunity. It could have looked at what Canadians are saying and it could have addressed those concerns. Then perhaps it would have been a laudable, appropriate and meaningful bill. I see it as a first step toward privatization. One could read into that perhaps some potential positive elements, but the way it is now written it is vague, imprecise and does not give any sense of what is going to be accomplished and what a golden and wonderful opportunity lost. It could have addressed the whole question of service.
I want to dwell a moment or so upon the question of service. This is a terribly arrogant corporation. As a member of Parliament, I asked a very simple question: Tell me which facilities in my constituency have been affected by your decision. First it resisted. Second, when I persisted, it gave me a list of all those that were still in operation with the services being offered. I guess the official languages are not understood very well. I asked very clearly about which facilities had been affected. I would like to know so I can in fact study this with my constituents, but the choice was not to tell me.
I am hoping, as I know you probably are deep down, Mr. Speaker, that there is a Liberal government, because the first call I will be making will be to the Canada Post

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
Corporation to get a complete list of all facilities that were affected.
Let me just share with the House some of the facilities that in fact have no service or fewer services than they did in the past: Marion Pharmacy, Metro Drugs on Autumnwood Drive in my constituency, McCullough Drugs, Thche Pharmacy, and one that has taken on some significant interest of late, the community of St. Germain.
Recently I sent out a survey in which I asked people: Would you list for me the concerns that you have and tell me what is bothering you. They had lost their post office. It had been changed to an alternative service. They said that there was an inconsistency in service. Sometimes it is good service. Sometimes it is lamentable. They could not count on it.
There are people, for example, who will go to St. Vital, just a short distance away, because if they send a letter from St. Germain they tell me it could take a week. If they send it from St. Vital it will perhaps go at the speed it should and will arrive on time. They point out they are designated as a rural area. That decision is an arbitrary one because they are in fact a small community. By virtue of their being labelled as such they do not get the same kind of consideration as do adjoining urban communities.
The fact that they are called rural as opposed to urban works in their disfavour. They also point out that with the current facilities available there are flyers lying all over the place. It is polluting the environment. It is making their community not at all as attractive as it might have been. They point out that they are receiving flyers late. They get a flyer for a sale, look at the date and realize that the sale is over. That is really quite inefficient. I am sure that you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker.
They also point out that their supermailboxes are close to a highway where the traffic is very rapid and where it is a real safety concern, particularly when there are children involved. They are complaining and their complaints are legitimate. We need to address these concerns, the pollution of the environment, the safety factors, and the fact that it is not nearly as efficient as it was.
What is Canada Post doing about situations such as the ones I have mentioned?

And those are not the only concerns which my constituents shared with me. They often mentioned services in French. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that issue is very dear to me. Because of these cuts and reductions and decisions by Canada Post, there is less service in French for the French-speaking people in my riding, and I find that deplorable.
I have here a letter dated February 14 from a constituent in which he says how much difficulty this causes him. Before, he could go to a post office located nearby and receive services in French. Now, he must go a very long way to receive the same services or else accept services in the other official language. I find that completely unfair. The government had an excellent opportunity to remedy all those problems. But what did it do instead?

The government came forward with a bill that attempts to suggest that employees are going to be better off. If we look at the press releases from the unions and the workers, we find they do not think they are going to be better off. They think this is a smoke-screen for what the government eventually intends to do, that is to privatize the post office. They see no benefits whatsoever for the workers.
I have to agree with them. Perhaps the intent was noble. I do not know that, but the precisions are not there. What is the worth of the shares? Where are the details? If you and I, Mr. Speaker, were to buy shares, we would like to have a few details and so would they. Here is another opportunity for the government that has been blown again.
At the same time as it introduced this scheme it could have asked: Why do we not look at some of the concerns of Canadian citizens with respect to mail service? Why do we not look at the whole notion of supermailboxes? Why do we not look at the concerns they have for reductions in services, sometimes in both official languages? Why do we not look at the concerns of inefficiency and efficiency? Why do we not look at the concerns of costs? Why do we not address the concerns of Canadians with respect to postal services? It had that opportunity and unfortunately probably suggested that it should not be followed up.

I am coming close to the end of my remarks. I want to finish by simply indicating that it is quite unfortunate the government did not attempt to address the question of service as opposed to the question of potential profit. It is important to have profits when they can be achieved, but at what price? Surely people must come first. Surely receiving communications in the kind of country we are in and in the kind of world we are in has to be a first priority.

I close by saying again to emphasize it that it is unfortunate, because the government could have used this bill not only to do what it decided to do but also to address the question of services, to ensure that all the problems which are regularly reported to all hon. members across Canada about Canada Post's services would be addressed. But it preferred to do something that will not change that at all. As I said at the beginning, there is nothing there for the employees and the government has in no way addressed the issue of services. That is too bad.
The government has again lost a chance to restore some credibility and to try to address Canadians' real problems. Unfortunately, the government has failed to do so.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a few things to say about Bill C-73 which proposes certain amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act.
It is well known to the House and maybe to those who are watching today that the bill would make a few cosmetic changes. There is nothing to get terribly excited about, except to the degree that it sends a larger signal. The signal we have been getting from the government for some time is that it is the government's full intention to privatize Canada Post.
In that context these amendments are another nail in the coffin of service to people, particularly those in rural Canada, people who live in small communities, have grown up with the post office outlet and have come to see it as a part of the service and as a meeting place.
Government Orders
There are few meeting places left in rural communities. Very often the school is gone because the students are being bused down the highway to a larger community. Very often the church has been consolidated with a congregation in another community. It is the same with the parish and community halls; they do not exist in every community to the degree they did years ago. Very often the only meeting place left is the post office. Indeed in many of those communities the local shop does not exist any more. With the change in shopping and buying patterns we find that many smaller communities no longer have anything more than a comer store or a candy store if that.
The role of the post office as a meeting place should not be underestimated. As a place of service, as a place to buy stamps, to receive mail, to send mail, to pay bills, to pay mortgages on houses and to make payments on boats and cars, it plays a disproportionately crucial role in small communities. I would have thought, whatever the over-all objective of government in terms of having Canada Post pay its way and so on, there would have been a particular strategy for the small community. That has not been the case.
As with just about everything of a policy nature in this government we see the same credo. If it works in Toronto it must be marvellous for Tompkins in my riding. If it works in a large urban centre the government rushes out to make it apply, to make it work, in the less populated parts of the country.
That effort, that stubborn strategy of applying urban solutions to rural situations, is causing a lot of pain. Whether it is the issue we speak about today, the post office, whether it is in decreased health care opportunities for people in rural areas, whether it is less convenient transportation availability, or whether it is the increased difficulty to access student loans to further education after secondary school, in all those areas the government's hand is seen making life more difficult for people in rural Canada.
Yes, we in this party are opposed to the privatization of Canada Post. We have said that many times. We are also opposed to this particular bill. As I said, as I implied a moment ago, this bill is the latest step in aiding and

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
abetting the process, the over-all agenda of this government with respect to Canada Post.
What is in the bill? There is talk about some shares to be offered to employees, but we have heard from the employees on that and they are not terribly excited because they would be non-voting shares. The employees would still have no real say, no input in the operations of Canada Post. There has been no effective communication with employees of Canada Post to get their support for this proposal. That is why we have the statement to which my colleague from St. Boniface made reference a moment ago, the statement in which the head of the Canada Post union does not have very kind things to say about this bill or about the government's effort.
In my own riding of Burin-St. George's with 158 communities, the largest of those communities is about
8,000	in population. Many are much smaller. For example, there had been a post office in the community of Cartyville for many years. With the resignation of the postmaster the government moved to a rural franchise and postal boxes.
In the community of Cape Ray in my district, with the death of the postmistress who was a relative of mine, a cousin of my family, with the passing of that dear lady the government moved in again. Canada Post moved in and replaced a long existing post office with a rural franchise and postal boxes.
The same was done in St. Fintan's on the death of the postmaster. When the postmaster retired in Cape St. George the same thing was done. When the postmaster retired in Creston Canada Post moved in with a rural franchise and postal boxes. The list goes on. With a resignation in Burin Bay Arm the same thing happened. When the postmaster in Burnt Islands was promoted the same thing happened. In North Harbour with a retirement the same thing happened: a rural franchise and postal boxes.
In fairness, there have been two or three exceptions. I want to be candid and fair on that point. In Garnish when there was a retirement the position was staffed, as was the case in Rushoon and a couple of other places.
I see my time has nearly run out so I will not dwell on the details. Suffice it to say that in a couple of dozen communities in my riding in the last three or four years
post offices which had been playing very vital and worth-while roles in those communities have been wiped off the map. Instead, in some cases we now have the government providing just rural mailboxes.
At this time of year, in the dead of winter, with the kind of weather we get in Ottawa-it is not quite so bad in Newfoundland but we see some snow there too-or in Newfoundland, if people are going to approach one of those mailboxes they had better have their key in one hand and a blowtorch in the other, because the chances of getting their mail out of the mailbox on many days is very slim.
This bill is just the latest sleight of hand by a government that is very practised at sleight of hand. I wish it would leave rural people alone for a change and give them a break instead of socking it to them one more time, as it is doing in this bill.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the motions of my colleague, the member for Churchill, who basically wants to gut this bill.
The opposition to this bill is well thought out. It is based on an examination of the history of this government and its relationship to Canada Post. It is a history of saying one thing and doing the other, whether it is in Canada Post, Air Canada or the CBC. On one day the government says that it will not privatize Air Canada, it will not sell Air Canada. Then, lo and behold, it goes right ahead and sells it lock, stock and barrel. The people of Canada no longer have a single share in Air Canada today. It started out by a partial sale, albeit 50 per cent as opposed to the 10 per cent proposed in this bill. This is a first step toward full privatization.
I want to examine the rationale as to why the government is suggesting that giving the employees the opportunity to buy 10 per cent of the Crown corporation they work for will lead to better labour-management relations.
One way not to lead to that is by asking employees to give up part of their earnings and give them back to the company so at some point down the road they may or may not get some kind of return on their investment.
If Canada Post was serious about better labour-management relations it could start by dealing in a fair way with the 100,000 grievances that are already in process. There are 100,000 workers who have felt that the
March 8, 1993

corporation violated the collective bargaining rules, the rules of the contract, which were agreed to by both sides.
We know that just because somebody files a grievance does not necessarily mean that they are correct in suggesting that the company has violated a particular clause. However in that same contract is a process for dealing with those grievances. When there are 100,000 grievances outstanding there is a really big problem.
If we look at some of the patterns within Canada Post from coast to coast to coast in terms of the areas where there may be more militancy or higher absenteeism we really must look beyond the specific grievances and find out what the management attitude is, whether it is an attitude handed down from head office or the attitude of the supervisory staff at a particular location, to find out where the problems really are. That is what we have to do if we really want to be serious about addressing the whole question of labour-management peace.
We also have to ask ourselves whether Canada Post's drive to do much better on its bottom line, to show a profit, has not in part been designed to bring about a forced reduction in the level of service even more than we have already seen.
In suburban Canada people who moved across a line, across the street, went from having door-to-door service to group mailboxes. In the rural area there is now a preponderance of green mailboxes as opposed to drive-way-to-driveway delivery, which not too many years ago we could count on as rural residents.
Take a look at our urban post offices. If we go there between 4 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. what do we see? We see long lines, primarily business people, but also people who have just left work and want to do their postal business before the close of the post office that day. What has Canada Post done? It has minimized the number of staff who are there to serve the customers. One or two counter clerks are available at a time when there are 20, 30 or 40 people standing in line trying to do business.
That is done on purpose. That is part of Canada Post's way of forcing a downsizing of the existing corporation, of making it more palatable for post office services to be handled at Safeway, the comer store, or wherever
Government Orders
because people are fed up with the line-ups and the long wait. If people are in business, whether they are the gofer whose job it is to take the mail out and process it at the post office or the owner of that business, they do not have time to waste standing in line at the post office. It has a major negative impact on commerce in this country.
Canada Post is now operating under a really neat logic. Instead of having the mail sorted in the community it is destined for-if I dropped a piece of mail in the mail box outside my office in Thunder Bay it would not be processed locally. It would be shipped off to Winnipeg to be sorted and brought back to Thunder Bay. Does that make sense? Is that a good use of human resources? Is it a good use of transportation resources? I think not. What it does is add to the length of time it takes a letter to go across the street.
There was a time when we used to have mail sorting cars on our passenger rail trains. A letter mailed in Thunder Bay on Monday afternoon that was addressed to Ottawa was delivered there the next morning by train. We have gone backward in a lot of things we have done at Canada Post.
In addition to giving the employees this golden opportunity to divert their hard-earned money back into the company they have been fighting with for decades, this bill does not do anything for service. It does not improve service at the post office, does not improve rural service, does not restore Saturday service or Saturday delivery, and does not restore sorting in the communities in which the mail is collected. It does nothing to improve Canada Post services.
The government always talks about wasting House time. It rails at us because we want to debate items and we want to debate them for more than four or five hours. The government could have saved a lot of time for a lot of people, and a lot of aggravation, by not having brought this bill forward.
Which employees are going to buy these shares? Is it going to be the single mom who is a counter clerk and is earning just enough to get by on? I admit that Canada Post because of the collective agreement pays a decent income to its workers. But in today's society even a decent income as we used to define it is not enough. Is

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
that single mom going to divert part of her hard-earned income back to the company? I think not.
Maybe the president of Canada Post might get a few shares. When Air Canada was privatized it was a real boondoggle in terms of the chief executive officers of that company getting access at a really low rate to great amounts of shares. Maybe that is what is going to happen here.


Mr. Manley:: They lost their shirts.


Iain Francis Angus: As my colleague the Liberal transport critic says, they lost their shirts. We will not get into that today, but I agree with him.
It will be those people in the management at Canada Post who will get their piece of the pie. They are positioned so they can squeeze that much more out of the workers and reduce the amount of staff at the counters even more. It will look good on the bottom line but does not do anything for services to people or to Canada.
I have a final point. Canada Post, which provides the ability to move a piece of paper across the street or across the nation, is as important for keeping this country together as the passenger rail service is, as the airline service is, as the highway system is and as the Constitution is. As Canada Post goes, so goes this country.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way from Mississauga South seems to be surprised that I would speak on this bill.
He is probably thinking, knowing me as he does, that I might favour employee participation in an enterprise as a means of encouraging productivity and encouraging employees to identify with their organization and feel they have a part ownership in it.
If that were the result of this legislation I might share that opinion. However, when I look at what Canada Post is creating here the best that I can say about it is that it is very disappointing.
Employee participation in ownership in business enterprises is becoming an important factor in the capitalization of many Canadian businesses. Very recently, there was the involvement of the employees council at Canadian Airlines. It was an attempt to save the employees' own company through their participation by forgoing salary and acquiring shares in their company.
They did it as a part of a co-operative effort that included the participation of government and outside investors. It can make sense. It does increase the identification that employees have with their employer when they are also shareholders. However, there are some requirements for that to work. I do not think that those requirements are met in this case.
The bill does not give us very much information about what the government is ultimately going to propose when it actually comes to the point of issuing shares. All we know for sure is that the government does not propose to allow employees to own voting shares. We know they will be entitled to acquire up to 10 per cent of the shares. The other 90 per cent will be held by the government. We know they will not have voting rights.
We do not know what other rights they will have. We do not know whether they will be receiving dividends on a formula basis or whether they will be participating equally with the government as the major shareholder.
I would like to suggest that for this plan to have any validity whatsoever there are a number of criteria that should be satisfied.
First of all, I believe the shares which are issued to employees should be full participating shares. Employees should participate with the majority shareholders equally when dividends are paid out. We know that in recent years there have been years in which Canada Post has paid a large dividend to the Government of Canada. If you want the employees to own shares they ought to participate pro rata on the receipt of those dividends.
Second, employees should be entitled to vote. They should have full voting rights. This brings with it certain other characteristics that are important. If they have voting rights, then management will be required to account to the shareholders for their management of the corporation, which is as it should be. These people are being asked to put money at risk. The accountability function should be there. They are going to be a very small minority in a company dominated by the 90 per cent shareholder. They should have, as a right, minority representation on the board of directors of Canada Post
March 8, 1993

Corporation. They should be entitled to elect, as a class, a director or directors to represent their interests on the board of directors.
They should have a market for their shares. We have no idea what the government may have in mind with respect to this. Since the bill does specify that the shares can only be held by employees of the corporation, the government needs to create in that context a market so that people can dispose of their shares if they need the money. They should be able to know how much they can get for their shares or at least how that price is going to be calculated.
These minority shareholders should have the right possibly to have their director approve certain types of decisions. Finally, if this kind of system is going to work, as a minimum it absolutely requires the support and the participation of the union representatives of the employees.
I will go back to the example of Canadian Airlines where the employee share purchase arrangement is contributing a great deal to the equity of that corporation. Each of the unions at Canadian Airlines has agreed and is participating fully in a co-operative way with that initiative by the employees' council.
It seems to me that to start this share scheme without the co-operation of the unions at Canada Post dooms it to failure. Instead of creating a situation of greater co-operation, of greater mutual understanding, it creates the potential for different kinds of divisions. If this is the path that the government chooses to go, then the warning from my colleague from Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan a moment ago may be correct, that in fact this is a kind of executive compensation scheme. It is not any kind of employee participation plan whatsoever.
For that reason, there should also be a limit on the number of and percentage of these shares which can be taken up by senior executive officers of Canada Post Corporation. If they are not there for the rank and file employee and if those people are not taking up the shares voluntarily in a situation in which they feel that their rights are protected, this scheme is not likely to work.
Even if you take the position that these shares should be made available to employees of Canada Post, the scheme the government has put forward is filled with points that are uncertain and not clear. I cannot see
Government Orders
where they intend to end up. I suggest that this is not going to improve employee relations at Canada Post Corporation.
While I am on my feet, I have to say that in many ways, dealing with issues related to Canada Post have been among the most difficult I have confronted over the last four years. Canada Post Corporation has pursued the mandate that it operate profitably without sufficient regard for its mandate of public service. If in fact some others have said that this plan is really a plan to move Canada Post Corporation toward the day when it is privately owned, then I fear for the ideals of service to the public which seem to me to be fundamental and of primary importance to the mandate of Canada Post Corporation.
All of us have experienced the closing of retail postal outlets in our constituencies. Very frequently well-mannered and well-meaning people from Canada Post Corporation come to try and relay the news to members of Parliament and other people in the community. However, the decision makers hide behind walls, never coming into the community to understand the impact of what they are doing firsthand. I suspect there is a group of MBAs somewhere in the Canada Post Corporation who never go out into the communities. They look at maps and draw circles on them based on where population centres are and say: "Let us put a postal outlet here and let us close that one".
There is a seniors building in my constituency where the postal outlet beside the building was closed. They were forced to go to a new one over two miles away and across two bridges. That is an example of that failure to give consideration to the make-up of the local community-
There is the recent closing of public access to Station T in Ottawa. Members may know it has long been the main postal terminal in Ottawa. It has been a focal point for individual service as well as commercial service for many years. Access to transportation, parking and everything that has been there is suddenly closed and restricted to commercial users only without consultation with the community. I admit there was an effort to communicate to the community the fact that the decision had been made but the decision makers were never taken out from behind the thick walls and put out in the community to

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
discuss with the people, the customers, how they would be affected by the decisions that were being taken.
It is this kind of attitude that causes so much frustration on the part of Canadians. After all, and I think quite rightly so, when they buy a postage stamp they feel that they are paying a tax and that they are entitled to a level of service that reflects the fact that the post office exists not for the good of the management, not for the good of the executives, but for the good of Canadians for whom that it is intended to serve.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues in the opposition, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-73. At the outset, let us put things in their proper place. The purpose of Bill C-73 is not to privatize Canada Post. This bill does not privatize Canada Post. It seeks to encourage employees to share in the profits of that corporation. Nevertheless, it is surprising to hear the opposition again trying to make the Canadian public believe, through disinformation, that we are privatizing Canada Post. If we were going to privatize Canada Post and if it could be privatized at this time, that would mean Canada Post is profitable in a way that shares could be sold and give a favourable rate of return.
What can the opposition have against this bill? What can the opposition have against the government presenting a bill that finally makes it possible for employees to buy shares in the company and share in its profits? What can the opposition have against something that the labour movement has been promoting for 20 or 30 years? For 20 or 30 years unions have been demanding that employees be considered an integral part of the company and share in its profits. We have been hearing that for 20 or 30 years and now that we are doing it, the opposition, in its traditional role of opposing everything, says that it is against this bill and accuses the government of wanting to use it as a way to privatize Canada Post. That is disinformation.
However, we must clearly understand the philosophy of our friends opposite and of our union leaders. Let me quote you a clause, B-6, from the national by-laws and
policies adopted at the national convention in 1990. Clause B-6 says: "In line with opposition to industrial democracy, the union condemns any and all attempts by labour bodies to establish a partnership between labour and government or between labour, government and employers. Within the trade union movement, the union wants to promote and strengthen a militant and combative front with which to oppose any form of collaboration with management and government serving management's interests".
A little further, in Clause B-7 of the same document, we read: "-update a militant program of action for the labour movement geared to building the fighting strengths of the labour movement against the employer and government".
When such clauses exist in the national by-laws of unions representing the employees of Canada Post, we should really not be surprised that union leaders systematically oppose a bill whose sole purpose, I repeat, is to enable Canada Post employees to buy shares and share in the profits of the corporation.
The fundamental role of union leaders is to serve their members well. When we ask union leaders whether they will recommend that their members use this new plan, which is good for them because with it they can share in the company's profits and thus make more money, they answer that they will not recommend it because they would be co-operating with the employer and the government. The national by-laws of these unions forbid doing so. They have even set up a program showing union members never to co-operate with the employer. Then people tell us about the state of labour relations between the management of Canada Post and the union.
There are several examples of industrial democracy in Quebec, with Cascades Paper and other companies that have set up plans whereby employees share in their profits. Of course if you work for a company and are convinced that by working very hard with the other employees and helping the company make more money you will add to your income, in addition to your hourly or weekly wages, that is very motivating for the employees.
I am very sorry that the opposition, again, and the unions through their leaders oppose a measure that leaves it
March 8, 1993

completely up to Canada Post employees whether they join this plan or not.
We know what Canada Post represents for the Liberal Party. For years when the Liberals were in power, Canada Post was one of the things which helped build up the national debt and deficit that they left us.
Canada Post, this great symbol of Canadian unity. The opposition uses Canadian symbols and national unity to justify almost anything, especially spending or managing with no consideration for those who pay, namely Canadian taxpayers. For years under the Liberals, we saw Canada Post management run up huge deficits which contributed to our national debt.
We must remember how the opposition, the Liberal Party, ran Canada Post. For them, it was a wonderful opportunity for patronage. At that time, Liberal members of Parliament could give people jobs in Canada Post. We know how the Liberals really see Canada Post. What is Canada Post? It is a mail delivery service for all Canadians. The basic purpose of such a service is to be able to deliver Canadian mail safely, efficiently and at a reasonable cost throughout the country.
In the latest opinion surveys conducted a few months ago on Canadians' satisfaction with Canada Post's service, more than 90 per cent of the users of Canada Post said that they were satisfied with the management and the service provided. It was not the members opposite, who systematically oppose all bills, who spoke in that survey or study but rather the Canadian people. Canadians are not asking for a post office in every municipality in Canada. They are just asking us to set up a system to deliver the mail safely and efficiently, at the lowest possible cost. This is what the management of Canada Post is trying to do. To reach this goal, it is quite essential to have in place measures for a better partnership between the management of Canada Post and its employees.
Since Canada Post was given the mandate to be profitable and well run, it has even found a way to turn a profit in recent years. I think that we must be for this bill because, despite what the opposition still says, it will not privatize Canada Post. I repeat, it will only give Canada Post employees an opportunity to increase their income
Government Orders
by sharing more in the corporation's profits. I think that the opposition cannot help but be for the good of Canada Post employees and Canadian workers.
This is a good bill and I sincerely recommend that all members of this House support it for the good of the workers at Canada Post, as well as for all Canadians. Let us not forget that good labour relations and good service can only benefit all Canadians.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-73. I do not think this bill is being presented in the proper light. I think what we really have here is privatization of Canada Post. I do not see how it can possibly be looked at any other way. It is a privatization, with the government owning 90 per cent of the shares and the employees owning 10 per cent of the shares.
It is really just the first step by a government that does not have the courage to say what it is doing. It says it is a restructuring of Canada Post and it is merely giving the employees some equity in the corporation. That is not the case. It is a Crown corporation now. It will not be essentially a Crown corporation in the normal sense after this bill goes through, if it does go through.
I want to draw the attention of the House to section 27(2)(1). It says: "The corporation is authorized to issue to the minister and the minister is authorized to acquire shares of the corporation in substitution for the equity of the corporation held by and on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada".
The government is giving up its equity in the traditional sense of a Crown corporation and is being issued shares the same way anyone would be issued shares. The only difference is that the government is being assured it will get 90 per cent of the shares.
This is only a first step. There is really nothing that is going to lock the government into maintaining 90 per cent of the shares. Those shares will invariably, over a period of time in the not too distant future, go to the private sector. I cannot stress that too much.

Government Orders
The government is trying to put something over on the Canadian people once again. It is not fair. It should be called what it is, the first step in the privatization of Canada Post.
The government is going to get 90 per cent of the shares. The employees are going to get 10 per cent of the shares. Be assured there is really not a great deal of rejoicing among the employees of Canada Post about this. While they are given the shares, the employees are not allowed to vote. The shares are not fully participating and do not have the benefits they should.
The government is giving itself 90 per cent of the shares through Canada Post and giving the employees 10 per cent of the shares, but it is not letting them vote or have any say in the running and operation of this company.
That is absolutely unacceptable. The government and Canada Post have not learned one thing in the last eight years about the operation of this company. Not only are the employees not participating or voting, but there is no step being taken toward integrating the employees into the mainstream of the corporation. Canada Post still has the worst employee-employer relations in the country. I do not believe there is a company in Canada that has a worse employee-employer relationship than Canada Post.
It is quite prepared to give shares to the employees if they do not have any say in what they feel should be happening other than by perhaps dropping something into a suggestion box. This is totally unacceptable.
It is bad enough that there are no employee representatives on the board of directors of Canada Post. That has been put forward over a considerable period of time. One would think that a group with 10 per cent of the shares would at least have some say on the board of directors, but no. I understand there was a representative on a trial basis a few years ago but that was dropped. This is absolutely incredible.
What is the government hoping to achieve? I think it is hoping to disguise what is really the first step in the privatization of Canada Post. It will not be long before the government shares are sold to other parties.
Then of course the fears of Canadians will be even greater. Right now people from coast to coast to coast in this country are absolutely apoplectic about the record of
Canada Post with respect to service in their communities.
Canada Post is still trying to reduce the number of post offices, staff and service. If the service were heightened to the rural areas that would be one thing, but it is not. Canada Post. The Government of Canada cannot go on continually thinking that rural Canada does not count for anything in this country.
The postal service is one of the precepts on which this country was built. It was one of the reasons for coming together in Confederation in 1867. Yet this glue which we initially had at Confederation has been melted down. It has been done away with gradually over a period of time and the process is still continuing.
There has to be an acknowledgement, a dialogue between Canada Post and the government on the one hand and the employees and the people of Canada on the other. There is an ivory tower approach that is not working. This bill is not going to help matters at all. It is not disguising what the government is trying to do. It hopes to show it is giving a significant benefit to the employees, has turned over a new leaf and is moving in a new direction. Well, it is continuing along in the old direction, contrary to the interests of the employees and certainly contrary to the people of Canada.
If this government and Canada Post feel that because most of the post office closures took place a while ago the people of Canada have forgotten, they are going to be very surprised indeed. The people of Canada have not forgotten. In fact the people of Canada are marshalled and awaiting the next arbitrary move of Canada Post. Certainly in my riding people do not want any further closures or reductions.
We need the post offices in our communities. Thanks to the depersonalization this government has brought forward in the country, we do not have enough of a focal point to keep the sense of community alive to the degree which we want in this country today. Post offices are vital in maintaining that, and probably more vital right now than ever before in the history of this country.
We need these post offices. They provide service and are the focal points of our communities. They provide what people want. People know what service they want. They are paying for service and they want the service that is in their interests. They want Canada Post to keep

the post offices alive and operating in rural Canada. They want Canada Post and the government to come clean and acknowledge the importance of these post offices instead of putting forward legislation like this that is designed to disguise another intention completely.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-73, a bill to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Most of my colleagues have already touched on the obvious concerns we have with respect to this legislation, but let us be really truthful with Canadians and tell them what this bill does and does not do.
The government is not really serious about dealing with the real issues of Canada Post and there are many. We all know them because we hear from our constituents who are sometimes not very pleased with the service. We hear from employees who tell us things are not as they should be in the Crown corporation. Yet the government proposes four measly pages of amendments to Canada Post which deal with only one aspect of the Crown corporation, to allow employees the opportunity to buy into the Crown corporation that Canadians already own.
I am not sure that is the real issue Canadians have with Canada Post, at least the ones I have spoken to. Canada Post is owned by Canadians. It is a Crown corporation 100 per cent owned by the government and therefore owned by Canadians.
If Canadians had an opportunity to sit on the board of directors of Canada Post, I think they would try to tell the government and management who initiate the directions of Canada Post that service is the key concern of Canadians, whether they live in urban centres, small towns or rural Canada. Even the parliamentary committees of this House have tried to deal with this issue.
The small business community needs to be reassured that the Crown corporation is dedicated to moving the mail so it can deal with its businesses. We know what has happened in the past number of years. There has not been a great vote of confidence by Canadians in Canada Post. Businesses and people have looked elsewhere to
Government Orders
other corporations and businesses for exactly the kind of service Canada Post is meant to give.
Unfortunately, I am not sure the government is dealing with the real issues of the day in its relations with Canada Post. It is a sham that it put four pages forth. I guess there is nothing wrong with an employee purchase plan. It is a new way to bring employees into the corporation. But employees must be more involved than just having the opportunity to purchase shares in the corporation without the benefits of ownership of those shares. When one buys shares in a company, one should have a say at the table in how the corporation is run.
They are not voting shares that the employees would buy. The bill does not talk about the purchase or the value of the shares, the assets of the corporation. How will it distribute dividends and profits? This is something most investors and shareholders would want to know before they invested.
I am not sure this bill even defines what an employee is. It may not be an opportunity to buy shares but a bonus plan for management and executives.
I think Canada Post ought to deal with the real issues of postal delivery in this country. As my colleagues on this side have indicated, it should not prepare another Crown corporation for privatization. We have seen it. We saw the closures of postal offices across the country in rural Canada and small towns. We saw the decimation of services in urban centres. Most new homes now receive their mail at community mailboxes.
We have set up different classes of citizenship in this country as they relate to postal service. If you were lucky enough two or three years ago to own an older home, mail delivery is at the door. If you recently bought a new home, you now have to go to a community mailbox to get your mail. I am not sure that is equal service. The act calls for equal service to all Canadians.
Winter conditions in the months of December, January and February make it very difficult for those with community mailboxes to turn their keys in those small locks. They are supposed to be foolproof. There are not supposed to be any problems getting into the boxes, but that is a lot of bunk. We all know that. If you do not, come to London, Ontario, and try to get into mine. See if

Government Orders
you can open those doors. You have to carry a little can of de-icer with you to get into your mailbox.
I want to get back to the real issue about Canada Post. Canadians want equality of service, quality service, affordability and reliability. That is what Canadians expect of their Crown corporation. We have not received that. In fact the prices of stamps and other services that are charged by Canada Post do not equate the services we now get.
There is another serious issue that I think needs to be addressed. If the government and the executives and management of Canada Post are really serious about improving service to Canadians and making it more reliable and affordable, they ought to learn how to work with their employees and not against them. While they may say they are going to offer employees the opportunity to purchase shares because they are really committed to working with their employees, we all know the problems with Canada Post and its labour relations.
There are 100,000 grievances now under way within the system. That does not indicate that things are nice and cosy there. The problems with productivity and providing and delivering a good service to Canadians mean there needs to be mutual respect between management and labour, to work together toward the common goal. That common goal is to serve Canadians and give them the postal service they have bought and paid for through their taxes, user fees and cost of stamps. The management of Canada Post should devote its true attention to working with the employees toward the same goals. I am not sure it has done that. In fact, I think it has done the reverse.
Great productivity can be achieved in this corporation if it is prepared to work with its employees. They should be given the opportunity to give their good ideas on how to improve the service and deliver the service equally across the country. I am sure the employees are prepared to work with Canada Post if they are given the relationship.
Unfortunately in my area of London, Ontario, in the past four years since I have been the member for London East, I have had a number of complaints about labour-management difficulties that have been very hard to
handle. There was a suicide directly related to how management deals with employees who have been injured on the job and how they are treated in terms of wanting to come back to work at Canada Post.
I had hoped the government would have taken the issue of Canada Post a little more seriously than to produce a four-page scam on how to involve the employees of Canada Post in the running of the Crown corporation named Canada Post. The truth of the matter is that this is not what this bill talks about at all. We should be getting back to the real issue of Canada Post, which is to deliver reliable, quality, affordable and equal service across this country. The government is playing with smoke and mirrors with the employees as well as Canadians by saying this is the answer to all our problems and ills with Canada Post.
I think it is a lost opportunity by the government to deal with the real issues and listen to the parliamentary committee that dealt with Canada Post and heard from Canadians across the country, including small businesses, which want improvements to a Crown corporation they do not want privatized. They want Canada Post to remain Canada Post, a Crown corporation. I am sure people will really see this bill for what it is. It is really preparing Canada Post for eventual privatization. It will be put into the hands of so-called business people who will not care about what kind of service rural Canada, urban Canada and small town Canada gets.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent for the following motion:
That the House continue to sit today beyond the hour of daily adjournment but no later than 9 a.m. on Thesday, March 9, for the consideration of Bill C-114, until all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the said bill are disposed of, provided that no dilatory motion or quorum calls shall be deemed receivable during the extended sitting and that any requested division shall be deferred until 6 p.m. on Thesday, March 9, that at the end of debate on second reading of Bill C-114, the House shall stand adjourned until Thesday, March 9, at 10 a.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
March 8, 1993


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I believe there is unanimous consent for moving the following motion:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of
adjournment today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the clock is moving and time is limited but I would like to say a few words in this debate.
I have been listening to the debate with great interest. I am delighted to say some of the speakers have even spoken to the bill that is before the House, which I think is very encouraging to see for this place.
I just listened to my hon. friend from London East as he went on about postal services and described this bill as a scam.
I have to say that having read the legislation, I think it is a wonderful opportunity for the employees of Canada Post to have a stake in their company. I do not know why my hon. friend would think that is such a heinous, villainous thing. He talks about voting shares on the board. In fact the procedure by which this program was established is very similar to that which exists in most employee stock plans, so there is nothing unusual there.
I was equally amazed earlier in the debate to hear my hon. friend from Thunder Bay speaking against this legislation. I know from time to time it is hard to fathom exactly what the policies of the Liberal Party are but usually, whether we agree or not, we at least know what the policies of the NDP are. The member's good friends
Government Orders
in the Government of Ontario have recently brought in Bill 150 to make this kind of employee stock savings plan available to employees of corporations in Ontario. I also noticed that the Government of British Columbia is doing a similar thing, therefore I thought the New Democratic Party would have roundly endorsed this legislation. I must say I am a little bit bewildered trying to figure out exactly what it is doing.
Much of the discussion here is centred around issues of postal service and so on, but eveiybody who is a member of Parliament has to deal with the fact that some people are not happy with the quality of service they receive from Canada Post. I mailed a letter last Monday and was disappointed to find out that as of last night it had not arrived yet in Toronto. However, these things happen from time to time and surely to goodness we have to take a look at the over-all quality of service as well.
Rural and urban issues also come up from time to time. All rural members in this Chamber have had to deal with the issue of the closure of rural post offices. It is very difficult. It is not hard to discover as a rural member that there is a real urban focus in this government and not just in Canada Post. The people who develop the legislation and programs are urban based for the most part. That is reflected in many of the issues that come before this House and in the legislation that frequently reflects an urban rather than rural bias.
As members of this House, it is also our responsibility to assist our constituents from time to time in understanding the changes that are taking place. The fact of the matter is that the role, function and purpose of Canada Post is to deliver the mail. If that does not happen expeditiously and on a for value basis, we have a right to complain and criticize.
I think nothing has been more destructive to the quality of mail service in this country than the labour-management relations that exist within Canada Post and the perception on the part of many Canada Post employees that the company is the enemy. They do not feel they have a stake in the company. I think that has been a large part of the problem in Canada Post. That is being addressed in this piece of legislation. It is an effort to bring Canada Post employees closer to the company so they feel they have a stake in it and are a part of it.

March 8, 1993
There has been some suggestion that this legislation is not adequately specific with respect to how this plan would actually work. Obviously it is up to the employees of Canada Post to meet with the company to work out the details of it. This is a piece of enabling legislation that makes it possible for that to take place.
This legislation is going to make Canada Post do what it is supposed to do, that is improve services to Canadians. I heartily commend the concept that Canada Post employees be allowed to have a share in their company and commend the legislation to all members.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to media reports which indicate Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board are considering funding a film about the 1970 October crisis.
The proposed film, entitled Octobre, is based on a book written by Francis Simard, one of the four people convicted of participating in the abduction and murder of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte.
I and my constituents profoundly disagree with the actions Telefilm Canada has taken in support of this project. In 1984 this federally funded agency paid $9,000 to Mr. Simard for the film rights to his book. As well, $24,000 has been paid to director Pierre Falardeau to assist in script production.
A positive decision to provide a reported $1.2 million in production funding for a sympathetic portrayal of criminals, terrorists and assassins would be repugnant to the overwhelming majority of Canadians.
I want to add my voice in support of others who have already spoken out against federal funds going to this project.


HOUSING
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, despite a modest increase in February housing starts, which are still below normal levels, a government survey recently indicated a full-scale recovery in the home building industry will remain elusive due to a lack of consumer confidence and tens of thousands of construction workers are still out of work.
In Quebec, home builders have resorted to creating their own social programs to rectify this chronic economic insecurity. Their industry association is offering new home buyers an insurance policy against job losses. These Quebec builders are fighting the real enemy, which is an economy that shows no hope of providing long-term employment stability or improved Opportunity-
Federal incentives and lower interest rates are responsible for the slight improvement in housing starts and these initiatives have been welcome, but the statistics also reveal that without socially assisted housing the housing construction sector would have continued in recession.
Despite this government's insistence that Canada is enjoying a healthy recovery the statistics tell the real and true story. The government should act now to introduce policies that promote a stable economy with long-term employment opportunities for all.


COMMONWEALTH DAY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day. I would like to read part of the message from Her Majesty the Queen, the head of the Commonwealth. She says:
This year on Commonwealth Day, I am asking you all to think about human values. I know from the many letters I receive from young people that their generation cares deeply about the rights of the individual, about the sufferings of others and about making a better world for us all to live in. I believe the youth of the Commonwealth is well placed to give a lead in showing how human values can be improved.
She goes on to say:
None of this is easy to bring about because the establishment of human values implies duties as well as rights. If we want to exercise and enlarge our rights and opportunities, we have to safeguard the rights and opportunities of others. We should look for chances to give service just as eagerly as we look for benefits for ourselves.
March 8, 1993

The young people of the Commonwealth have their future in their hands. May they keep their vision of human values alive and their determination to achieve them undiminished. And may our fifty nations, sharing our experience and working together to enhance the quality of life, send an example to the rest of the world.


FOREIGN AID
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to Commonwealth Day today is International Women's Day, a time for everyone to recognize a woman's contribution to society and her struggle for social justice around the globe.
I find it painfully ironic, if not hypocritical, of this government to tout the status of women internationally, and yet at the same time slash ODA funding to the tune of $220 million this year.
Canadian aid is primarily aimed at the poorest of the poor, and typically women need our help the most.
In fact, the head of the UN Development Program has advised this government that poverty is the greatest threat to international peace and security. Even the member for Rosedale, a former ambassador to Ethiopia, is speaking against his own government to preserve Canada's aid budget.
Why does the minister herself, someone with a strong reputation for promoting development programs for women, not show equal courage and stop the cuts now? Why is she allowing this government to discriminate against women?


HIS HONOUR YVON DUMONT
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this Friday past to attend the swearing-in ceremony of His Honour Mr. Yvon Dumont as 21st Lieutenant Governor of the province of Manitoba.
It was a very emotional ceremony, with the Manitoba legislature packed with distinguished guests and well-wishers for the first Metis Lieutenant Governor. Her Majesty chose well in her selection of a dignified
individual and a representative of a community which is a very special part of Manitoba's heritage.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge to the House the special efforts of the Hon. George Johnson, who has just retired as the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. His Honour carried out his duties in an unselfish and dignified manner. All Manitobans and Canadians owe him a debt of gratitude.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on March 8, 1908, over 15,000 working women marched in New York City to end child labour and brutal and dangerous work places and to fight for equal pay.
On this International Women's Day, 85 years later, over 70,000 women public service employees in Canada are still waiting for pay equity. Canadian women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and people with disabilities have made strides on employment equity, but there is a long way to go.
The Employment Equity Act does not fine employers for discriminatory hiring or promotion practices; it merely fines employers for failing to file reports. Yet this government has not responded to the recommendations of the Special Committee on the Employment Equity Act, even though it was due four months ago.
Eight years after the Tories promised pay equity to their own employees they still have not delivered. When will this government understand that Canadian women deserve far better than broken promises?


SELF-EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the Colchester Regional Development Agency in Truro, Nova Scotia, has applied to Canada Employment and Immigration for the Self-Employment Assistance program. The Colchester area is surrounded by others that have qualified for the SEA program and it is clear it is very successful.
Under this program people on social assistance or unemployment insurance can qualify for assistance to allow them to start up their own business. Although

March 8, 1993
Colchester has not been able to qualify for the Community Futures Program, as has its neighbours, it is urgently requesting that it qualify for the SEA program.
It is predicted that Colchester will benefit just as much as the surrounding counties have and this is an essential part of the community-based economic development plan for the future as outlined by the Colchester Regional Development Authority.
I strongly urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to find ways to rectify this inequity and provide the SEA program to Colchester county.


LABOUR UNIONS
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the largest local in this country's most politically active union voted to sever its ties with the New Democratic Party and deprive it of $40,000 a year.
Why should 100 per cent of union members be forced to contribute to the NDP when support for the NDP is less than 20 per cent? The range of political beliefs is as broad within the union movement as it is across the country.
Why should unionized workers in the rest of the country continue to donate funds solely to the NDP any more than the workers of Oshawa, which is the heartland of the NDP in Ontario?
Workers take notice. They have the right to fund or not to fund whatever political party or candidate they wish, and not necessarily the party of the union bosses. We live in a democracy and this is an undemocratic way of funding one political agenda. They should donate funds only if they wish and to those they support. There should be no political check-off and it is time to implement these changes.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day.
Today's theme of women's rights are human rights, urges us to reflect on the status of women throughout
the world and women's most basic rights. Canada has long played a leading role in this field. On the international scene, we have exercised strong pressures to ensure that women's rights and participation by women in development are put on the UN agenda.
We have made women's involvement in development one of the main priorities of our development program, especially in traditional areas such as agriculture, safe water supply, credit and small business.
In many countries, progress is being made in providing women with an education and jobs and also in advancing the cause of civil and political rights for women.
International Women's Day gives us a chance to consider these achievements, as well as what remains to be done. It also gives each and every one of us an opportunity to consider what we can do to further this important cause.



Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, today on International Women's Day, the New Democratic Party is proud to announce that its affirmative action policy has been very successful.
Our policy provides for measures to help women, native people, members of visible minorities and disabled persons obtain the party's nomination.
The outcome of nomination meetings is not predetermined. The democratic process is respected. So far, out of 103 candidates selected, more than 51 per cent of new candidates are women. The Liberal Party, with its undemocratic nominating system, is struggling to get to the 25 per cent mark.


SEXUAL OFFENDERS
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned that they are being unfairly put at risk when dangerous sexual offenders are released into the community.
As a result police forces across the country are deciding whether to release the names of such dangerous offenders. However, groups such as the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Societies warn that such policies
March 8, 1993

could be ineffective, could prove dangerous to released offenders and could violate civil rights.
In Ontario the provincial government has asked police forces to wait for a directive on this issue before deciding whether to release names.
Police forces across the country need guidance on this matter in order to make decisions which are legal, which are ethical and which protect the community.
I urge the Solicitor General to work with his provincial counterparts and community police forces to develop a policy to assist police forces in this matter.


THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, guess who is making news down under? Our own Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Vegreville.
Why is he in the news? Well, poor little Mazzy is offended by a statement made by the Australian Prime Minister who told the truth when he said that our Prime Minister's resignation was evidence that consumption taxes, the GST for short, are unpopular and do not work.
In protest our valiant Deputy Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Australian PM in which he stated: "The GST had encouraged strong growth prospects and had fuelled recovery in Canada".
Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? What planet does he live on?
To further impress the Aussies our deluded crocodile Maz added: "Any misrepresentation of the reasons for the Prime Minister's decision to step down would be unfortunate".
In the Tory fairyland Canadians just love the Prime Minister and his GST. Earth to Maz, it is a little different down here.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day, an appropriate time to reflect on the role of women in today's society.
We have indeed come a long way from the world that existed when we were first enfranchised in 1916. We are now super beings who juggle housework, children, husbands and demanding careers in a world that expects us to look good, act good and be good. Yet we are still measured by male standards that have little to do with our reality.
To manage, women have to be more direct, more energetic and more goal-oriented. Men who have created an elaborate set of rules applicable to their own needs often misread women's high-speed activity as inappropriate aggression. They then label us as viciously ambitious and erect defences to keep us out of the competition.
Relax, fellows. We are not out to get your jobs. We just want to be your partners and apply our broader perspective and our intuitive thinking to the day's complex work. We still need you but fellows, you still need us and together we can make a formidable team.


NOVA SCOTIA ECONOMY
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I realize today is International Women's Day and certainly from experience, I know how hard women have tried to integrate.
I bring to the attention of the House today the annual report of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. It is not the first time people from Nova Scotia have questioned this little fund that helps one politician and maybe a couple of provincial politicians as well.
Canadians want government to spend money wisely. It is their taxes. But what did this government allow? The Wood Island ferry related infrastructure, Pictou Industries wharf facilities, Trenton multi-use user wharf facility, a highway connector for Trenton's connector highways, a park, other things.
That is not spending Canadian taxes wisely in one little area under the auspices of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act which would have, had it been properly administered, created the jobs that were needed in Nova Scotia. It has not gone to that.

March 8, 1993
Oral Questions
As a woman I look at those jobs and I do not see them being created by this government. It is time for a change.


MARY PITAWANAKWAT
Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian human rights tribunal ruled in favour of Mary Pitawanakwat in her racial and sexual harassment case against the Secretary of State. However, the tribunal blamed her for part of the abuse and did not award her much compensation.
It has been established that her superiors at the Secretary of State office dealing with aboriginal programs made comments such as "Indians are savages," and made jokes about being scalped.
Ms. Pitawanakwat, an aboriginal woman, was fired seven years ago. Since then her superiors whom the tribunal found grossly negligent have been promoted. There is something very wrong in this case.
I urge the government to ensure that the Public Service does not reward racism and punish the victims and that an independent system of choosing tribunal members who are fully reflective of the Canadian population is implemented immediately.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The government's printing presses today have been busy rolling out releases extolling the progress made by women which shows only that the public relations office of the Tory dynasty is much more effective than its actual policies.
The real important document is a Statistics Canada report which shows that while women are increasingly making more of a contribution to the economy, programs supporting families are falling substantially behind. According to the Vanier Institute this is causing increased
stress, pressure and exhaustion for women in this country.
How can this government easily find close to $6 billion for unnecessary, unwanted helicopters and yet renege on its commitment for a proper child care strategy to help the families of Canada?


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, today indeed is International Women's Day and a day when we celebrate the advancements women have made in this country and the work we are doing all around the world to help women reach equality.
In fact some very positive and good signs women have to look at are their increasing numbers in the work force, their increasing role in management and their increasing presence in every area of public life.
Some of the issues women are concerned about today relate both to education and increasing their enrolment in many of the areas of science and technology and the balance of work and family. In that area the federal government plays a role. The provincial governments play a primary role, but employers also play a role in ensuring that their policies are compatible and enable women to participate effectively and equally in the work force throughout this country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that was an answer to my question so I will ask a supplementary.

The hon. member for Rosedale, a distinguished member of this House and the Conservative government, said that recent cutbacks in aid to Africa were stupid. These programs provide assistance that is directed mainly to women and children.
The Prime Minister promised more aid in Rio, but six months later, he is cutting back assistance to the poorest countries.
Why is the government spending money on helicopters and not on women and children in the Third World? Does the Prime Minister think he can maintain the Tory dynasty by forgetting Canadian women and women throughout the world?
March 8, 1993


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows the government is spending money both for defence purposes and for helicopters so we can have improved search and rescue services to rescue people on the seas and elsewhere. The government is spending money for women and children on improved child tax benefits and a whole host of other programs.
I notice the hon. member's leader has expressed grave concern about the deficit situation in the country and is promising to reduce the deficit if and when he gets into power, as unlikely an event of course as that is. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell us where he is going to cut if and when he ever gets into power with his leader who says this is one of his objectives.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, among many positive suggestions made by the leader of the Liberal Party one is to cut the helicopters and save $6 billion for Canadians.
In a Gallup poll published today, more Canadians than ever before believe that women are getting a raw deal in our society and that there is less equality today than there was six years ago. They know that the economic programs of this government have worked against the interests of women by cancelling UI rights, by cancelling women's programs, by putting a million children into poverty.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister or whichever minister is going to answer, when speaking of a Tory dynasty does it mean there will be a continuation of poverty for close to 20 per cent of women? Does it mean there will be a continuation of poverty for a million children? Will there be continued cuts in social assistance, women's programs and foreign aid? If this is a Tory dynasty, thank God it is about to end.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is showing somewhat more erratic tendencies than he normally does today. He is probably upset by the fact that our party is going through a metamorphosis and will probably be unrecognizable within the next several months.
Oral Questions
The hon. gentleman suggests if we did not enter into a contract to purchase helicopters that there could be a $6 billion saving over the next 30 years. Will the hon. gentleman tell the House how he is going to achieve the $17 billion a year saving that his leader tells us he is going to achieve if and when he comes to power and he abolishes the GST? How will that $17 billion a year saving be accomplished, or what other taxes will be increased to make it up?
Could the hon. gentleman enlighten the people of Canada so they will know exactly what might happen to them if the hon. member's party ever gets into power?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, we now have the dinosaur speaking for the dynasty. My question is for the Minister of National Defence.
When women employees of National Defence asked to put up an information booth on pay equity for International Women's Day, the commandant of the National Defence Medical Centre said no. What is worse, the commandant showed a shocking contempt for the law when he said in writing that he was not fully in support of equal pay for work of equal value and that women should get into high paying trades if they wanted more money.
What has the minister herself done to tell this senior officer and others that such attitudes will not be tolerated?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of that particular set of circumstances. I thank the hon. member for raising the point. I will be very happy to look into that. The women involved have not made me aware of it and I am open to their communications.
It is important to point out that Canada ranks second in comparison to all NATO countries in the number of women in our Armed Forces. It has been a challenge to change attitudes and to ensure that women serve with equality in the Armed Forces.
I give an enormous amount of credit to my colleague, the former Associate Minister of National Defence, now the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, in the work that she did in charge of personnel in the

March 8, 1993
Oral Questions
Armed Forces when she was the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Our policy is obviously the full equality of women in the Armed Forces. That continues to be our policy and we will work toward that.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. If she is too busy applying for a new job to look after employees in her own department, let me table a letter she received nearly a month ago. This has been followed up by repeated phone calls to her office.

I would like to ask a supplementary question. This letter mentions very serious payroll discrimination against women in her department, the kind of discrimination that costs many women as much as $15,000 annually.
I wonder why the minister has not taken any action to stop this discrimination.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is Canadian forces policy to ensure that women are equal in the Armed Forces. I have a keen interest in the situation to which the hon. member referred, and I can assure her that I will take appropriate action.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, every day thousands of Canadian women are battered, beaten and raped. One out of every two women who arrives at a shelter with her children is turned away because of lack of space.
This government is spending over $11 million for a panel on violence against women, almost $2 million for a telephone survey and more money on research. At the same time it is cutting back on shelters for battered women with its multibillion dollar cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.
Why is this government paying people to tell it what we already know, that violence against women is a problem? Why is this government at the same time cutting and chopping away at the necessary services for battered women and their children?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at my hon. colleague's question on this account. Surely she recognizes, as I and women across this country do, the importance of developing a national action plan to deal with violence against women. It is a plan which will bring together governments, non-government organizations, communities and women to eliminate violence against women in all its respects throughout this country.
In order to do that it is necessary to provide the appropriate information and develop that plan. I am sure the panel will bring forward that plan over the next few months. However, in doing its work the panel has gone to over 100 communities in this country. It has already initiated the kinds of changes required to deal with the issue of violence against women in their homes and on the streets. The development of the community action program is an important part of it.
Let me remind my hon. colleague as well that part of the $136 million federal family violence program is indeed going to support additional spaces and shelters and second stage housing programs for women who are victims of violence.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the reality is absolutely indifferent to that. There have been cuts to the Secretary of State women's program. There is the elimination of the family allowance program. There is the reneging on the child care in this country and the breaking of pay equity promises. There have been cuts to training for women, cuts to unemployment insurance for women, the elimination of social housing, cuts to the existing child care services and yes, cuts to services and shelters for battered women.
When this is contrasted with this government's commitment of-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member perhaps to put the question.
March 8, 1993


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, when you contrast this to the commitment to 50 sub-hunting helicopters, it is incredible. A strong economy cannot be built-


Some hon. members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have a question but I have not yet heard it.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a very serious issue which should be dealt with on the basis of facts and reality.
If we look at the situation of Canadian women today, we should give them credit for the work they have done and for the advancement they have made. The wage gap is closing. More and more women are going into science and technology. The situation of women in Canada is almost without comparison around the world.
This has been as a result of the work of governments and women on the front line so that we can achieve real equality. Let us work together. Let us not be shouting at each other over these issues. This requires the concerted efforts of all of us to achieve the common goals of equality for men and women.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, specifically, women's groups have documented 14 cases of women in Canada facing deportation. Some are facing domestic violence in Canada and some state and domestic violence from abroad.
I want to ask the minister responsible for immigration this. When fully 80 per cent of the world's refugees are women and children and two-thirds of the refugees accepted in Canada are men, will the minister take this opportunity on International Women's Day to announce a moratorium on the deportation of women who are battered? Will he take the opportunity today to announce a Canadian policy to provide safe haven for women and children in Canada?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important issue. It is one that a great many Canadians are concerned with.
Oral Questions
As the hon. member knows, in January of this year I instructed my officials in the department to conduct discussions with interested individuals and groups across Canada with the objective of developing a consensus on how we as a country could deal with women who claim to be victims of persecution or violence.
We are the first government ever to introduce into the Immigration Act, which that party opposed by the way, a protection and authority to require for every refugee claimant who faces harsh or unusual circumstances in her country of origin that the decision of the IRB be reviewed.
I think this is a positive step in addressing the concerns of the hon. member.


HELICOPTERS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
On February 25 in response to a question I had asked the minister about the EH-101 cold war helicopters, the minister stated that a cancellation of the project would mean "a loss to Canada's search and rescue capability".
Is it not true that the EH-lOl's tremendous down draft can literally blow away any person the crew is intending to rescue? Will the minister not admit it is true what a defence analyst by the name of Dale Grant wrote last week, that the EH-101 will "blow away anything floating in the water below it"?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, that is not true.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the minister should be aware that in her own dossier she will find reports indicating clearly and unequivocally that there is not a country in the world that uses this type of helicopter for search and rescue purposes. The minister should know that.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. On February 3 in this House the minister was not able to inform the House what the extent of the penalty clause

March 8, 1993
Oral Questions
would be with regard to the cancellation of this particular project. I now take this opportunity to ask the minister if she would indicate to the House the extent of the penalty clause.
How much of that money will go to the vendor? How much money will go to the various lobbyist groups that are working on behalf of that particular vendor?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks about lobbyists that are working for that, he should remember that the key lobbyist for the EH-101 is a member of the transition team of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Wyatt Dick: When the hon. member mentioned that no other country in the world uses that helicopter for search and rescue, he is absolutely right because the helicopter has not been built yet.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, once again the minister who just spoke has earned his well-deserved reputation for never letting the facts stand in the way of the truth of a good accusation.
The helicopter has been built. It is shameful that the minister does not know it. There are five of them flying. One month ago, one of them crashed. This minister is an embarrassment to the notion of responsible government for not knowing that about a $6 billion acquisition.
I want to ask a question of the minister who is responsible, the Minister of National Defence. On February 25 the Leader of the Opposition urged the minister of defence to look at the cancellation of this procurement project. The minister said it is not "an unnecessary expense. It is very important for our Canadian forces".
I want to ask the minister of defence whether she is aware that the Italians, who make up one-half of the British-Italian consortium, have reduced their own helicopter order of the EH-101 from 36 aircraft to 16. They have sliced their own order by more than half.
In short, why is Canada the biggest single recipient of a helicopter which one-half of the consortium has now reduced its order for by over 50 per cent? Why are we funding technology and industry in Britain and Italy and refusing to create jobs here at home?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the purchase of the EH-101 helicopters will create
45,000	person-years of employment in Canada, particularly in industries which are 21st century industries that employ women as much as they employ men.
In other words, the industrial benefits of this contract are very important for Canada. I cannot speculate on why the Italian government does or does not make the purchases that it makes.
The EH-101 has been ordered as a shipbome helicopter for our frigates. If the hon. member is suggesting that we should cut back on the purchase of the EH-101 shipbome helicopters, then the natural corollary of that recommendation would be a reduction in the number of frigates that we buy for the Canadian navy.
I think this is something that we should review. I am very happy to hear the views of the hon. member. If he is of the view that this helicopter should not be bought for search and rescue, I would like to know which of the specifications of the EH-101 search and rescue capabilities the hon. member thinks are expendable in order to save money.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not answering the question. Let me give her another opportunity.
This project was announced in 1986 at a cost then of $2 billion. By 1988 the cost was $2.3 billion. By 1991 the cost was $4.4 billion. Two weeks ago we were told, and the government acknowledged, that the cost had gone up to nearly $6 billion.
I want to ask the minister again. I want her to think seriously about this because Canadians are thinking seriously about it. Why is Canada purchasing more of these helicopters than all the other nations of the world combined? Why in particular are we saying that we can afford this Cadillac extravagance in terms of a helicopter when there are cheaper alternatives and when the Government of Italy, one-half of the consortium, has reduced its order from 36 to 16?
Madam minister, it is a serious question. Give us a serious answer.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Government of Italy will be very flattered by the
March 8, 1993

suggestion of the hon. member that we should allow it to make our defence policy.
The fact of the matter is we buy this helicopter because it has specifications that are required for Canada. The last time I looked, Italy did not have the longest coastline in the world as we do. It does not have to conduct search and rescue operations in icing conditions and high wind conditions.


An hon. member:: What about Hibernia?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question. I would like to give one example of why the specifications of this helicopter are important. Icing conditions often restrict the search and rescue helicopter response in this country. On December 16, 1990, when the fishing vessel Nadine sank in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, CH-113 Labrador crews were delayed nine hours by weather and icing conditions. Seven people died in this tragic accident. The EH-101 could have flown in this weather.


CHILD CARE
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, the government makes choices and its choice is helicopters. Our choice is day care centres.
I would like to point out that Statistics Canada reported last week that two-thirds of women with a child at home under the age of six were also in the paid labour force, a growth of 20 per cent in 10 years. There has been no subsequent growth in child care spaces. The child care program is a critical addition to Canada's social infrastructure.
How can the government continue to ignore over one million children in need of a safe child care environment? Will the government do something about the desperate need for child care in this country?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question about day care centres several times before. First of all, I think it is false to claim that the government does not invest in day care centres, because over $1 billion
Oral Questions
annually is spent on all kinds of programs, especially in the form of tax credits allowed for day care. We also have a number of joint projects with the provinces.
We have also said this question remains a priority, in terms of the decision we made last year to provide substantial assistance for children at risk, to deal with their particular situation. The $3 billion we invested in 1992 in this sector, to be spent over a period of five years, reflects our concern for the children of this country.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, the choices were between helicopters and child care spaces. I bring you back to that.
Our studies have shown that a comprehensive, nonprofit, affordable and accessible child care program that will double the number of spaces would create 40,000 new jobs, improve the salaries of those who are already working in the program, put the system on a sound financial footing and put 600,000 Canadian kids in safe, affordable child care.
Why does this government continue to turn its back on Canadian kids who need child care?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again I repeat what I said before. Last year we put $3 billion into child care. Of course, to do all that the member would like to do, I would need the kind of money that NDP governments normally have. But even B.C., Ontario and Saskatchewan do not have that money any more.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister for International Trade stated that the North American free trade legislation should be put through Parliament as soon as possible "to avoid uncertainty for business people".
Now a government spokesman has said that the legislation may be delayed at least until June or perhaps beyond when the U.S. position may have become clearer.
What has changed? Who is speaking for the government? Is the government finally conceding, as the opposition has recognized all along, that the parallel accords proposed by the new U.S. administration are

March 8, 1993
Oral Questions
tantamount to a renegotiation of the North American free trade agreement?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from someone who I think speaks for the government.
The Prime Minister when asked a question about NAFTA said it will pass. The questioner went on to say: "There are serious doubts that it will be ratified". The Prime Minister said: "Oh, no. NAFTA will pass. NAFTA will be passed probably by June". In a CNN interview he said: "Oh, it will be ratified here by June. We are going to get it through the House of Commons". I am sure my hon. friend will support us in getting it through the House of Commons because it is very consistent with the trade policy that he advocates for members of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The matter is very clear. The policy of the government will pass.. The side agreements on the environment and on labour will be negotiated among the three countries but the President of Mexico, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada have all said that the NAFTA signed in December will not be reopened.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows the opposition has for some time urged that Canada should seek strengthening of the labour and environmental clauses in the North American free trade agreement.
Now that the United States has taken that initiative, when is the minister going to state what the Canadian position is? Has he any position on the renegotiation which will begin next week of the two essential areas of environment and labour and quite possibly import surges? When is the minister going to share with the Canadian people what the position of the government is?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend is not in the House all the time, but I have said quite consistently, starting from a year ago February, that the Government of
Canada has been in support of side agreements to the NAFTA covering labour and the environment.
These were turned down by the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico, but now there is the new administration and President Clinton has said he wants to review the matter, and we are supportive of that.
Some of the aspects of the environmental matters were raised by Canada back in September. That contributed in part to the establishment of the North American Commission on the Environment, which is precisely what we proposed a year ago February.


CN RAIL
John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns the decision by CN Rail to dismiss nearly 11,000 Canadian workers.
Since the Government of Canada is CN Rail's only shareholder, does the minister support this decision to dismiss workers in Montreal, Moncton, Winnipeg and other places?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa South surely knows that the government is not pleased about any job loss. Nevertheless, the hon. member must know that Parliament has given Canadian National the mandate to operate on a business-like basis and to give its customers the best service.
Canadian National is the sixth largest railway in North America in terms of its operations, with revenues of $3 billion, and has the second largest number of employees. It has as many employees as companies that do almost twice as much business. CN must become competitive if it wants to stay healthy and the decisions it has made were made within the terms of its mandate.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly supports firing employees. Let me ask him this question. Mr. Tellier said in his announcement that federal and provincial taxes were a large part of the
March 8, 1993

problem for Canada's railways. I quote: "Canadian railways pay some $225 million more in taxes per year than U.S. railroads".
Does the minister agree with this statement? Why does he think Canadian workers should bear the brunt of the solution when Canadian governments are causing a large part of the problem?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy the member in the latter part of his question rectified what he had said in the first part. The CEO of CN has not blamed the federal government. He has blamed the fact that the railways in general are paying too much money in taxes.
He should know that the federal government collects $75 million a year from the railways and that is 18 per cent of their total taxes. They pay $203 million to provincial governments, which is 48.6 per cent, and $139 million to municipalities, which is 33.4 per cent.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Canadians are disturbed and concerned over the terrible crimes perpetrated on our society. I would like to know what the minister intends to do about the Young Offenders Act. Will he introduce amendments which will permit the naming of young offenders who commit violent crimes?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very controversial issue, as my hon. friend knows.
I know there is public concern about the situation. The courts are open to the public and there is access to the records of young offenders for a broad range of purposes.
The question on the other side concerns the rehabilitation process. We have to make sure the rehabilitation process works. The way we can achieve that is by bringing everybody together to work on getting it done.
As my hon. friend from Mississauga West and all other members of the House will know, there was a unanimous
Oral Questions
report of the standing committee on justice which made a lot of recommendations concerning crime prevention in this country. I hope the symposium we are having on crime prevention in Toronto this week will address those issues and some others, with the help of all stakeholders including members of this House.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government. Two weeks ago, the government announced that the women's program would be funded permanently. The same day, it took $1 million from that program. This morning, the National Federation of French Canadian Women and the Quebec Women's Federation asked the government to double the amount for enhancing the status of women.
Does the government intend to follow through this request from women's groups?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, indeed, my colleague mentioned that the women's program had been renewed and the good news he forgot to mention is that it has been renewed permanently.
I can tell him that women's groups applauded this decision of the government, which shows our government's commitment to support women's groups that have already done a great deal for women's equality and all the concerns that women have in their communities.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister could have at least dealt with the heart of the question, the cuts received by women's groups after the announcement was made.
Health and welfare estimates list family planning and reproductive health as past initiatives. There is no commitment to fund these areas in 1993-94.
Considering the long-term social and economic impact of unwanted pregnancies on the individuals involved and on society, will the minister commit here and now to continuing to fund family planning education and research in the coming year?

March 8, 1993
Oral Questions


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that in the short time I have held my new position, I had an opportunity to meet representatives of women's groups from across Canada and of course we discussed their priorities. I encouraged them to continue in the direction they had taken and I renewed the commitment to the women's program, which has been cut 10 per cent, like all other government programs.
I also discussed with them a new approach along the lines that my colleague mentioned earlier of developing new partnerships. The government gives them very substantial support. Indeed, we support 500 groups a year. But I think that we must go beyond that and try now to discover partnerships with the private sector and the public sector. Many experiences have already been very positive. This is really the kind of message that I discussed with them and I will continue as well.


THE ENVIRONMENT
David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
As the House knows the green plan is the operative strategy of the Ministry of the Environment. In the green plan the Red River and Assiniboine River are identified as areas that require an awful lot of attention.
Could the minister tell the House what his plans are to resolve these issues?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to tell the hon. member what my plans are-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean J. Charest: -on the Red and the Assiniboine, of course. As he has referred, there is an interest in our government to undertake an initiative around the ecosystem of the Red and the Assiniboine.
I understand the Government of Manitoba has also undertaken some work in this area. We look forward to working together as we examine the different alternatives there are for us in dealing with that ecosystem which is very important for Manitoba and Canada.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
In late January officials of CIC in Halifax rejected outright a request by Lasmo PLC to use foreign instead of Canadian crews in its operations within Canadian waters. The reason for this was simple. It was because there were hundreds of qualified, ready, willing and able Canadian seafarers to do those jobs.
Now that the file is on the minister's desk does he support the decision of the Halifax office or has he overruled it to allow Lasmo PLC, a foreign company, to displace Canadian workers with foreign crews?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the issue the hon. member raises implicates the Canada first employment policy. It has been applied in this case just like in every other case. The decision has been taken according to the act, to the law and to the principles involved.
I do not think he is serving Halifax or Nova Scotia well by claiming this is about taking jobs away from Canadians. The policy is clear. It is a Canadian first policy. In this specific instance the hon. member should know the principles of the law will be applied.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, less than 40 minutes ago senior officials in the minister's own department confirmed that a decision had been made to allow Lasmo PLC to displace Canadian workers with foreign crews.
What form of twisted logic does the minister suffer from that would allow him to make a decision to favour a multinational British oil company over the interests of Canadian workers?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the interests of Canadian

March 8, 1993

workers are being protected. The principles of the act, as I referred to earlier, are in place and are fully respected.
The decision to allow for a certain part of the crew to be foreign workers stems from the fact that the transportation of the crude from Sable Island to where it has to go is an international trip and as such qualifies as an exception under the act.


LANGUAGE MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Three years ago, the Mahe case gave minorities the right to manage their own educational institutions. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed this right in a decision handed down last week, a decision that concerned language minorities and, more specifically, the Franco-Manitoban minority.
In view of the disturbing comments made by Premier Filmon, to the effect that francophones in Manitoba must accept his proposal and ignore the law, can the Secretary of State inform the House whether she has started serious negotiations with the provinces, and more specifically with Manitoba, to make an offer of federal assistance to that province, once and for all, to help the Government of Manitoba give its minority the right to manage its own educational institutions?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member I welcomed the decision handed down last week, which came almost exactly three years after the Mahe decision, reinforcing and refining the principles contained in that decision.
I can inform the hon. member that I am now discussing with my colleagues a series of measures to help the provinces implement a school management program. As soon as the general plan has been finalized, I intend to meet the provinces with a view to helping them implement a program that is so important to the survival of minority communities.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I just express some frustration with that
Oral Questions
answer because Conservatives are known for foot dragging. On the dossier of financing of francophone rights to education it is not only foot dragging federally but also provincially.
I want to quote Saskatchewan Premier Romanow in The Globe and Mail of February 7: "The issue for us here is another example of stalled and frustrating federal-provincial matters".
When will cabinet decide and when will Canadians know what position this government has taken in regard to rights of minority language groups to manage their own schools?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my Liberal colleague can find anything to criticize here. Since we came to power, we have very substantially demonstrated our commitment to supporting minority communities, as he well knows.
We passed the Official Languages Act, and we recognize the importance of supporting the provinces in the area of minority education and school management. I repeat that discussions are at a very advanced stage, and I hope that in the coming weeks we will be able to start discussions with the provinces.
I may remind the hon. member that the provinces have to do their share as well. Perhaps he could urge the provinces to put in place the appropriate legislation, so that when we have the money, the provinces are ready to proceed.


WEST COAST SALMON FISHERY
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries. It flows out of the Fifth Estate program on high seas drift-net fishing.
I want to know what this government is going to do with its surveillance and enforcement to prevent the theft of B.C. salmon on the high seas.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member will be supporting the EH-101 helicopter initiative

March 8, 1993
Routine Proceedings
because she is concerned and worried about surveillance on the high seas. We are glad to have her support.
With reference to what is being done, we should put the problem in perspective. The north Pacific salmon come mostly from Russia and countries other than Canada. About .05 per cent of Canada's 80,000 tonnes of Pacific salmon that are caught every year are at jeopardy in this situation.
We participate in the various treaty arrangements, aerial surveillance and the like in that area. In co-operation with other police forces we have apprehended people who have taken these salmon illegally and attempted to sell them. We will continue to do that. However, we have no patrol vessels in the area. We are participating in other ways in the surveillance and enforcement activities in this huge area.


Mr. Speaker:: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


PRIVILEGE
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is for the Minister of Justice. It arises out of today's Question Period and his reply to the question of the hon. member for Erie about the Young Offenders Act.
I was pleased that the minister invited all members from this House to attend the national symposium on crime prevention in Toronto. I have been trying through his office and through the department to attend that national symposium for a month now. I was told that it was limited to the members on the parliamentary standing committee on justice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may well have a matter which he wishes to discuss with the minister or others, but I have to say it is going too far to say that it is a question of privilege.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister owes it to this House. Can he accommodate the members he invited today? If he can, fine. If he cannot, then he should not invite us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister may want to deal with that.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, there are 250 or 260 seats. There are people representing all Canadian organizations, and I welcome the opportunity to mention this. People from the municipalities, the provinces, the federal government, from several departments, from the private sector, members of Parliament, members of the standing committee on justice have been invited. I think it would probably be easy for his party's Whip to make arrangements for access to the seats available to party members. I have no objection. There are seats for the members of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Clearly, there may be a problem, but I think it could be solved in a conversation between hon. members and the minister.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to all of us that the tragic war in the former Yugoslavia is unparalleled in terms of its complexity and of the political, economic and ethnic forces involved. It continues to severely challenge the international community and we continue to search for effective ways of responding to this enormous humanitarian crisis.
We must find ways to cut to the very heart and root of this tragedy. We must find ways to bring this war to an end. We must find a way to stop further bloodshed. We must convince all parties involved that the use of force will gain them nothing. They must realize that after this is over they will have to live side by side no matter what the outcome. They must realize that no peace can be brought about by the imposition of military might.

Intense negotiations have taken place in New York over the past several days. These are expected to resume toward the end of this week. They show signs that at least some of the parties are seriously interested in a negotiated settlement. Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance
March 8, 1993

Routine Proceedings
have produced over the months, and with much dedication, a comprehensive package. This should form the basis of new political, security and territorial arrangements for Bosnians. This is the only proposal available to the parties and they must all negotiate seriously on this basis.
We have been active with the parties urging them to find a meaningful and fair compromise. This is precisely the message that our ambassador to the UN delivered to Dr. Karadzic, on my instructions, last Friday. Any party that stands in the way of a political compromise will face further international condemnation and isolation. We are ready to do whatever we can to help in the difficult search for peace.

That includes of course and must include the provision of humanitarian assistance until this horrifying and tragic war is brought to an end.
Canadians continue to demonstrate their solidarity and their compassion for those who have been forced into these terrible situations and who are suffering all forms of human degradation. Our government will continue to provide support for these unfortunate people in reflection of what Canadians have expressed they want us to do.
To channel this humanitarian assistance we have chosen to utilize international relief organizations. We have disbursed over $25 million through the United Nations and other organizations. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the World Food Program, the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations volunteers, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have been our agents. We have found in them close co-operation.
We have intentionally chosen to let those with expertise and objectivity assess the requirements. We have consistently told these organizations that our intention is to help those most in need with what they most urgently require.
We know it is not enough. We know that governments and public institutions in the region are barely capable of
coping with hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons. The economies of these countries have been decimated.

We have addressed what we believe to be the number one priority: to help those who have been expelled by warfare and to counter the ignominious practice of ethnic cleansing.
First and foremost, we must ensure that people receive food, medicine and shelter, but we must also deal with the social and emotional legacies of war. In December 1992 and again last Friday, I announced a specific grant to assist the victims of sexual violence. Canadians have been outraged by the rape and sexual assault of women and children in this war. The victims of these repugnant crimes require our urgent assistance.
Both the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and myself indicated on Friday that Canada will provide a further $1.5 million to address these needs. Our contribution will help UNHCR and UNICEF provide women and children with medical supplies, rape-trauma counselling services, food, clothing and shelter.

Today, I am pleased to announce a further contribution of $9.5 million in response to the ongoing international appeals. We will help the World Food Program, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and UNICEF to continue their activities.
This new contribution outlines Canada's continuing concern for those who are suffering. By channelling our assistance through these established agencies we know that we are addressing identified shortages. We know that our contribution will be directed to and received by those most in need.
As this House knows, the Canadian forces are present on the ground in Bosnia as part of the UN Protection Force. Our troops, a battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, have already begun the task of ensuring safe delivery of humanitarian assistance in eastern Bosnia, an area of great need. Our forces have also brought large quantities of food and medical supplies by air to Sarajevo during more than 354 missions. Our men and women operate under the most hazardous of conditions with

March 8, 1993
Routine Proceedings
great commitment and bravery. They are a credit to all Canadians.
The Americans have made a different choice. They have chosen to drop supplies from the air to reach villages isolated for months from any relief. This is a commendable initiative. It will supplement what is being done by land by countries like ours and we fully support them in their efforts.
We know that humanitarian assistance by itself will never be enough. Canada will continue to explore all means for bringing a quick and lasting end to this tragedy, despite many discouraging starts up until now.
We cannot allow the world to disintegrate once again into the basest forms of inhumanity. We must take the lessons of the century and put an end once and for all to the festering hatreds that continue to fuel the fires of war in the former Yugoslavia.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister's appearance in the House to make these announcements. I am sure we can look forward to many more in the months ahead under the circumstances and we will certainly welcome this interest in putting forward and tabling in the House important declarations.
Let me also say that in terms of the recommendations or proposals being made by the minister for increased assistance for humanitarian purposes, we fully applaud this initiative and support this kind of effort. This is one of the areas in which Canada can continue to make an important contribution.
In saying that, I hope the minister would take into account some questions that arise out of the first part of her statement. The first issue is whether the government is in any way considering proposals made by a number of the Canadian cultural organizations that have friends and relatives in the former Yugoslavia and are very anxious to supply forms of assistance. In particular, I can think of the willingness of groups to offer medicine and foodstuffs but have so far not been able to develop any
co-operative relationship with the government to actually send to these areas.
One group I met with last week indicated it had accumulated a large amount of medicine to send and is utilizing United States aircraft, the U.S. government, to send these provisions and support. So far it has not been able to do it through Canadian auspices.
One of the clear questions I would raise, and in fact I would put it in the form of a request, is that the government seriously consider offering to use our transport aircraft to move into that area and to help in the delivery of those kinds of initiatives. I do not believe they should go necessarily in the areas of direct conflict. Certainly the suffering going on in the refugee camps in Croatia and other areas such as Hungary and the borders are very crucial. I think we can be of great help.
Another matter I would like to raise and it is one the minister did not address is the issue of whether the government is going to finally change its policy and begin accepting as bona fide refugees women who have been suffering from severe persecution.
The minister properly announced and we support the idea of offering international assistance for those who have suffered abuse, sexual crime or violations in the area. However in a form of contradiction while we are offering to help internationally, we are refusing to take a more genuine, open look at that problem here in Canada. As we have seen in recent weeks, there are hundreds of women who have escaped from the most incredible conditions and have applied for refugee status and now are in threat of being sent back.
It hardly makes sense to me that on the one hand we would be saying we must assist them through international organizations but on the other hand we are not prepared to take a more open look at our domestic policy as it relates to the acceptance and provision of this as a refugee claim. I understand that it would be broadening the definition but surely to goodness in this day and age with all the changes going on in the world, Canada could take a lead in helping to broaden that definition and show other countries it is possible by setting the kind of criteria that is required.
A third issue I would like to ask the minister about, and I am really surprised she did not mention it because frankly she has taken an initiative in the past on this matter, is the issue of war crimes.
March 8, 1993

We have heard about the Security Council authorizing a proposal or a plan for a war crimes tribunal. We have had question marks in this House about whether the questionnaires our own government is using to elicit responses is really one that could lead to very serious human rights abuses of our own Canadian citizens.
It would seem to me that this would have been the opportune time for the minister to have clearly addressed what it is that Canada is doing with its war crimes procedure. If it is going to be effective, it seems to me it could be one of the most significant deterrents to actions taking place, such as the massacres in Bosnia which are totally contradictory to all the conventions of war.
I wonder by its omission whether the government has let go of this issue, whether it is no longer interested in the issue. Is it no longer prepared to put in place the steps that are required to make this a real, effective and fair procedure both protecting the rights of anybody who is going to be named and at the same time ensuring that the war crimes proposal does get the kind of attention and support it deserves?
In saying that, I am not in any way taking away from the announcement of more direct assistance to international organizations but I do think it could stand a somewhat broader examination here in Canada.
It does take me to a more fundamental question which is addressed in the last portion of the minister's remarks that frankly leave us all hanging, waiting for an answer. The fundamental question is as to what Canada's position is in relation to the problem of Bosnia and that conflict.
We talk about how we want them to solve the problem. We hope the Vance-Owen plan will be introduced. What are we doing specifically as a country to ensure that the full weight of our reputation and background experience is brought to bear? After all, we have close to 2,500 troops and are growing in that area. That surely gives us a substantial amount of leverage. I think it is even closer to 5,000 troops. That should give us the right to take significant actions to develop plans and proposals. It gives us a voice.
Routine Proceedings
The minister mentions in the statement I received that she had sent a letter to our ambassador to pass on to the Bosnian-Serbian leaders. What was in it? What did we say? What did we ask for? Are we threatening? Are we cajoling? Are we persuading? Are we expressing fond hopes? Are we prepared to take any action? Do we have a plan? Are we taking any new diplomatic initiatives? Are we working with the Americans? Are we trying to get our European allies to have a little stiffer backbone when it comes to these matters?
After all, part of the problem has been the total failure of European countries to address this issue in its early findings. Even the Vance-Owen plan is going to require significant contributions.
I must say at the same time that in listening to the reports today from the United Nations, we have the Secretary-General saying it may be that we will have to use force in that area to get a solution.
I was listening with some interest to the minister's statement, assuming that the very important policy statement of the Secretary-General would be addressed. I would like to know what it is that Canada intends to do. Are we supportive of the Secretary-General? Do we think the Security Council will have to authorize a new resolution in order to ensure that the parties to the dispute understand that the UN is serious about this? Are we, in fact, once again leaving a dangling participle? Maybe we do not have a position.
The Vance-Owen plan, if it is accepted, will require some 50,000 troops to implement and enforce any cease-fire. Is Canada going to play a role? Are we going to be part of the truce? If so, are we prepared to substantially shift the priorities of the government in defence spending so that we can get the proper number of troops with the right equipment and the right training at the right place to make a full contribution? These are all serious and significant questions that still go without answers.
Mr. Speaker, I see you beginning to make a slight move toward the edge of your seat which suggests to me that my time may be at an end. I am very sorry because there are many other questions I would like to pose. It may simply be that this is the first taste.

March 8, 1993
Routine Proceedings
I would hope that the minister, now that she has made this initial step in the House of Commons to share with us her ideas and plans, might be prepared in the very near future to broaden them. I hope that she might bring into this Chamber a full, comprehensive statement on what are our future peacekeeping requirements and commitments and where we should be going with them. That would then be the cause of a very serious debate.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome the key elements of the statement made by the minister this afternoon.
We fully support the additional humanitarian relief dollars that she announced on Friday for victims of rape and sexual assault. Earlier this year we pressed the government to do just that. We are pleased that she has responded.
We are also pleased in the government's general support for the Vance-Owen process. I am sure all members of the House join her in hoping that this will produce peace in the region. Finally we support, of course, her strong statement of support for our women and men in the area who serve Canada, the United Nations and humanity there. It is a very risky and dangerous project in which they are engaged. It is a very important one. They have the support of the people of Canada in that. Canada has the third largest contingent in the Bosnia area after France and the U.K. and we are glad to have their support.
I might take the opportunity however to raise some concerns. First, we are all concerned at the persistent violation of rights by the Serbian forces that have generally been supported by the government of Serbia, the crackdown on moderate political forces in Serbia, the failure to act against forces which have been involved in rape, sexual assault and other crimes against humanity, and the persistent interference with humanitarian relief.
The most graphic example of the latter has been the now confirmed reports of 20,000 Bosnian Muslim victims of sexual assault, rape and other violence at the hands of Serbian forces. These actions on the part of the Serbians
must not only be condemned and stopped but must be the subject of the war crimes tribunal.
On that we also have a concern and I would ask the minister to try to specifically address this if she has not already done so. The panel appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of course consists all of men and I say that seems to be too often the tradition of the United Nations.
In this case, where one of the serious allegations is of rape and sexual assault, it is entirely inappropriate that the panel consists entirely of men. This is reinforced, I may say, by statements attributed to the chairman of the commission, Mr. Frits Kalshoven of Holland, who is quoted as saying that the rape allegations are going to be a very difficult aspect of the investigation. He said: "It is very difficult for a woman to admit that she has been raped. At the same time it is also very easy for a woman to tell the story that she has been raped when it is untrue". That is a totally unacceptable statement coming from anyone, but most importantly from the chair of the panel that is looking into these allegations.
I may add that the Canadian military lawyer who has been assigned to the panel, Commodore William Fen-rick, has also noted the difficulties they are going to face in reviewing these particular charges. I would hope the government would intervene to see there are changes in this.
Two other quick points. We call on the government again to expand the Canadian definition of convention refugee and to get the United Nations to expand the Geneva Convention on Refugees to include those who are refugees from sexual assault. We say that sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault should be added to the definition of war crimes.
I join with the member for Winnipeg South Centre in saying to the government that it should come forward with proposals for a Canadian role in the future, assuming the Vance-Owen discussions are successful.
Let me mention two other points. We call on the government to move quickly to recognize the government of Croatia. The government has delayed and delayed this most important step. There is no legal impediment as to why the government of Croatia should not now be recognized. It has been recognized by other governments. I would ask the Secretary of State for
March 8, 1993

External Affairs if she can find a way to give a commitment to this House to recognize the government of Croatia so that it can take its place in the international world.
Finally, I cannot help but use the opportunity to draw attention to the fact that the government is coming forward with $9.5 million for humanitarian relief and is taking the time to bring it before the House, while at the same time it is blotting Canada's reputation around the world and betraying a commitment to the people of the world by cutting back on official development assistance. We see in Somalia and even in Bosnia that the heart of these problems is the failure of the world to come to grips with the issue of justice and to distribute this world's goods fairly and properly. That is really what is at the heart of so many of the problems the world is facing today.
For the government to cut back on hundreds of millions of dollars to the poorest people of the world while it takes the time of this House to make much about its generosity on behalf of the Canadian people is the height of hypocrisy.
This minister is responsible for Official Development Assistance. It is time the government was called to account for its failures on this point.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I just wanted to say, once again, it is unfortunate that the Standing Orders do not allow us to put questions to the minister or to pursue the debate on this very important issue. I have always said this is one of the weak points of the Standing Orders. I do, however, want people to realize that we are determined to go ahead and change the Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Denis knows perfectly well that if he wants to improve the Standing Orders, he can submit suggestions to the appropriate committee of the House.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. You may have realized that the reason I raised this point of order was to give notice that I intend to
Routine Proceedings
continue, as you suggested, my submissions to the committee that is considering these matters.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of International Women's Day to draw to the attention of the House one of the key elements of women's equality. In fact this year the theme of International Women's Day that we have adopted at the federal level is "Women's Rights are Human Rights".
In 1993 the world is more clearly aware of the abuses of human rights than ever before. We have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs talk about it in the context of Bosnia, but there is hope because in June of this year even more attention will be focused on this issue when the United Nations hosts the world conference on human rights for the first time in 25 years. That conference will be taking place in Vienna, Austria.
Events around the world present opportunities for a more rigorous examination of the unequal treatment of women in our society and the chance to create a new ethic of justice for both genders.
The acknowledgement that women's rights are human rights also has important consequences for the way in which we view fundamental issues in our societies. The right to food, to shelter, to property, to social security, to health care, to employment, to religious and political freedom and to live without fear of violence should all apply equally to women and men. In many cases in many parts of the world they do not.
The facts underline this scenario. Women constitute half the world's population but they put in two-thirds of the working hours. They grow half the food but they receive one-tenth the wages and they own a mere 1 per cent of the world's property. They are the main educators of the world's children yet they make up most of the world's illiterate people. They are guardians of family health yet 15 million of their babies die annually from entirely preventable diseases.
We should take pride today on International Women's Day that indeed Canada has been on the forefront of international efforts to accelerate the recognition of

March 8, 1993
Routine Proceedings
women's rights as human rights. We have constantly stressed the concept of women's rights as an integral component of human rights at the United Nations. We strongly put forward initiatives recognizing, for example, that violence against women is an abuse of human rights.
We have also played an instrumental role in the development of the United Nations declaration on the elimination of violence against women. This declaration is going to be considered at the UN Commission on the Status of Women later this month. It is our hope that it will receive support from nations around the world and will go forward to the UN Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly of the UN for ratification later this year.
Similarly, Canada is an energetic and constant defender of women's rights in other international forums, including the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, the Organization of American States and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Women's rights also continue to be a major element of Canada's international aid policy. In 1984 CIDA adopted a women in development policy with the objective of integrating women of the Third World into the development programs, both as agents and beneficiaries. I certainly have had the opportunity to visit many projects around the world in those past eight years and have seen the very positive impact that this policy has had and how we have been a role model for many other countries around the world.
On the occasion of International Women's Day it is important to recall that in times of crisis Canada will provide humanitarian assistance and specifically for women. Indeed there is the statement that my colleague made earlier today reiterating our commitment to provide $1.5 million to the women and children who are victims of rape, violence and sexual abuse in Bosnia-Hercegovina. I hope that our funds, along with funds from around the world, can help those women to be able to at least recover their lives in some meaningful way after having suffered such horrible atrocities.
The work with respect to International Women's Day is not just abroad. It also applies right here at home. Over the past nine years there have been many changes that have taken place in terms of ensuring and promoting equal opportunities for women. In the work place there have been initiatives such as employment equity and the federal contractors program. I have heard from many persons who feel that the federal contractors program has had an immensely positive impact in enabling women to become involved through various institutions and recipients of government contracts across the country.
Women have also been targeted as a specific group in our training and skills development programs. Education is so vital. Earlier today I had the opportunity to share with some of our Canada scholars the report which the Prime Minister released today on the role of women in trades, technology, science and engineering, a report entitled "Winning With Women". It is a theme which we all take heart in, whether it is in science and technology or in the many other aspects of life where women have so much to offer.
This report identifies the very specific initiatives which we must take to ensure that women will be successful in entering into careers in science, trades and technology. Our Canada scholars program, which requires that 50 per cent of the recipients be women, has played a very important part in bringing about that change.
Whether they are amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to enhance parental benefits or amendments to the Labour Code that are currently before this House to improve maternity and parental leave and protect pregnant employees, there has been a whole range of initiatives relating to changes in law which have helped to advance and fundamentally ensure women's equality in this country.
Again, perhaps one of the most important ones is the change to the Indian Act to ensure that Indian women would no longer be stripped of their status because they married non-aboriginal persons. That has been enhanced through our work on the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy to ensure that aboriginal women are also accessing entrepreneurship and economic self-reliance.
March 8, 1993

We see women increasingly going into leadership roles. We are reminded again of the almost trebling of the numbers of women who now hold important positions throughout federal boards, agencies, commissions, and the federal judiciary. We now have a cabinet in which women comprise 20 per cent of the members.
One of the issues that is very close to my heart, and for so many women is a fundamentally important issue in achieving equality, is the issue of violence against women. Our government has applied a policy of zero tolerance toward violence against women both in principle and in action.
In the work of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women we will have the opportunity to set forward a national action plan. This is in addition to the over 1,300 projects which we have supported through the family violence initiative, which is helping to change and improve the lives of women and children in this country. Amendments to the gun control act, parole laws and Criminal Code provisions relating to sexual assault are all helping to provide better protection for women.
International Women's Day in 1993 is dedicated to ensuring that women's continuing efforts to achieve equality are taken account of both in the concept and practice of human rights. I applaud all those who are working to achieve that objective: women in this Chamber and women across the country operating within governments, in the private sector, in community organizations and women's groups at the grassroots level. They have all been part of this growing energy and this growing commitment. I applaud them for they are working to achieve that objective of ensuring equality for women both in Canada and around the world.
I know I share with all colleagues in this House the belief that this will come. It is our time and each of us will make a difference to ensure that it happens.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to speak on behalf of the opposition party in the House of Commons today on the occasion of International Women's Day 1993.
I listened very intently to the minister's remarks. I was pleased to learn that the theme chosen by the federal government for International Women's Day this year is
Routine Proceedings
"Women's Rights are Human Rights". As the official opposition critic for human rights and associate critic for the status of women I have long maintained that these two portfolios are intricately related. I would like to take the opportunity to address the issue of human rights and women and look at how women are faring both domestically and internationally.
The rights to food, shelter, property, social security, health care, employment and religious and political freedom are women's basic human rights. The fact that women are the gender most likely to be denied these rights is indicative of the battle women throughout the world face.
Nowhere is the sad truth more apparent today than in the ongoing war in the former Yugoslavia. Every day more stories emerge detailing the atrocities being committed. Of grave concern is the systematic detention and gang rape of Muslim women in Bosnia. There is now proof that at least 20,000 Muslim Bosnian women have been terrorized, brutalized, forced to bear their attackers' children and often murdered. This constitutes a human rights violation of the highest magnitude.
Unfortunately the tragedy of Bosnia-Hercegovina is not an isolated case. In March 1991 Amnesty International released its report Women in the Front Line, Human Rights Violations Against Women. The report records the experiences of female survivors and casualties of human rights atrocities world-wide. Grave violations of human rights were found to have been committed by governments with widely varying ideologies in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. The report documents cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment, specifically directed at women. These abuses may affect their physical, mental and emotional well-being, their role in the family or their cultural environment. Women's rights must be a major element of Canada's international aid policy.
The minister outlined some of the ways her government has tried to enhance this policy, yet all too often we see countries with atrocious human rights records receiving huge amounts of Canadian aid. The minister mentioned some of the terrible statistics regarding women in the world the poverty and poor health, lack of education and child mortality rates. However, she forgot to mention that her own government is proposing a new

March 8, 1993
Routine Proceedings
direction to official development assistance which will cause further difficulties for many women.
Even the minister's own Conservative colleague on that side of the House, a former cabinet minister who has also served as ambassador to Ethiopia, calls the government's actions stupid. Those are his comments.
Closer to home, I have become increasingly amazed at how much energy Canadian women must expend just to fight the system in order to achieve equality of opportunity due to poor government policy. Women are still fighting the advance rather than advancing the fight.
In 1970 women earned 60 cents to every dollar earned by our male counterparts. In 1990 that figure had risen by only seven cents. In 23 years it rose by 7 cents to 67 cents for every dollar.
Women are over-represented in low-paying, parttime jobs and are often denied promotions, job security and standard employee benefits.
The minister talked about what her government has done for women in Canada. I would like to know why her government issued directives to Treasury Board and Justice Canada officials to use stalling tactics before the human rights tribunal established to hear federal Public Service pay equity complaints. I would like to have the minister's response as to why her government, as an example, will not respect the equal pay retroactivity entitlements provided under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Why will the minister's government not abide by the tribunal's decision? Those are three simple questions.
Finally, I would like to know why the minister's government will not support amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide for proactive implementation of pay equity within specified time frames for the 500,000 working women in the banking, transportation and communication industries in the federal Public Service.
Of even deeper concern is the issue of violence against women. One in four women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, half of them before they reach the age of 17. Every five days a woman is shot to death in Canada and usually by her male partner. The trends will not
reverse on their own. The approach to resolutions must lie in an interrelation of government policies at all levels.
Violence against women does not exist in isolation. The main contributing factor is that social attitudes condone it and poverty confirms it. Women are often forced to remain in violent situations because in all too many instances they must rely on a male partner for their economic well-being. The cycle perpetuates itself. Children who grow up in this environment will live it.
By taking a stand against such offences and working toward policies to strengthen a woman's position in society it would be clear that tolerance of acts against women is unacceptable. Today would be a good day to take the first step.
This International Women's Week of 1993 is a time and an opportunity for all of us, not only all of us in this House but all of us as Canadians, both male and female, to try to right the wrongs and ensure that women move forward to their rightful place in our Canadian society.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day is a time to celebrate our achievements and re-examine our vision for the world.
Too often, both in the House of Commons and outside, we deal with the details and not with the overview. A volunteer who takes crisis calls at a shelter for battered women or a sexual assault centre or a volunteer at a women's centre helping a family find child care, all of these acts that we do each and every day are a part of a larger movement toward full social, economic and political equality and empowerment.
My vision, which I share with many, is of a world in which men and women live in harmony, peace and equality and where no one is beaten or tortured. It is a world in which no one's work goes unpaid or underpaid and unrecognized. It is a world in which we are not divided into rich and poor. It is a world in which no one is persecuted because of their gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs. It is a world in which our children can breathe fresh air and play and live without fear, secure in the knowledge that whether they are male or female, aboriginal, black, white or any other race or colour, they will be respected and valued for who they are. It is a world without war.
March 8, 1993

Sometimes this sounds like an impossible dream. However, with this vision to guide us, we can bring about positive changes within our own lifetimes, changes that the generations which come after us may build upon and benefit from. That is the vision and there are concrete steps we can take toward that vision.
We can stop deporting women back to situations where they face abuse and death at the hands of their husbands or at the hands of the state. We can establish a national child care program and provide support for parents at home. We can make training and education more accessible by lowering financial barriers. We can implement pay equity. We can channel our resources away from the military, away from military helicopters, away from security intelligence and government waste toward services which invest in the skills and health of our population.
In her statement the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women said that the right to food, shelter, property, social security, health care, employment and the right to live without violence should apply equally to women and men. But they do not.
Yet her government's actions, the cutbacks to social assistance, cutbacks to housing programs, cutbacks to health care, cutbacks to child care and training programs, cutbacks to shelters for battered women and the Secretary of State women's program, these regressive actions speak far louder than her words.
The minister said that Canada has been a leader internationally on the human rights of women. However, her government is deporting refugee women who are fleeing domestic or state violence and gender-based persecution. Over the weekend The Globe and Mail documented the personal situations of 14 refugee women who were here in Canada, some of them in hiding. This government is determined to deport them back to those unsafe conditions in their homeland, back into the hands of abusive men who control their lives. Eighty per cent of the world's refugees are women and children, yet two-thirds of the refugees that Canada accepts are male.
The minister's words will be weighed against the lives of all of these women and children. She cited the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women as her
Routine Proceedings
government's effort to deal with violence. Again she is confusing words with action. Battered women cannot receive shelter or safety at the offices of the panel when they are turned away from an overflowing, underfunded shelter for battered women. Actions, not words will lead us closer to our vision of equality.
On this International Women's Day, March 8,1993, if I have one wish, it is a wish that working together we could acknowledge the fundamental inequality in our society. We could move forward in a systematic way that addresses those underlying reasons why women are at the bottom of the social and economic scale, both in Canada and internationally and make a commitment among all of us in this House of Commons to work together to change that.


INTERNATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRENCH-SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS REPORT OF CANADIAN SECTION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians on the meeting of the board of the parliamentary affairs committee held in Paris on February 3, 1993.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first one is from a large number of residents across Canada. The petitioners point out to the government that drug costs are going up dramatically because of the abolition of licensing procedures for generic drugs. They request that the government repeal Bill C-22 and not proceed with Bill C-91. Of course as it has now passed, the government should repeal Bill C-91.

March 8, 1993
Routine Proceedings IMMIGRATION


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by a large number of residents in Surrey and points out that people applying for sponsorship of immigrants pay a $250 fee. It also points out that the Surrey and New Westminster immigration offices are going to be closed which will make it very difficult for people to receive this service. The Vancouver office which is being opened is going to add additional costs of over a quarter of a million dollars because of building occupancy.
The petitioners call upon this House to ensure that the immigration services in Surrey and New Westminster remain open for the public.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions.
The first refers to the protection of civilian victims of war. Their rights should be made known and respected. This petition calls upon Parliament to help the Canadian Red Cross to mobilize governments and the public to be aware of the right of victims of war to receive food, medicine and shelter regardless of race, colour, creed or political, religious or ideological nature.


Kenneth David Atkinson: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a great number of individuals from St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and other areas of the Niagara peninsula in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis.
The petitioners ask that the Young Offenders Act be amended to provide greater protection to the public. The petition goes through many concrete suggestions. These include that the judicial powers should recognize the consequences to the victim and the victim's family as being paramount and give as much recognition to the victim as is afforded to the young offender. In addition, the parole system should be expanded to be responsible and have the authority to develop and conduct effective rehabilitation programs for dangerous young offenders when they are released from custody.
The petition also calls for life sentences for murder to be incorporated into the Young Offenders Act with the parole provisions at 10, 15 and 20 years. Obviously, the most important one is the provision of a parole system
which is not currently in effect with the Young Offenders Act.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, which has been certified correct as to form and content.
This petition recalls the importance of a program known as the Court Challenges Program, which basically helped language minorities defend their rights before the courts. Considering the recent Supreme Court decision on education, I think it is appropriate to lay this petition on the table.
Wherefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider the possibility of reinstating the Court Challenges Program, which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 325 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 325 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia: Since April 1991, have any cabinet policies been subjected to environmental impact assessments and, if so, (a) who conducted each assessment (6) have any public statements been released and, if so, when were they released?
Return tabled.


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


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


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

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]

["Therefore the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)."]
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today when you were in the chair the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader rose in his place and sought unanimous consent to move a motion dealing with a matter to come before the House later today. You indicated that there was no unanimous consent. I was in the Chamber at the time and I did not hear a dissenting voice.
I draw your attention to the Precis of Procedure, pages 63 and 64 which states that the vote on the motion, whether it has been debated or not, is put by the Speaker asking: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" If there is no dissenting voice, the motion carries.
It is the tradition, or at least it has been the tradition in this House that if a member objects to a request for unanimous consent an audible no is heard. It ensures that all members regardless of where they are seated in the Chamber are aware of that no and do not rely solely on the hearing or visual ability of the Speaker.
I am not looking for a ruling at the moment. I am not challenging any decision that has been made. I would ask you to examine this issue, Mr. Speaker, to see whether or not it is appropriate for the Speaker to see the shaking of a head and take that as direction of consent or non-consent when a matter is put before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in notifying me that he intended to raise this point of order. I want to reassure him, after making inquiries and referring to the tradition of our rules, that it is left to the discretion of the Chair to determine whether or not there is unanimity, since it is not a yes or no vote. Presumably, a deaf mute member could refuse unanimous consent in some non-verbal way, if you allow me that example.
That being said, I want to reassure the hon. member that I am certain the House was not unanimous on the motion that had been presented. I take note of the member's request and may investigate further, but I wish to reassure him right away that there was no unanimity. Eeven if it was not expressed verbally, I was able to see that with my own eyes.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, as reported (with amendments) by a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this bill and raise a number of issues.
Our concern on this side of the House is that this is simply another move in the privatization of Canada Post. In our view it is a serious enough situation already that we have seen the closing down of rural post offices, the destruction of rural community life and the removal of the visible sign of the presence of the nation in many of the communities of our country.
The minister has said in this House on a number of occasions that this is not part of a privatization move. However, it is extremely difficult to believe that when we have seen various steps toward privatization. We have seen the government increasingly removing itself from any responsibility for the actions, the service or lack of service of Canada Post.
I give one example. Junk mail is of significant concern to a large number of Canadians. They are concerned about the environment and concerned about having to deal with extra pounds of paper that are put into their mailboxes every week unsolicited. They have no way of legally refusing that even when it is delivered by Canada Post. I wrote to the minister some time ago and asked why Canadians cannot have the right to refuse what they describe as junk mail. We all know what we mean, advertising flyers and so on, something that has nothing to do with mail, directed to that person but whose sole purpose is to sell.
The minister wrote back and said Canada Post has to deliver every piece of mail delivered to it. Of course it does because the law says so. That is why I wrote to the minister. The minister of the Crown is responsible for

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
pursuing changes to legislation and instead chose to rely to be able to set up their own future and that often on Canada Post to say it has to deliver this stuff.	involves the issuing of shares and stocks to themselves.
This is one of the indications that the government is increasingly absolving itself of any responsibility for postal service when in fact legally it is still responsible.
I wanted to speak about the privatization of postal outlets. This has created ridiculous situations in my riding. Some members will know that Ottawa West happens to be the riding in Canada with the second highest proportion of seniors. One-third of the adults in Ottawa West are over 65. How and where services are delivered means whether or not seniors can live comfortably and conveniently in their communities as they age.
When post offices are moved from very close to a seniors' residence where 200 or 300 people may be housed to a good 20-minute walk away for a population that by large measure does not have cars is the kind of thing that happened under the privatization moves already made by Canada Post. The only concern was accommodating the private sector and providing services through the private sector. The emphasis on service disappears.
The other area in which privatization has seriously affected services in my riding is with respect to French language services. Canada Post is not ensuring that private postal outlets provide services in Canada's two official languages. It means that in Ottawa West, which has a population of close to 10,000 people who identify French as their first language, those people are not able to get the services they are legally guaranteed in their first language.
I am really not quite sure what this bill means and I do not think the government is really quite sure what it means. Let the employees buy shares in the company but do not give them a vote, do not give them any say about it, and do not consult with them ahead of time as to whether this is something they have any interest in whatsoever. It is also set up so shares can be given away. This is a standard part of any privatization package I have ever seen, whether it is in Canada or elsewhere in the world. It is the ability for the senior managers of a corporation, a Crown corporation, becoming privatized
I have to question whether this bill is really about allowing employees to be co-owners of Canada Post. How employees can be the co-owners of something that is not privatized, which the minister denies he is trying to do, is not quite clear. However they are going to be co-owners. In that case the government has an obligation to lay out what this corporation is going to be worth of which the employees are theoretically going to be able to be co-owners.
I serve notice as has already been done by the union representing many of these employees, that this government has an $80 million pay equity debt to women employees of the post office and that it had better not talk about privatizing or valuing the corporation without including that debt in the evaluation.
I am going to speak briefly about something else that has been of great concern to me. A number of complaints and inquiries have come to my office about the treatment of people working for the post office. Those have not diminished with the privatization efforts that have gone on. They have increased. Women who have worked for the post office for many years have suddenly been put on late night shift work. Women who have child care well in place have suddenly been told they have to work on a shift and they cannot get child care. People who have been with the post office for many years have suddenly found it is becoming impossible for them to stay because of the way employees are treated.
We do not have a good situation at the post office now. We have a decline in service to the public, not an increase, notwithstanding what the post office says. We have an increasingly market driven approach to delivering a public service that is crucial to the unity of Canada.
It is not much wonder when we on this side of the House and Canadians in general receive any kind of bill like this there is great cynicism and great scepticism about the minister's comments and great mistrust of those comments about what the real intention is. That is because consistently over close to nine years we have seen this government not being honest and open about
March 8, 1993

what its intentions are. We suspect that in this bill it is another case of one small step to another hidden agenda.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, most members of this House have of course spoken against this bill, but some have come out in favour of it. Since 1965 the general public has lived through 18 major disputes at Canada Post. We have had some very difficult years and as yet a way has not been found to ensure peace in a postal system which at one time was the envy of the world. Canadians do not know that there is a very long history behind Canada Post.
Even before the country was formed in 1867, in the colonies of New France in the 16th century, to go way back, the French saw that the Indians, the native people, the Iroquois and so on, had a system to take messages by river with canoes made of bark. They found their methods very effective, considering the difficulties at that time when all the land was covered with forests. The French at the time of New France adopted this method using canoes of bark to send documents between Quebec City and Montreal mainly, or to Trois-Rivieres, depending on the colonies.
In 1735 they decided that official documents could be sent not only by water but also by land through the forests and roads were laid out over time. Strangely for the time, 1735, the first person hired to take messages, if you want, was a Portuguese fellow by the name of Pedro da Silva, as history records. So we can see that everyone was an immigrant even then, because countries other than France and England were also represented in this country. Over the years, the system improved. In 1868, just a few months after Confederation in 1867 when Canada became a country, one of the first departments created was the post office. Post houses were created which over time became post offices headed by postmasters.
With the advent of airplanes, a system developed in the country. We must not forget that Canada's population was not large but we then had a service considered very advanced and rapid, given the small population and the large territory to be crossed to deliver mail throughout the country. I even noticed that in the 1920s mail was
Government Orders
free in some rural areas. That is far from the case today. At the time, although people were poor, they could communicate by mail with relatives outside their region.
The first stamps came in the 1800s. It is not surprising that the beaver appeared on the first stamp, which cost three cents. For the time, perhaps it was a lot of money compared to what it costs today.
On the whole, Canadians had a very good system, but unfortunately it was not possible to solve the conflicts in Canada Post. Since 1965, there have been 18 conflicts. I believe they have destroyed morale at Canada Post. Later, we had great difficulty establishing a system with which Canada Post employees were satisfied. Many attempts were made with various government plans to find a solution.
Finally, we have Bill C-73, which is rather vague in that it would privatize the postal system. We suspected it for some time, but the government denied it. What I find hard to understand is that it recognizes that the employees, the postal workers, are the most important part of the system. In spite of that, the government plans to sell them 10 per cent of our system, only 10 per cent-of course, the government would keep 90 per cent-but with no voting rights. Usually, shareholders have voting rights, but not in this case.
The government thinks that privatizing the postal system could solve the strikes and conflicts at Canada Post, but I think it misunderstands the problem. For many years Canada Post has needed a kind of leadership that would not necessarily come from the government and its appointees. It should have invested in that and found the leadership needed to rebuild the necessary morale, but that is not what it did. A conflict situation has been created and has gone on without interruption for the past 25 years.
This bill does not really solve the problems. Instead, they should have found what was creating a situation in Canada Post that always led to conflict. We can honestly say that Canada Post pays well. They are not the highest paid workers, but they are certainly not the lowest paid. Paying well is not always a way to buy peace. In spite of that, they complained that the corporate leadership was uncaring and they felt that they were treated cavalierly.

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
So this privatization will not solve the problem there. Just giving it to the private sector will certainly not solve the problem, since we have seen that the private sector is not always the answer. We have inherited a system that was built over the years. At one time it was envied by many. Now the government comes up with what it hopes is a solution to all these conflicts. Basically privatization puts the problem out of our control. That is not the way to go. We should always have control over Canada Post because it is extremely important to have a service that meets the objectives of providing the fastest, most reliable service possible. We had such a service and that is still our goal but I think that we would still have the same problems with privatization and then we would conclude that privatization was not the solution.
In closing, I hope that in the next few years, we will really take the time to deal with the postal question and settle it once and for all. We should ask those who have been out there for many years and call upon their knowledge to find a way that will benefit all Canadians and give them fast, reliable service.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to enter into the debate on Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. This is nothing more than the privatization of Canada Post.
I listened with interest to the member for Ottawa West. I was the New Democratic Party postal critic during 1980, 1981 and 1982 when Canada Post was made a Crown corporation. During that time the Liberals were in power.
In the small community of Ibout Lake just south of my then riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke, which has now been changed to Kootenay East, a very strong Liberal who had worked for the Liberal Party for many years was delivering the mail. The people were being told that their rural post office in Trout Lake was to be shut down and that they would have to travel approximately 20 miles to a green box at Galena Bay. That was the concern of the Liberals in those days. As a member of Parliament I hired a lawyer to try to fight that, and the minute I did so they changed their decision and let that post office carry on. I do not need to be told anything about what the Liberals were doing with regard to the post office even in those days.
As I said I represent the riding of Kootenay East with nine municipalities and 50 rural post offices. When I see the Liberal member of Parliament for Ottawa West standing in the House expressing concerns with regard to the possibility that she might not be able to receive her mail in French or English or the possibility of some of these changes taking place, I think such members of Parliament have no idea what a member of Parliament in a rural riding must do in order to try to accommodate and work for his or her residents.
Of 50 rural post offices many are being shut down. People are being told to drive as many as 30 kilometres and 40 kilometres to a green box where there are no other services available. Right across the street from the post office we have in place with all its services the government in power is opening up another private enterprise and making those services available. Yet, as I said, people in a rural area will have to drive 30 kilometres or 40 kilometres to get to a green box in snow up to their hips.
This is not the kind of service that we in the New Democratic Party envisioned for our people. Our post office is one of the most essential services people expect to have. It must be equal for everyone across all provinces, across our whole country and especially into our rural areas. Private enterprise will not go into remote areas and give the kinds of services people expect. If we are talking about services we have to retain our Crown corporation. We have to retain equal service to people right across the country and we are not going to do that with this kind of legislation.
I resent being a member of Parliament when I hear what people representing a riding like Ottawa West have to say. I have five airports in my riding and I am trying to get some electric lighting for them. I have five native bands in my riding and I am trying to get some help for them. I have three border crossings and we have the kind of legislation this government brought in to try to protect small businesses in those areas. I have 1,400 kilometres to drive across my riding to represent these people.
The government is taking away our immigration offices. It is cutting back on our unemployment insurances offices. I cannot even have a 1-800 number for those people to phone when they have problems with their unemployment insurance. Yet I hear the Liberal member for Ottawa West complaining whether they can get their mail in French or in English. I am complaining so that we can get a service to represent the people in my
March 8, 1993

riding who have to drive distances in very heavy snow conditions.
When I was on that committee I insisted-and it is in that piece of legislation today-on an amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party for our Crown corporation to give equal service to communities of equal size. I will give credit to the then minister in charge of Canada Post, the member for Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel, who agreed to that important amendment. It indicated that anywhere in the country where service was to be made available communities of equal size would be given equal opportunity. That is not happening today under this government.
I hear about the shutdowns of postal offices in small areas. I go there and hear the outcry of seniors who have lived in those areas for many years when they find out their post offices are being closed down. They are told they will be able to go to the nearest area, possibly 15 kilometres or 20 kilometres away, where there will be a post office. After shutting the first one down notification takes place that the other is being shut down.
There is no consideration for these residents whatsoever. It is strictly an economic decision being made by Canada Post. Canada Post is starting to let new private outlets across the street, right across the road from post offices, for the day when it will shut down its post offices in these areas.
We in the New Democratic Party know what that means for our isolated areas and other areas that are not profitable. It means they will be left out. Again we will see members of Parliament from large urban areas having their services, in fact even delivery to the door, when our people have to drive distances to pick up their mail. It is wrong. This legislation is wrong and should be defeated.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate and to ask this House a simple question.
We are beginning to privatize what I consider to be an essential service in Canada, an essential service in the
Government Orders
sense that every country has a post office. If we look to the south it has a national post office that seems to work very effectively, and we have a post office that we are trying to privatize. This government has privatized. I will just mention two areas I have seen privatized that have affected the way of life of the people I represent.
One is the railway. We do not have a railway. Even if we had wanted the railway the Tories could take it away. They could just say they wanted to abandon the line and in a hurried fashion the railway picked up the iron rails and cross-ties and sold them. Within a year we would not even think there had been a railway from Halifax to Yarmouth.
What about the airlines? I cannot imagine in the 18 years or 19 years I have been involved in politics an airline industry in Canada that is more mixed up or confused than our airline as it exists internationally. The airline routes we hold dear should belong to Canada and should not be allowed to go south of the border in any way, shape or form. Canada should control its international airline routes.
Perhaps domestically we have a healthy airline industry but internationally I as an elected politician cannot see our international routes being held or controlled, our rights as Canadians being held or controlled by other countries. This government seems to have a laissez-faire attitude in that regard.
Then we come to the post offices. They were just closed and before we knew it some real estate business in the area got to sell them. Although the people have held meetings, protested and said they did not want their post offices closed, they were closed. Like many of my colleagues I have seen many post offices closed in my riding. I have never seen people more offended by post offices being closed. Yet this government has never once gone to the Canadian public and said what it was going to do to post offices.
The Tories have a majority. They can ram it through, and like everything else they do not even consider what the people in Canada are telling them on a day-to-day basis. I do not know how members of Parliament opposite can go home on weekends and face their constituents, unless their post offices are not being closed or it is

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
only in ridings represented on this side of the House that we are losing post offices and railways.
Speaking of railways, Canadian Pacific is abandoning part of the line from Saint John to Montreal. It is abandoning from Saint John to Sherbrooke. It is a very valuable line, now that we have the free trade agreement with the U.S. Why would we give up a line that goes to the U.S., could probably be hooked up with U.S. lines and get right to the midwest, into the big centres like New York and others? Why are we pressuring Atlantic Canadians? Why is ACOA not going out to see if we cannot handle that line, keep it going, keep it active and keep the railway going?
We do not have that. It is the same when we think about the post office and privatization. This government has to provide some services for Canadians. We have a large country. To be able to send a letter to the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia or Calgary we need to have a system for the approximately 26 million Canadians that benefits them and that they have a say in. I have not seen that.
People across Canada are questioning this government's spending of the taxes it collects. I think that is why people are so dissatisfied with politicians and people in this House. Right across Canada we hear them ask what we are doing here in Ottawa with the taxes that are collected.
In the 1960s ordinary Canadians could buy a home and send their kids to college on one salary. Today you can have a mother, a father, the children at an early age, the university students and the technical students all working to try to maintain a home and send the kids to school for further education.
We hear this government claim that we have to educate our youth. For the first time I am seeing youth who are trying to be educated without much help as a priority and yet we are told they do so much for Canada.
I think Canadians are sick and tired of hearing what this government has done. It has decreased services in practically every area. It has increased taxes to such an extent that people are hurting and hurting badly. They cannot understand how we can just sit around in this House as politicians, go home on weekends, listen to the
people and come back here and not have an effective role to play. We are not effective when we cannot even see that it is a priority in Canada not to privatize but to have an efficient postal service for all Canadians.
I think it is a priority. I would like to know if Canadians feel that way. Perhaps they can improve the service at the post office. Perhaps they can start providing a more down to earth combination of urban and rural services. This is a big country. This is a great country and those are national institutions that this government has systematically done away with. That is why it is so important for this bill to be defeated. Without the Canadian approval I cannot believe we are just undoing another national institution, another service to Canadians who see their taxes going somewhere but not affecting them.
I realize my time is over very shortly but I do want to say it is time the government started listening to Canadians. It is going to have a leadership convention but that is not going to change the attitude we have put up with, or I have put up with for four and a half years. The government has been insensitive and has not paid any attention to the proposals we put forward and this is just one of them. Canadians do not want to see the government privatize Canada Post like Air Canada and our railway system. They do not want to see some of our national institutions go out the door without even being able to vote on it.
Let us hope the election comes soon. I think Canadians want to vote this government out because of its lack of caring about the spending of Canadian taxes and the hard-earned dollars of Canadians which it has controlled.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to participate in this debate with regard to Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. As previous speakers have indicated, the substance we are dealing with really provides very little in the way of an incentive or solution to some of the problems we are being confronted with at the present time at Canada Post.
One could intellectually argue that making shares available to the employees of Canada Post Corporation is a positive feature of the evolution of governing and particularly of the way Crown corporations operate.
March 8, 1993

When one looks at it from a very substantive and practical perspective, one readily sees what a sham this really is.
As my colleagues before me have pointed out, this will allow employees the right to acquire only non-voting shares. That is a sham. Will they be able to have their members and representatives sit on the board of directors which determines the policy and direction the corporation will inevitably go? The answer is no. That in itself is a substantive and fundamental omission of the whole proposal being put forward by the government.
As my colleague from South West Nova has indicated, this is really a step in the direction of privatization. One could compare the ideologues of the Conservative Party opposite with Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, but she did not stoop to such idiotic procedures as privatizing the post office in that country. This government is bent on following a direction whereby it would inevitably, not today but soon thereafter, privatize Canada Post Corporation.
It fails to take into consideration that Canadians do not want to have their post offices privatized. I do not think Canadians agree with the direction in which the government is proceeding. I think Canadians in rural Canada and indeed in urban Canada see this institution of Canada Post as yet another great institution of the Canadian mosaic. I believe that and my colleague from South West Nova has also alluded to that.
Unfortunately, members opposite do not give a damn about the institutions which have added strength to the way of life in Canada. I want to remind members opposite we have had examples. This is the government that said it would never privatize Air Canada. What did it do? It privatized Air Canada. This government kicked up a storm in 1983-84, as my colleague will recall, with regard to the abandonment of certain railway lines across this country. Now we are going to have a report within 48 hours that it will abandon many railroads across this country. VIA Rail has cut off its passenger service to many parts of this country when in fact the government argued many years ago it would never do that.
Canadians have grown accustomed to these institutions. They felt they were important because they added to our culture as a nation and to the Canadian mosaic. They are slowly but effectively being eroded by members
Government Orders
opposite. Of course the hon. member opposite speaks from his seat, as he normally does, not wishing to participate in the substance of the debate. He is only name calling from his chair, reluctant to stand in his place and defend something which is indefensible. I understand that. I understand that.
What I find hypocritical about members opposite, and particularly the one who is speaking from his seat at the moment, is the way they stand in their places and clap like wet seals when the Minister of National Defence stands in her place and tries to defend the idiotic program of a $6 billion expenditure of public moneys on Cadillac helicopters. She does this when we have so many issues affecting Canadians today such as the student loans program which affects our students and the student summer employment program which affects young people in this country and day care or lack of day care.
Again, I say to the hon. member opposite, in 1984 the right hon. gentleman who sits opposite to me said with his hand in the air: "I am committed to a national child care program" only to be reaffirmed in 1986, 1988 and 1989. We have not seen one red cent for a national child care program by this government, yet it has moneys in excess of $5.8 billion to spend on Cadillac helicopters.
This Canada Post bill fails to address the issue of services to Canadians. It fails to provide specifics with regard to share offerings. It does not say anything with regard to placing values on assets or the value of shares, nor does it protect any of its employees who are gainfully employed with Canada Post Corporation.
I have an example of a post office in my district in the town of Dominion. It is only because of the good work of the mayor of that town, Mayor Art MacDonald and the town council, whom I have worked with over the years, that we have been able to keep that post office open. This government is bent on closing post offices, services and thereby towns throughout our country.
I recall that members opposite have individuals in their midst who are experts at closing down towns. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, the impartial person who sits in the chair, that you will have to agree Schefferville was one example of shutting down a town. Now the govern-

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
ment has found new ways to shut down towns and get rid of post offices.
It does not stop there. In the several minutes I have remaining-I am sure I would get unanimous consent to continue-let me give another example. It is Tory creed. It is its biblical following. Not only has the right hon. Prime Minister closed down towns, we have a living example in the province of Nova Scotia. In the darkness of night the first minister of that province, the Hon. Don Cameron, ordered the machines to be sent in to tear down the toll gates at the Canso causeway. That affected the towns in the surrounding areas and threw men and women out of work, when that particular operation was creating a profit and did not cost the taxpayers a cent.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, what do you expect from the Tory credo? It is to shut things down. It is to take away services from the people of Canada.
It is a sad day for Parliament and it ought to be a sad day for parliamentarians to see the government opposite, in its total arrogance of what is taking place in this country, stoop to such shams as to try to offer employees non-voting shares and somehow think those employees and the Canadians whom they serve will appreciate and thank the government for doing this kind of disservice to them.
Canadians are not that dumb. Canadians are not like members opposite, acting in a vacuum. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, they will have their opportunity to defend their dismal record over the last number of years no matter who they elect to succeed the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my main comments I would compliment my colleague on those last remarks. He has obviously injured the feelings of the people across the aisle with his pertinent remarks respecting what is happening with Canada Post and the direction it is taking today.
I am pleased to add my comments on Bill C-73. Simply put, the bill is window dressing. It is absolutely, positively non-operative. It is not going to work, ladies and gentlemen. It fails in its purpose and it has absolutely no
meaning for those people it is trying to help, the employees of Canada Post.
In business we would call this a diversion. Subversion might be an appropriate word too. What it is really doing is diverting the attention of the Canadian public from the fundamental issue before all Canadians with respect to the operation of Canada Post. In my estimation Canada Post has simply lost its way, it has lost its purpose for being and it has lost its very reason for existence.
As a Crown corporation Canada Post is not alone in what it is doing with respect to other Crown corporations we have, not only federally but in the provinces. We need not look any further than what is happening at other Crown corporations. We all know that in any corporation, whether it is a Crown corporation or whether it is a corporation that is privately owned, the corporation takes its direction, its attitudes and its reason for being from its chief executive officers, those in charge on the executive committees and obviously from the board of directors.
Let me give an example of what we see happening in another Crown corporation, Canadian National Railways, with its huge annual losses. I wonder what those losses would be if we knew what the charges are that CNR makes to VIA Rail on an invoice basis on an annual basis. I do not know what they are, but it is going to be interesting when CNR and VIA Rail come before the transport committee of this House.
I wonder what those losses would increase to if CNR did not have the wherewithal and the money that is paid to both railways in this country as a result of the Western Grain Transportation Act and some $700 million to $800 million a year that is used to subsidize the flow of grain in this country. If it was not for the revenue CNR receives from VIA Rail and western grain transportation, its losses would far exceed what we are seeing on its balance sheets today.
We are told that since 1988 this Crown corporation has lost 22 per cent of its business, that it cannot compete with other modes of transportation in this country and as a result it will have to lay off over 10,000 people over the next period of time. That is one-third of the labour force of this particular corporation.
One would have to ask what is wrong with the senior management of this corporation. What is wrong with its chief executive officers? What is wrong with its board of directors? Certainly those CEOs and board of directors
March 8, 1993

have been adequately compensated, both by way of remuneration and the frills that those positions receive. What is wrong with the operation of this corporation that it finds itself in such dire straits today?
We need look no further than Ontario Elydro and the problems it is facing. This is a provincial Crown corporation, grossly negligent in assessing the needs for power in Ontario, miscalculating what the cost of nuclear energy would be in this province, assessing incorrectly what the people in the province of Ontario would endure with respect to higher hydro costs, increasing hydro costs in the neighbourhood of 18 per cent in the last three years.
You ask yourself what kind of management, chief executive officers, board of directors, do these companies have that allow this type of thing to happen? As we heard today it results in not only 3,100 or 3,200 employees having to be laid off last year but an additional
5,000	employees having to be laid off in an economy in Ontario that can ill afford further lay-offs of this type. I think it comes down to the management that these Crown corporations are experiencing.
This brings me to the issue at hand. It is with respect to what is happening at Canada Post. Canada Post, as we know from the annual statement, has lost this past year in excess of $100 million.
There is tremendous employee unrest within the corporation. There have been fundamental changes in the thrust and direction of its mandate. It is directly involved against private enterprise, causing private enterprise sometimes to cease its operations because it cannot compete against a Crown corporation that only has to go to the government and the taxpayer of this country in order to secure and pay for its losses. Private enterprise cannot do this and this is what we are experiencing with this corporation called Canada Post.
I happen to know that some of the executives at Canada Post come from valid and substantial business backgrounds and very competitive business enterprises within this country. I wonder what has happened to those fundamental basic business principles they learned in their prior work experience. Why were they not brought
Government Orders
to Canada Post in order to ensure the viability of this very important Crown corporation?
There is only one thing Canada Post has to do. Its only mandate is to provide service for Canadians. That is all it has to do. It provides the service of delivery of mail in the most economical and speedy way it can do it. That is its only mandate. When you read the legislation, it must deliver the mail. That is not difficult.
Where have these fundamental principles gone? Is it the business of Canada Post to promote certain enterprises within the country? Is it the business of Canada Post to be involved, as one of my colleagues stated earlier in the day, in delivering flyers? As I understand it today, the delivery of mail, which is the main mandate of Canada Post, accounts for something around 20 per cent of its annual business.
In my last two minutes I want to say that Canada Post and its executive officers along with its board of directors have very sound business backgrounds. I ask them for the future of Canada Post to apply those business principles. One cannot manufacture automobiles in this country if there are 100,000 grievances from employees who are unhappy with the corporation. You know full well that if there was that kind of grievance and employee unrest, the product that was delivered was not a good product and it would not be delivered on time. This is a problem that has existed at Canada Post for a number of years. It just does not want to come to grips with the issue and get rid of it.
I wonder what the chief executives in this country would do if their field representatives came and made reports on a semi-annual or on an annual basis and said: "I was successful this week, Mr. Boss. I managed to close 12, 14 or 24 outlets where we were providing a service to Canadian people". This is in rural post offices where it is so important in those areas that are out and beyond the main areas of Canada like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and so on.
I come from an area that relies on the good service and the ability of Canada Post to deliver a service. I wonder what would happen if these same executives were in a business enterprise that fostered the closing of outlets

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
not only to sell their product but to service the product for Canadians.
I would impress upon and ask the officials in the executive and on the board of directors of Canada Post to return to the good business principles for which they were hired and return Canada Post to delivering a service of which all Canadians should be proud.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It is important to defeat Bill C-73 because it is another one of these government bills portraying one thing to the public when it means something just the opposite. This has been the technique of the present Prime Minister. This has been the technique of the present government.
Let me give an example. It says that the changes in this bill, as amended in the legislative committee, are indicated by the underlined and vertical lines. Let us turn to section 27.3(1) which reads:
The Minister, the Corporation and any subsidiary of the Corporation are authorized to issue or transfer to, and to purchase from, directly or indirectly, employees of the Corporation non-voting shares of the Corporation in accordance with such plan as the Board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board, establish by by-law.
That section gives it all away. It gives the Tbry hidden agenda away. They want to look good in the eyes of the workers. "Here are some shares. You own the corporation." Does that not sound great? However, does one have any say in that corporation? No, not one word. Does one have any say in the future plans of the corporation, whether the working conditions should be safe in this corporation? No. Again it is in the hands of the Order in Council, in the hands of a group of ministers who think they know it all and they know what is best for all Canadians.
I am very angry as I am speaking here because in Parkdale-High Park we do not have one traditional post office left. All we have left in my riding are retail outlets. There is one good retail outlet remaining that has been in existence for 35 years in the High Park Pharmacy. It serves thousands and thousands of people, seniors and
handicapped people who live on the subway corridor right behind this pharmacy.
A year ago someone in this big corporation decided to close this outlet, the only one between the other outlets crossways at Windermere and Bloor which these people have no way of getting to. These people send parcels to Lithuania, to Ukraine, to Poland. Here are people in their seventies and eighties bringing their parcels to this comer post office so they can get them mailed. What a convenience. The pharmacy owner is happy and the clients are happy. They could never be happier.
What does the government and the corporation do? This outlet is too convenient so they close it. I intervened a year ago in the House, in writing to the minister, so the minister and the corporation agreed that they would postpone their decision for one year. That was last May. This May of 1993 we were going to get a decision about the future of this post office.
This corporation, where the clients have no say, where the people providing the service have no say, have harassed this post office and a month ago threatened to close it again. It is not giving them a franchise and it is not allowing them to carry on the excellent service that this High Park Pharmacy postal station 166 is providing to the community.
I intervened. What is the reason behind closing it? Well, Mr. Vaughan from the corporation said that the business was not at the preferred site identified for development. Who wants development? We have High Park right opposite the pharmacy. We have thousands of people living behind the pharmacy. Why do we want development? We have enough clients there now. Because there is no future development, they feel they have to close this postal outlet.
Mr. Dzulynsky keeps asking, and I quote from his letter: "We ask on what basis this study has been made because we are one of the busiest outlets in the area and our volume could sustain a franchise". Again the bureaucrats or some consultant has discovered that their business is going down.
Just last week Mr. Dzulynsky delivered the receipts for February 1992 and this February to me. Business increased, it did not go down. The higher-ups in the
March 8, 1993

corporation are getting this false information and based on this false information they want to close this outlet.
As Mr. Dzulynsky says: "The irony is that our sales increased since the franchises in the area were set up. It seems to us that the people find our location convenient. Does a study of expected traffic patterns count for more than actual proven traffic?"
The consultant discovered that the traffic patterns are wrong and that there cannot be a franchise there. With the traffic patterns along Bloor Street there is no stopping light at that corner. We do not want stopping lights at that comer. Why would the traffic going from Etobicoke to Toronto stop there to use that postal outlet? That postal outlet was put there 35 years ago to serve the people living in the community within walking distance of this post office. This great management of this government, this great corporation, based on false criteria, is closing another outlet in my riding of Park-dale-High Park.
It can be seen why I am so angry. Mr. Dzulynsky, providing the service, feels he has been unfairly treated. I have letters upon letters from constituents who feel they have been unfairly treated.
I have 1,000 names of people who came to use the post office within one week. Within one week, 1,000 people came to use that post office and they are closing it when in the Prime Minister's riding they could not even find 400 people to use the post office. They went out of their way to try to save all the post offices in the Prime Minister's riding, but in my riding of Parkdale-High Park when thousands of people are using the outlets, no. Maybe they are closing it because I am a Liberal.
We just cannot run the country this way any more. It is time to stand up and call a spade a spade. My fear again is the hidden agenda in this innocent little bill, Bill C-73. I do not think we can support this bill when the government comes in with hidden agendas.
I appeal to the minister to get out of his fancy offices here in Ottawa and come to Parkdale-High Park. Come to 100 High Park. Walk with the people to this post office. If that one is closed, he can walk and carry the parcels to Crossways, as has been recommended, and see how far he gets.
Thank you for allowing me to put my concerns and anger on record. This government just has no heart and the corporation has no soul.
Government Orders


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. We noticed that section 27 of the Canada Post Corporation Act is repealed in this bill and that it is amended by adding thereto immediately before section 28 the following sections:
27.1 The Corporation has an authorized capital consisting of an unlimited number of shares of such classes as the Board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board, prescribe by by-law.
Section 27.1 points out:
(4)	No shares of the Corporation may be held or beneficially owned by any person, other than
(a)	Her Majesty in right of Canada or a trustee for Her Majesty in right of Canada; or
(b)	an employee of the Corporation or a trustee for an employee of the Corporation.
(5)	Not more than 10 per cent of the issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation may be held or beneficially owned by the employees of the Corporation.
I have one question right off the bat. Are these the rank and file employees working on the sorting floors doing the actual work or are they the executives or the supervisory people who over the last several years have so badly misled the Canadian people?
Scores of post offices were closed not only in my own riding but right across Canada. Since the adoption of this corporate plan in 1986 over 1,200 post offices have been shut down under the so-called natural opportunity policy. Under this policy all 5,221 post offices are scheduled to close over a 10-year period. Individual post offices are shut down when the natural opportunity of retirement, resignation or death of a postmaster occurs.
It is interesting that in six cases of post offices around the Prime Minister's riding when the postmaster retired instead of using the natural opportunity, new postmasters were hired. The post offices remained open in five out of six cases. In the sixth case they could not get anybody to apply.
Having closed these post offices and then by the same token offering to sell shares to employees seems to be redundant and sounds very suspicious.
I want to point out that I go back a long way in my association with the mail couriers in the rural ridings. In fact, before I started public school I remember riding around the mail route with my grandfather in the horse

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
and sleigh delivering rural mail in the winter months. Let me tell you the mail always did go through.
I can say that in many instances we would post a letter and three days later we would have a reply back from London or Toronto because that mail was taken to the post offices. It was sorted en route to Toronto on the mail cars in the trains. You could not get anything much more efficient than that and there would be a reply back in three days. It is a far cry from that today.
I am alarmed even more at what has been happening as the post office routes are amalgamated and one contractor maybe has five or six routes. Most of the former postmasters of those small towns and villages were veterans who were deserving of the position and had the respect of their communities, having previously served our country. Of course they and their rural carriers were bonded but that is no longer a requirement for the contractor today.
If, for example, a contractor in making the rounds decided to stop at a bingo hall to play bingo for an hour and a half and left the mail sitting unattended in his vehicle, who would be be responsible and who would reprimand him? As far as Canada Post is concerned, as long as the mail is delivered that day that is all that seems to matter.
Most of these little post offices did show a profit and provided excellent services. Now Canada Post is going to sell shares to the employees to try to get them to co-operate after we slash thousands of jobs and close down thousands upon thousands of post offices.
As we look at the numbers that are closed already and the impact that this has had, it is really in effect closing down the focal point of the communities across rural Canada. Looking at the lists I have from the various provinces on February 3,1993, there are still 376 more to close in Ontario alone. Having come through this process let me say that it is very humiliating. I do not blame the people in the communities for being incensed whatsoever.
.(1715)
In the village of Watford, Ontario, Royal Canadian Legion Branch 172 was concerned about the future of the cenotaph in the village. I was very embarrassed last fall at the Remembrance Day services in front of the cenotaph. The post office beside the cenotaph was closed but there was a tattered Canadian flag flying. Nobody
through Canada Post had seen fit to replace it until a letter of complaint went to the minister.
We still do not know what is going to happen to that cenotaph if that post office is sold. We have been getting the run-around now for two years. It has been two years since I spoke in the House on this. I was incensed at that time and I still am. I listened to the so-called explanations being given by officials at Canada Post when they came into the community to try to sell them on privatization or retail outlets.
I think back to the time the reeve of the town of Newbury stood up to them and refused to budge. The village itself took over the operation of that post office. The village is doing an excellent job and the post office is still the focal point of that community. It is not a faceless community. It is a booming little community that still has a post office run by the village itself.
In the process of those negotiations Canada Post officials pointed out that it was not acceptable and it was not done. Municipalities were not allowed to run their own post offices. They started digging into it and found that indeed municipalities do run their own post offices in other parts of Canada. Diane Brewer, the reeve of the municipality, showed they were wrong and was able to force them to deal with the municipality. Everything is going extremely well as far as the municipality is concerned, but of course it has put a crimp in the style of Canada Post.
I sat in on several of these meetings or had a representative there. We saw the harsh, insensitive tactics used during these closing procedures when the villagers were assured they would have the type of service they were used to over the years.
The post office cannot be replaced in any community regardless of where it is because of the sense of being Canadian, the sense of pride in being Canadian that we have rekindled. It is one more step toward the death-knell of rural Canada to proceed in the direction such as we see today.
I oppose this bill. I oppose it because of the proud traditions we have had in Canada, the sense of pride that I spoke about, the tremendous service the post offices have given us over the years.
Now they are losing money, not through any fault of local employees, but because they are trying to modernize what has already been very efficient, by laying off the workers at the low end of the scale and hiring more
March 8, 1993

administrators at the top. It is not much wonder we have had labour problems over the last several years.
I think for the good of Canada we have to maintain post offices in Canada and replace them wherever possible and not let them be phased out. They are an integral part of the structure of this nation we are all so proud of.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.	.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the chief government Whip has requested that the division be deferred.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5.45 p.m. later this day, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for no more than 15 minutes.
Government Orders CRIMINAL CODE


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 26, 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 second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-109, a bill tabled by the Minister of Justice which includes some very important and necessary Criminal Code amendments, as well as changes to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act.
These changes, particularly in the Criminal Code with respect to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, are absolutely necessary. I know that our party, with the very enlightened and interesting speeches given by the member from Cape Breton and the Islands and the member from Scarborough touched on those aspects of the bill.
I intend to particularly focus on those aspects of the bill that concern the telecommunications changes, the Radiocommunication Act in particular. The wiretapping provisions and those provisions that concern the Minister of Justice per se were adequately dealt with. I would like to look at cellular communications and the question of privacy which has become more and more important and serious as we start looking at the kind of legislation that is being brought before this House.
The Liberal Party supports the goal of achieving greater privacy in communications. We have long pursued that goal. There have been a number of concerns that we felt needed to be addressed in this area. We have talked about addressing the so-called nuisance junk phone calls that have been a bother to our senior citizens and families at home and have often interrupted their privacy. We have talked about seeking the opportunity to block the caller identification services that the telephone companies put in, that little thing on our telephones that identifies who is calling and in a sense is an invasion of our privacy.

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
When we raised these issues in the House the phone companies were at first veiy hesitant about finding ways of restricting the flow of information that companies might electronically gather on people from their telemarketing operations. After a number of questions and some anger from the population out there something has been done about that.
I could go on and list a number of other things. Suffice it to say that the age of technology and telecommunications has already made privacy of personal communications and personal information a key public policy challenge for the nineties and beyond.
Personal privacy is really under threat. I would particularly like to deal with the question of cellular telephones. I would like the audience and the members of this House to realize that there are over one million cellular telephones out there. They are not really telephones; they are really radios. There are 900,000 scanners tuning in every day, all day and during the evenings to phone calls when people believe they are speaking in confidence and privacy.
I think it is important to look at what Mr. Bruce Phillips, the Privacy Commissioner, has been saying recently over and over again as he talks about the number of times he has had to appear before this House and address the questions of privacy in the different forms of legislation that have been brought to our attention. It is important to note that in every one of these appearances he has underscored the seriousness of this problem. He said that it needs more than tinkering. That is the reason this bill requires much more careful examination and that at committee stage it is an issue that needs to be addressed very carefully.
I would like to quote from the very enlightened presentation that Mr. Phillips made on June 1, 1992 before the Senate to address the issues to be found in Bill C-62, the bill on telecommunication changes which still has not seen the light of day in this House. This is what he said:
Ido not think there has ever been a time when ordinary people have been required to give up to other persons and organizations so much of their personal information merely to function in a complex society. Once given up, this information has itself been transformed into an item of commerce, bought and sold in a huge traffic in personal data which in the United States now surpasses $3 billion a year.
Thus people sense-and with good reason-that they are losing control of their ability to manage the degree to which society at large penetrates and exposes their personal lives. And as you will appreciate, the very essence of personal privacy is the ability to control what others are able to know about you.
This situation has come about through an entirely benign process. No one apart from the total recluse has ever been able to claim total privacy, or particularly want it, for that matter. The simple business of human and commercial relations has always demanded some loss of privacy, merely for the purpose of existence. But until fairly recent times, and most notably the advent of the computer age, people could defend important areas of privacy, and especially the right to be left alone, with relative ease. The computer has demolished that defence. It can pull together scraps of personal information gathered from a wide variety of sources, assemble it into virtually complete personal profiles and make it all available to whomsoever is willing to pay for it-frequently without the knowledge or consent of the individuals named in those files. So new defences for personal privacy need to be erected, and this process cannot begin without increased awareness of the problem.
This issue is being addressed here in Bill C-62, if it ever comes to be alive in this House, and in general conversation out in society. I think that climate of awareness is starting to make us realize that this is a very serious matter of personal concern to each and every one of us.
We come across some very serious privacy issues that have arisen out of the rapid advances in telecommunications technology. I suggested that caller identification and cellular telephones were among the most important. We cannot deny that there is a double-edged nature to this scientific advancement.
As Mr. Phillips points out:
In each case, important benefits and conveniences were made possible by new technology, but absent some special arrangements of prevention, they both carried with them significant potential loss of personal privacy.
I think that alert came under Bill C-62, which went to the other place to be studied. The two issues occupied and preoccupied, and continues to preoccupy, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. He was particularly addressing his attention to telecommunications and he started to examine the extent of the technical problems that were involved.
We in this House are not technical experts, neither is the privacy office, and there is a lot that takes place in research and development that is so fast and so dynamic in its change that if we were to put our minds to it we could find the answers to the technical problems. We
March 8, 1993

know that technical answers are not going to close the gap in this tremendous invasion of our personal lives, and it is not the right approach. As well, technical fixes would be strictly band-aid solutions, only to be overtaken by new developments and new undertakings.
As far as this bill is concerned, we should say once and for all that its recognition of privacy protection as one of its objectives is most welcome and is a welcome beginning. There is a clause in Bill C-62 that would be very important for the CRTC and it needs to be included in here because it would give us some power and would allow us to have a little bit more control.
The question in my mind is whether the provisions in this bill go as far as they should or as far as they could. Or do they go too far in the sense beyond technology, but the kind of punishment that fits the crime? We all know that having an objective is one thing, but reaching it and finding the method to block it is another. That is why I have qualified my support for this bill.
I might go so far as to say one day that it might be a constitutional problem that we would want to look at. Whatever emerges from this process, I do not think that without a set of guidelines or standards we would be facing the issue squarely, honestly and with the kind of real intent that is required.
I believe that the information that is supplied to customers when they purchase these goods is not adequate. They should be made aware of what they are really buying and the purpose for which the telecommunications equipment that they purchase is to be used. Not only should there be this informed consent on the part of the purchaser, but cost neutrality is in question here. Customers should not have to pay to preserve privacy they already enjoy. Mr. Phillips says caller identification is a very good example of this issue. Until ordered otherwise by the CRTC, telephone companies proposed to charge extra for subscribers who wanted to preserve the anonymity of their telephone numbers. We talked about that in this House and we challenged the minister on that particular issue.
Government Orders
What about the cost of encryption? Is that not an obligation if we want to maintain the privacy of the airwaves. The only way we can do that is through encryption of those airwaves so that our phone can be protected and have a privacy aspect. It is a very costly undertaking. The estimate is in the billions. Should we have the obligation to provide complete privacy? Can we protect it without it being so extraordinarily expensive?
Perhaps we need to look at this obligation very closely when we go into committee and see what the options and concerns are. Do not forget that cellular telephone is really a radio. Mr. Speaker, if you encrypt it from your chair and want to speak to whomever you want to speak to with your encrypted cellular telephone then that does not necessarily mean that the receiver of your phone call, who may not have an encrypted phone, is protected in the sense of privacy. Therefore your communication, which you thought was protected, is not necessarily protected. This is a very important matter. I am going to come to the issue in Quebec in a moment, but a lot of us remember with a great deal of sadness how our lack of understanding of the technology has not been met.
The third concept that I want to talk about is about openness or transparency. Customers have the right to be told what it is they are purchasing. They are not told when they buy that cellular telephone that they are buying a radio. I suggest that such equipment must be so labelled. Customers have to be told what it is all about. They have to be advised that there are scramblers out there and that whatever they say can be listened to and overheard and can cause great harm in the course of their lives, depending on what issue they are discussing. This is a watch-dog call that I am putting in here.
It means we must have, through this minister and this bill, some kind of watch-dog process. The minister announced a supposed watch-dog process and called it the Telecommunications Privacy Protection Agency. It became a sleeping tiger. The mean-sounding watch-dog that the minister announced was really a great big failure.
What was supposed to bring Canadians everything they wished for in terms of peace of mind at the end of their telephones was a sham. The minister did not say

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
this so-called agency had no relationship to government except as a sort of ear to the minister. I would not call that a very effective way to protect people's privacy.
This so-called agency has never been heard of since. It is supposed to be a voluntary agency run by the same industry that is generating many of the complaints about nuisance telemarketing. The worst part is that until the minister took the podium to announce its creation, the industry apparently knew nothing about it. That is like putting the fox in with the hens and the eggs. It is ridiculous.
There was no consultation. There is certainly going to be duplication if the minister ever puts this into action. It was a total waste of time. The minister's action in this case seems more of an attempted display at leadership than the substantive response that true leadership really requires.
The problem we are here to discuss is one that recent events in our country have focused public attention on. We had the case in Quebec during the referendum campaign, for example, of cellular privacy. I remind you what The Gazette had to say in an editorial on December 12. It said:
Had those conversations (of Diane Wilhelmy and Bud Smith) taken place over conventional phone lines, any unauthorized person who divulged the contents by tape, transcript or even orally would have been liable to charges. Users of cellular or cordless phones have no such legal protection of privacy, and that is what the federal legislation aims to fix. Clearly, strong measures are needed to discourage scanners from divulging information, blackmail, industrial espionage, credit card fraud or any number of illicit acts.
That is not totally accurate because it is still not going to be fully protected.
A January essay in The New York Times described the legislation changes proposed by this bill. It concluded:
That libertarian attitude up north is what we should adopt here. Never has personal privacy been so vital a component of human liberty. We have been losing to the computer, the recorder and the eavesdropper by default; (it's) time to fight back.
I would suggest it is time to fight back. There is a serious personal privacy evasion going on and we need to do something about it.
Let us look at the problem which is new because Canadians have traditionally been able to use the telephone system in the comfort of knowing that calls over the normal wired system were really quite private.
Cellular phones have changed that. They have changed all the rules and for some very specific reasons. The main reason is that cellular telephones, instead of using a wired system, use a series of cells that are directed by dishes on roof-tops around and between cities, which pass calls in the open air. The call goes from cell to cell.
You can intercept whatever goes over the open air. It is public. Millions of Canadians who use cellular phones must realize they are not, strictly speaking, making telephone calls but radio calls. People have to remember that their cellular calls are transmitted on our public airwaves.
This introduces some serious difficulties in applying the normal expectation of privacy on cell calls. To combat this action people need to do two things. They must use caution and other steps will have to be explored.
Mr. Speaker, you tell me that I only have a couple of minutes left. That brings us to Bill C-109 which is an attempt albeit too late to strengthen the privacy of cellular communications. I say to you that using the Criminal Code with its amendment with indictable offences to the extent of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years is a very strong measure. It really has to be examined. If we cannot stop the cellular phone call then I think we have to understand whether or not we can stop the right to freedom of speech. This is a very serious question. Should it also be a summary offence rather than an indictable offence?
The question has been raised by journalists whether or not this bill is fair, whether or not it can be perceived to be acceptable in the eyes of the public and whether or not someone can be charged for saying he or she heard something from someone. It is just not well-founded. I think it needs very careful analysis. With the intercepted radio-based telecommunication or the cellular phone call, have you given the right or implied consent when you say you have received a phone call?
There are many serious issues that need to be examined in the course of this bill when it goes to a legislative committee. I hope this House and the legisla-
March 8, 1993

tive committee will take the calls we are getting very seriously. A lot of people see this as an Orwellian bill. We expect that when the bill is being heard, the Canadian Association of Journalists will be called and we can find some kind of balanced solution.
Mr. Speaker, I do not expect you will find that this bill is the final word. An amendment must be brought forward in respect to this bill.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by complimenting my colleague for the excellent speech she just presented to this House. I am sure all members would agree that it was very thoughtful and well prepared.
I want to ask my colleague if she shares some of the concerns that some people have about section 113 of the bill. I know she has touched on it briefly. It is the proposal in the bill which would make it an offence not only to disclose the content of a conversation on a cellular phone, but the existence of a conversation.
That means that if I were an amateur listening to a conversation on a radio-and by the way that is not illegal and it will not be illegal under the bill-and I said to my wife: "Mary-Anne, come over here and listen to this", I have technically committed a criminal act by telling my wife to come and listen to what I had just heard. Even worse, to tell my wife I have just listened to a telephone conversation of John Smith without divulging what he said would be a criminal act under this bill.
I am wondering whether my colleague would agree that those are the kinds of important issues the committee should be dealing with when it reviews this bill clause by clause.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising that issue. He has heightened the ridiculous quality of some aspects of this bill and stressed the fact that it is not applicable. A law that cannot be applied is a ridiculous law. You know the old saying: "The law is an ass". Well that is exactly what it is in this case.
Let me suggest this to the House. Let us say you overhear, through the 900,000 scanners out there, two people planning to set off a bomb and indicating where that bomb will be placed. Perhaps you hear two people planning a robbery but you are not allowed to call the police and tell them you overheard that conversation. Is the interest of the public and the protection of society not more important than protecting the fact that you made a phone call and are liable to an indictable fine? This does not make an iota of sense.
Government Orders
I think addressing the question of privacy is fundamental. The way the wording is addressed in this bill needs very careful attention and some serious amendment. If this is the way one is going to look at how to deal with information that can be critical to the well-being of society, then I am sure this government did not intend it to be this way. It would be very poorly founded and certainly not acceptable in the public eye.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order for my colleague to be able to participate in the discourse and given that there is only one minute before the proceedings are to be interrupted for the taking of the deferred vote, I wonder if I could ask the Chair to call it 5.45 p.m. If I keep going for another 30 seconds the Chair will not have even to do that because it will be 5.45 p.m. by then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.


CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 and 4 lost as well.
++NAYS
The next vote will be on Motion No. 3.
Members
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bernier
Bjornson
Blais
Bouchard (Roberval) Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Casey
Champagne (Champlain) Chartrand
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiire)
Blenkam
Boyer
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Charest
Cole


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for applying the results of the vote that has just been taken to Motion No. 3 and then applying them in reverse to the report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for applying the results to Motion No. 3, as
Cote	Couture			
Danis	Darling			
de Cot ret Desjardins	Della Noce Dick


Some hon. members:: Agreed.		
Dobbie	Do mm			
Dorin	Duplessis			
Edwards Ferland Fretz	Fee Fontaine Friesen



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at the report stage.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 26, 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 Radiocommunications Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to second reading debate of Bill C-109, a bill to amend the Criminal Code, and to deal with a number of areas that are not necessarily all related. The bill purports to deal with a balance between the need for privacy and the need for effective policing. It also purports to deal with the need for privacy in telephone conversations.
The bill has been a long time coming. Some years ago, at least since the 1988 election, the Supreme Court of Canada in a number of decisions, notably the Duarte decision, the Wong decision and the Garifoli decision,
pointed out certain inadequacies in our current Criminal Code legislation dealing with police investigation, police surveillance, and the rules used in our courts of law, our criminal courts, to deal with exclusion of evidence and admission of evidence used in convicting criminals.
One of the first things noted was that when certain types of evidence was found by the court to be excluded and certain investigative techniques used by police- these techniques are not just used in Canada but are used all over the world-it in fact made investigations and individual policemen sometimes vulnerable.
I recall in metropolitan Toronto the reaction of the police community when it was found that the use of body packs, that is recorders and transmitters, by policemen working under cover was found to be illegal. In many cases those body packs were not used just to gather evidence but were used to protect policemen. They were used as electronic lifelines, so to speak, from the undercover officer through to those monitoring the investigation. Those undercover techniques, those body packs, those electronic lifelines, sometimes were indispensable in providing protection to policemen and informers who were working under cover.
I may be understating it a bit but I can say they were concerned. They were disturbed that our country's highest court had made so many of them potentially vulnerable to a criminal class that really did not give a damn about the protection of the police and in many cases would stop at little to achieve its ends.
In response to that there have been many requests in this House and from police departments, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and bodies representing policemen to rectify the situation to protect the police, all the while the courts operating to apparently provide protection to the criminals who were being convicted. This bill goes a long way to rebalancing and restructuring the playing field so that our policemen can operate in our best interests.
The first area the bill touches on deals with surveillance by the state as opposed to surveillance by individuals. It occurs from time to time that police will want to monitor by telephone or by camera with sound or other devices, movements and criminal acts of the criminal element. The common situation that we often see is the drug deal; we have seen enough of them reconstructed on television. There is the purchase and sale of stolen
March 8, 1993

goods, the trafficking in prohibited weapons, trafficking in human bodies and procuring for purposes of prostitution. All of these types of things make it is very useful to have a recorded record of sounds, of video.
The Supreme Court found over the last two or three years that it could not permit the state, which acts for all of us, to engage in these monitoring activities unrestricted. It found that it was unacceptable and, therefore, if the state was going to use any evidence of the sound or video recording, or whatever, it simply was not going to permit it as admissible evidence unless the state got some kind of a warrant. Up to this point, the state really only had to obtain warrants for wiretapping. This was the first field where our laws required police to obtain warrants for that type of surveillance. That had come quite a distance from the old days when about all you ever needed a warrant for was to go into a private dwelling and/or do a search.
In any event, the court was really inviting Parliament to regulate the field. It was saying to Parliament that these types of activities by the state in pursuance of criminal investigations were not acceptable unless they had a judicial sanction.
What this law will do then, and I am stating it very briefly, is provide the mechanism for the state, for the police, to obtain a warrant to do any kind of surveillance using the usual techniques of videotaping, with or without sound, and wiretapping. The procedure is available and it has been streamlined so that police can go to a provincial court judge as opposed to a district or county court judge. That means that there are more judges available and the procedure is stated clearly in the amendments. The police know what they have to provide to the judge; the judge knows what the criteria are and what has to be done before the warrant can be used and the surveillance undertaken.
The provision for obtaining warrants for all types of state surveillance is something that I think most Canadians will see as a good thing. I hope they do. It manifests and reflects the protection of our privacy that the charter envisaged when it was put in place, and it will require the state to be more organized when it embarks on these
Government Orders
surveillance exercises. The law does not require the average citizen who is out with a video camera or recorder to obtain a warrant. These laws pertain only to actions by the state.
The procedures involved have been streamlined. One of the areas that had been a problem was after the police had obtained a warrant. The person who was charged or convicted would often question whether or not the warrant that had been obtained was obtained properly. Often the warrant was obtained on information from informers and innocent third parties, people operating undercover.
We had the situation where the criminal wanted to see the information and who provided the information for the warrant. This information is usually kept in what is called a packet. The packet is a sealed envelope which contains the affidavit evidence and other materials that permitted the judge to make the decision to issue the warrant.
This statute also provides some direction as to how a court would review what was in the packet. The accused who under our law has the right of full disclosure, has to know the basis on which he or she has been charged or how a warrant was obtained. There are procedures now inserted in the code which will permit the accused to know what is in the packet but not to know who provided the information. Innocent third parties, informers and ongoing police intelligence operations will be protected.
A section of the bill deals with admissibility of evidence. There was a section in the code which said that evidence which was obtained not necessarily legally or illegally but arose out of a situation where there was not a warrant was questionable in terms of admissibility.
There was a section in the code that dealt with the criteria for admitting it. There is also a section in the charter which deals with admissibility of this indirect evidence. The government has decided to drop a number of the sections in the code in deference to the test in section 24(2) of the charter. I am very interested for discussion at committee on the implications of that decision. I am sure there will be some reasonable

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
explanations because whatever we do here you can be sure will be argued in criminal courts for many years to come.
A mistake made at this stage, using 20-20 hindsight, one error in judgment on our part could result-and I am guessing-in millions and millions of dollars of litigation in the criminal courts. It is extremely important at this second reading stage and the exercise at committee that we do it properly.
Another item I wanted to mention is a far-sighted proposal. The government recognizes, as do parliamentarians, that investigative techniques may evolve. We are thinking about new technology and it may well be that it would be inappropriate for the state to use those new techniques. This section provides that where the state proposes to embark on a surveillance or monitoring exercise using any of these undefined new techniques, a warrant is available for that. Usually it will be the police who will present their proposal for monitoring to a judge and a judge will then approve. This proposal will then regulate a field which perhaps has not even evolved yet. We are certainly dealing with the image of Big Brother here. I think that inserting a provision in the code now to deal with these types of things in the future is probably very useful.
There are sections dealing with tracking and monitoring devices. There are also sections dealing with, as I mentioned earlier, the body pack situation where the undercover policeman needs to know that his colleagues are monitoring him or her as he or she proceeds with the undercover work. I note for the record the section requiring the evidence to come from these body packs, this type of surveillance, is meant to protect the policeman or the undercover person. This evidence cannot be used in court for the charge for which the investigation has been undertaken.
However the proposed provisions do permit that evidence to be used where charges relating to bodily harm with respect to the undercover person are laid. I have noted, as have others, that the evidence is not usable for perjury in the event that the accused perjures himself or herself. I would for the record note that the
legislative committee should be considering the use of that body pack derived evidence for perjury charges under the Criminal Code should that eventuality arise.
The next area has already been addressed by colleagues in the House. It pertains to protection of privacy for cellular telephone calls. I had introduced a bill concerning this two or three months ago. The purpose of the bill was to provide the same privacy protection to cellular telephone calls as already exists for regular line based magnetic acoustic telephone transmission.
The government has taken a different route and I am interested in its rationale. Rather than making all telephone conversations carried by a telephone carrier private and undisclosed, non-tappable and non-inter-ceptable, the government has provided that any interception that is done maliciously or for gain will be an offence. That has to do with the interception.
If you happen to be scanning and intercept a cellular call-some say it is just a radio transmission-then the fact that you do it innocently and not for malice or gain would not be an offence. However a second section states that where you disclose what you have intercepted, that disclosure would be an offence. That is the approach of the government.
It raises a couple of more questions. One of them is the charging section where it says it is an offence to disclose the contents of a cellular call. It says that it is an offence to disclose the mere existence of the telephone call. This is a potential problem because we are not talking about the contents of the call, we are talking about its existence.
Someone who is overhearing one of these calls intentionally or not, may simply say to a friend: "Hey, I am just picking up this phone call". In fact, under the terms of this section as now drafted that appears to be an offence. I am not sure that is what we intend. I want to have a closer look at that to make sure that we are not creating criminal offences which we did not intend.
I am very pleased to see that all of these different changes which are overdue have been placed in this bill. At least there is legislation to try to rectify omissions and gaps in current legislation.
March 8, 1993

My sense of it is that the legislation attempts to balance the privacy rights of all Canadians. That means me and everyone out there who uses telephones, who are out on the streets unknowingly with criminals. The police have all of the technology in the world at their disposal. It is an attempt to balance our privacy against the needs for an effective police investigation and surveillance when the law has been broken.
The law continues the regime of placing a judge's decision between the issuance and the request for the warrant. Under all of the conditions that exist in our modem democracies, that is the best system I think we have come up with.
The bill also goes a long measure to protecting the needs of individual police as they cany out their work on our behalf.
I am pleased to see the bill. I have raised two or three questions that I want to see taken up at committee. Until they are dealt with it is difficult to indicate the support for all elements of the bill, but I do see the bill being dealt with as quickly as possible.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-109 tonight. In part it is because I am one of those one million cellular phone users. It is also because I have an understanding of the issues involved in terms of the question of privacy, the question of public need and the protection and support of our police forces as they use modem technology in order to obtain the appropriate evidence to put those in violation of the Criminal Code in their rightful place.
Let me start my remarks by repeating the words that are on labels on the telephones probably in most Department of National Defence installations throughout Canada, if not the world and I would suspect in external affairs offices as well. The sticker states: "This line is not secure". That is a warning for the user of a land line that someone may be listening out there.
This bill talks about cellular phones. I think many people forget that a lot of the calls which are either sent to or received by a cellular phone are land lines. Those are the phones in our offices, homes or cottages. It is not just cellular phone conversations that have been listened to by those people who have scanners or those people
Government Orders
whose passion in life, shall we say, is listening in on other people's conversations or who for purposes of making a living, through the print or electronic media, are looking for ways to get information for stories.
I have always worked on the assumption that whether I am on my cellular phone or a land line someone somewhere is listening to me. I am not suggesting that someone is tapping my line, but we know the technology is there for governments to be able to scan the other, to scan microwaves, to pick up the symbiotic emissions from land lines from copper and to detect what is being said as people talk to one another.
Let me take it back a little bit. What we are talking about is how to deal with a conversation between two individuals. We have laws in place that protect an individual's privacy in his or her own home speaking to somebody else within the same dwelling. Only through certain procedures can a government agency, that is, a police department or a security service, intercept and record that communication and then use the words that were said and duly recorded in a court of law.
We also established the ability of those same agencies to intercept a communication made over a telephone wire. The courts have recently ruled that those communications, as I understand it, in their entirety must require a court order before they can be used in a court of law.
Up until a couple of years ago one party to a conversation had the right to give permission to the police department to have those conversations monitored and used in a court of law to prove that a violation of the Criminal Code had occurred. Regretfully the court struck down that law.
In my own community we had a case where an individual, according to all the evidence obtained through this wire intercept, was as guilty as one could be. However, because permission had been given by one participant in that phone conversation and because a court order had not been obtained that evidence was no longer admissible and the severe charges were thrown out of court.
This bill returns the ability of our police departments when an individual consents to their conversation, whether it is one that they originate or one that they

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
receive, to use it in a court of law. That is an important and very positive step.
Again, I believe strongly that the police departments must have the ability to wire their police officers so that they can be in constant voice communication when they are sent into extremely dangerous situations. That could be anything from a hostage taking to any kind of street battle. There has to be the ability for the conversations that are recorded as a result of that transmission to be used in a court of law for the furtherance of justice. At the same time I recognize the importance of ensuring that due process is considered so that it cannot be done at random. There has to be a just cause for the use of this procedure.
Let me turn to cellular phones. As I mentioned earlier I have always been of the belief that somebody is listening to every conversation I have no matter what phone I use. Whether it is a phone that fits into my pocket, one that is attached to my car or one that I plug into the wall at home, whether it is a direct line or one of those hands-free phones, somewhere out there someone is listening.
We are talking about degrees of accessibility. There are those phones that have a range of 100 or 200 feet. You can take it in the backyard when you are having a beer in the summertime. Within a certain radius of your home, if someone has the right kind of scanner, the right kind of receiver or in fact a similar hand-held unit they can listen to your conversation. In some cases they only get half of it but in other cases they get the whole thing.
The cellular phone is a broader distribution because of the very nature of the cellular system. If anybody can tune in to your frequency, and again it might just be half of the conversation anywhere within that cell, not only can they listen but they can also record it if that is their wish.
This legislation makes it illegal to use the information that may be overheard, to even acknowledge or to report that you have heard so and so talking to so and so about whatever. It is imperfect legislation, but then the existing laws for land lines, for overhearing people having conversations in their own homes is also imperfect. We need to recognize that.
I would love to see this House pass a law that required all cellular phones to be encrypted so that once the signal left the cell transmitter it would be in a scrambled form and would not be descrambled until it got into the set in my hands. Perhaps over time we can work toward that in a way that is inexpensive to the user.
In the meantime, this bill goes a long way to providing protection so that people who maybe are forgetting that the line is not secure or that maybe do not care but do not realize the ramifications will not find their names and their conversations in the headlines.
Obviously we are not all of the Royal Family calibre. We are not necessarily cabinet ministers. We have not been at the constitutional table. However, there may be business and personal matters that are of no business to anybody else. Because we are public figures or because it is a neat or sexy story, someone will decide to publish it. Or someone will decide to take the tape of that conversation and share it among their friends to a point where the retelling of the. story becomes so distorted that reputations are damaged.
That is why I support this particular piece of legislation. I know there are some concerns about civil liberties. I recognize in committee that these matters will be dealt with in a veiy serious and appropriate way. We do have to be careful that in trying to protect certain rights of certain people that we do not override the rights of society as a whole. That is what democracy is all about: Finding that balance of not giving up one for the other but finding the even keel.
It is an important piece of legislation. I look forward to its passage at second reading and then on to committee where I know it will get excellent study by members of this House and then back to this House for third reading.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak briefly on this piece of legislation. It is a progressive bill and addresses to a great extent many of the concerns in the community with respect to those who try to enforce the law and to the public at large.
I would like to speak on the aspects of the bill which deal with the cellular telephone. Specifically, this bill will try to give radiocommunication similar protection as is
March 8, 1993

now given to other private communications as required by recent technology advancement.
In other words, someone who uses a cellular telephone is entitled to the same privacy as someone who uses a regular telephone. As it is and as my colleague from the NDP has mentioned, it is definitely possible for someone to listen to a conversation between two people. There are technologies that can be used to allow that particular individual to overhear a conversation between two people.
If you are making a long-distance call to another city and using the regular wire line to the central office, at one point or another that particular conversation will go up in the air whether we use a microwave or other type of transmission system. Once it is up in the air it is up for grabs and anybody can listen to it.
The previous legislation protects those people who use regular telephones, but does not protect those who use cellular phones. The government is adding the cellular telephone to the list of equipment protected by the existing legislation. It will also be protected by the proposed legislation.
I am interested in this legislation on cellular telephones because I think the cellular telephone is like any other piece of telecommunications equipment in our society. It makes us proud, as Canadians, that our industry is doing extremely well in the field of telecommunications. I would say Canada is the number one country in the world in terms of the telecommunications industry and the industry's capabilities in high technology fields. When it comes to economic renewal and economic development, it is doing extremely well. That is something we should be very proud of as policy makers and legislators. Every time there is an opportunity for us to have a new breakthrough, we should grab that opportunity and try to help the industry prosper and move forward.
You will be happy to learn that the cellular telephone industry has grown at an incredible rate here in Canada, perhaps more than any other country in the world. This industry presently employs more than 3,000 people and its annual revenue is about $500 million per year. The transmission system is the largest anywhere in the world.
Government Orders
In fact, Cellnet Canada has the longest corridors of cellular service anywhere in the world. The first corridor stretches from Windsor, Ontario to Halifax, Nova Scotia, which is over 2,500 kilometres or in excess of 232,000 square kilometres of continuous cellular service. That is a lot of space. A second corridor stretches from the Rocky Mountains to Ontario and covers in excess of 1,600 kilometres or 120,000 square kilometres of cellular coverage. That is the largest coverage that exists anywhere in the world.
There are close to one million subscribers to the cellular systems in Canada today. Considering that the industry came into the market only about eight years ago, that is a tremendous number of people who have moved to this technology. Cellular telephones are no longer like the ham radio or CB radio that people might use for fun or entertainment. It is an instrument that many people use today for business. Everybody in this House agrees that small businesses generate over 80 per cent of jobs anywhere in Canada, and over 54 per cent of people who use cellular telephones actually work for companies that employ less than 15 people. Most of these people are professionals, whose average age is about 40 years and average household income about $63,000 a year. We are talking about people who use cellular telephones for business and not fun.
Most of these people work in construction, manufacturing, real estate and the business service area. When two business people are discussing business over the telephone, making a transaction or trying to inquire or exchange information, one of the last things they want is for Joe or Sue on the other end of the line to listen to their conversation and try to butt in on the deal or get wonderful bits of information.
I can understand the frustration that exists now in the community and the concern about lack of privacy. Of course, some people are going to say the purpose of this piece of legislation is to help out the industry and the cellular telephone companies. Well, of course it is. We should be proud of the fact that as legislators we are doing everything we can to help our industry prosper. The community is also demanding the same kind of protection for cellular telephones as exists for normal telephones.

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
There is nothing to be ashamed of here. Some may say it is their right to find out what is happening, but this is almost like somebody coming to your doorstep and putting his or her ear to your door trying to listen to a conversation between you and a member of your family. That person can eventually come to us and say it is their right to know and find out what is happening between you and a member of your family.
It is important for us as a society to balance the two fundamental rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and privacy, and the collective right of society as a whole. In my view this piece of legislation does just that. It provides, to a large extent, a balance between what is considered to be the individual's right and what is considered to be a collective right, my right to privacy and the right of society to protection.
That is why one segment of the bill gives members of our police force the right to use electronic surveillance where they believe there is a dangerous situation and a need for intervention by the authorities.
We have the right of the community to protection and safety, and a provision whereby this bill will allow people in authority to have access to information that takes place between two individuals in our society.
This bill goes a long way toward providing the industry with the necessary infrastructure to launch it further, rather than creating a set-back and scaring off the consumers as well as the professionals who are using cellular telephones on a daily basis.
A lot of people who are watching now are probably thinking they should really think twice about buying or renting a cellular telephone. Of course it is the individual's decision. It is not a decision you or I can make for them.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House that by the year 1996-97 cellular telephone use will increase by about 25 per cent. In other words, by the year 1996-97 in excess of 1.5 million Canadian men and women may be using cellular telephones. Of course, many of those users will want to see some sort of protection.
You can compare that to the United States. The United States has had a tremendous increase in the use of cellular telephones. As a matter of fact the industry in the U.S. generates in excess of $6.7 billion a year. When we talk about that large industry and that large and wide
market it is another opportunity for our industry to eventually launch into the United States and elsewhere around the world.
The United States has in excess of about nine million subscribers. When you look at the proportion between Canada with about 26 million people and the United States with about 10 times that and the penetration of its industry and compare it to ours, there is a very good balance between what the Americans have been able to do there and what we are doing here. The rate of increase in the United States is about 9 per cent on an annual basis. We are ahead of that and we are doing just fine.
Moving a little beyond this particular bill, which in fact does address the issue to a point, I would like to see work being done on the question of faxes and access to information.
My colleagues and I receive a whole pile of faxes on a daily basis. One would question the necessity of sending some of the correspondence by fax. Perhaps it would be better to use the mail. I hope that some time the government or future government will look at the possibility of trying to do something to control the flow of information via fax.
This legislation also protects information coming over the fax machines. That information is treated as being similar to voice or computer information being sent. Fax users are in fact protected.
My advice to Canadians and those who might be watching or listening is that whenever you are using your cellular telephone assume at least half the city is listening. This legislation is not going to solve your problem. If you are dealing with a business matter it is preferable not to discuss it on the cellular telephone.
I know there is a tendency to go on and on when you are on the line. Eventually you divulge a lot of information about a business contract or a discussion as it relates to information you might not want to disclose over the line.
There are a few points that can be addressed at the committee level and I hope the bill will go to committee. For those who might have some concerns in the industry or the the community, I would suggest that the committee level is the best place for those concerns to be addressed.
March 8, 1993

Of course this bill is a first step. It is a bold step and one that I look at with great enthusiasm. I think it is timely.
I do not know what else can be said. When one runs out of ammunition it is better to just move on, fold your tent and sit down. On that note I will do just that. I am delighted to see the bill come forward and I am delighted to see the government moving ahead with this bill. I want to congratulate the cellular industry in Canada which has done an outstanding amount of work. I am very proud of them.
It is probably the first time all of the major cellular telephone companies in Canada have come together to set up a strategy to help users get the maximum benefit from the system. There is some fine tuning that needs to be done but they are doing just fine and I am proud of them.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.

Hon. Gerry Weiner (for the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved: that Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 73(3), I move:
Thai the motion for second reading of Bill C-114 be amended by
having the bill referred to the Special Committee on Electoral
Reform rather than a legislative committee in the Departmental
envelope.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Government Orders
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, now that I am no longer Whip perhaps I will speak on debate a little more often. It is something for the House to contemplate.
It is a particular pleasure this evening to be in the position of making the lead speech on Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I say that for two reasons. There is probably nothing that we do in this Chamber that is more fundamental to the continuation of our form of government, our democratic system of dealing with people, than to consider the issue of the Elections Act and how the people are chosen to sit in this Chamber to act on behalf of the Canadian people.
If we do it wisely and well, then democracy is enhanced. If we do it badly, then democracy is bruised and hurt. Hopefully history will say that the package of amendments before us for consideration in Bill C-114 plus other work to be forwarded to this House by our committee will turn out to be measures that have helped our sense of democracy and their importance in our system of government.
I would like to begin by paying tribute to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform. Its members worked very hard for approximately 28 months, from November 1989 to Februaiy 1992. There were five commissioners in all and they produced perhaps one of the largest royal commission reports in Canadian history.
The basic summary information of the commission's findings is contained in four volumes. These are augmented by over 20 research volumes, not all of which have yet been published. The work they did was substantial. The research work that they commissioned and had performed on their behalf will constitute research material in universities for decades to come. The report really was an extensive body of work.
Because there were 275 recommendations and because there was such a large volume of reporting, the House in its wisdom determined in February 1992 that it was wise to set up a House of Commons special committee to examine the royal commission report and to make recommendations to the House as to what actions it should contemplate and take.
The committee was set up one year and one month ago. I had the honour to chair that committee, and it has indeed been an honour. It has also been a pleasure because of the degree of co-operation we have had

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
beginning with the members of the committee themselves.


Marcel Prud'homme: Name them all.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Name them all. The members of the committee represent competing political interests in the country and those in the House. They also share a common feeling about the importance of electoral law in Canada, the importance of our democratic traditions and the importance of the continuation of those democratic traditions. That shines through in the degree of willingness to sit long hours, to consider carefully the alternating and different points of view from all committee members and some of those who substitute from time to time, to listen carefully to the staff and to consider recommendations and points of view that are advanced by them.
They deserve a lot more credit than they are likely to get in their home constituencies because the consideration of a report is the primary activity. It is certainly not as public an activity as many other things that could engage our time and attention but it is fundamentally important and I want to recognize that reality in these Chambers.
I would also like to say thank you to those who were witnesses before us. There have been more than people might realize. Even as we drafted the reports we issued an invitation to Elections Canada to be present for the bulk of the time we spent together. At some cost to them in terms of their personal lives and certainly in terms of the resources of that institution, they have complied with our request and have been very helpful to us in providing their experience and their expertise as we consider alternate ways of making recommendations to the House and in particular to the wording to come forward to the House.
It is not often that a committee has an adequate chance to measure its success but I think in this particular instance committee members can feel justly satisfied that their work has been paid attention to. Bill C-114 is remarkably similar to the committee's third report which was our first substantive report laid before the House on December 11, 1992. There are a few deviations, most of them of a technical nature, with some advice from the
Department of Justice. Most of those changes I think are things that committee members could agree with.
There are one or two elements which have been introduced from cabinet discussions on which committee members are not solidly in agreement, but I am sure others will discuss those at a later point in this debate.
The result of the committee's report and the subsequent legislation is a document of 114 pages in length which simply amends part of the Canada Elections Act. For those who are listening tonight who have never examined 114 pages of legislation let alone 114 pages of amendments, they might be surprised at the level of detail and complexity which is involved. It really is quite remarkable.
What is also remarkable is the Canadian way of reporting news. If you examine the proposition before the House, 112 of the 114 pages deal with how people should vote and who should vote. The changes are rather substantial and we think very positive. I will come to some of those details in a minute.
There are a few clauses that deal with some other issues that in a timing sense needed to be dealt with now. The committee preferred to have them dealt with now rather than in phase two and the press attention has centred on that. Those things are rather minor in the total scheme of things compared to what the bill is all about.
I know from my own experience I have had difficulty convincing television, radio and print media to do an article or a think piece or a news piece on what the bill is all about. It is almost as if it did not exist, not because it is not important, but simply because it is not as interesting perhaps as some other things which are less important but perhaps more exciting for their audience.
This bill in its main focus answers the question of who can vote and how they will vote. They are major changes. Let me just list some so people can consider them.
First, in all of Canada's urban areas if you do not get your name on a voter's list by 17 days before voting day there is no way for you to vote. All of us who have run for public office have been in contact with hundreds and hundreds of Canadians who simply were out of the country or out of their riding when the enumerators went by their homes and they did not get on the list. They did not know they were not on the list. They show
March 8, 1993

up at the polling place to find out that they have been disenfranchised and cannot vote. It was a big problem during the recent referendum, a lot of complaints.
This bill solves that problem in two ways. You will be able to get your name on the voters' list up to five days before voting and then you will be able to walk into the poll in rural or urban areas, the proper place, and sign up to be on the list on voting day. It may be a little inconvenient for some people perhaps. They will have to travel a little further to get on the list on voting day. It is much better for them to get on the list early but no Canadians will be disenfranchised in the next federal election simply because they did not get their names on the list in time if the House passes this bill in time and makes it the law of the land. It is a major change which will be welcomed from coast to coast.
The second change will allow people who are absent from home during critical voting periods, such as voting day, to be able to vote. That may not sound like a whole lot but let me start with the smallest part of it.
There are people who cannot make it to the polls. They have physical handicaps of one kind or another. They may be just a block or two away. Up to now they had to vote by proxy. They had to give somebody else the right to go to the polling station and vote in their place. Therefore, somebody else knew their voter intention but they had no way of knowing whether that person voted the way they wanted them to or not. It was a proxy voting situation. We are putting in place a system that will allow Canadians in that situation to cast their own ballots in their own homes. The sealed ballot will be returned for counting to an appropriate place.
That same system will apply to Canadians who are away from their ridings during the voting period. They may be looking after a sick relative in another part of the country. Their employer may put them on a course or on a temporary assignment to another part of the country. They may be seismograph crews working in isolated areas on boats and ships and things of that nature. They will be able to vote wherever they are. Let us say it is somebody from Calgary who is working in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He or she will be able to go into a returning office in Fredericton, make arrangements to be put on the voters' list in Calgary, and he or she will be
Government Orders
able to vote in Fredericton for the candidates in Calgary. It is unprecedented in Canadian history.
Third, but not last and not least, is that Canadians who are living abroad but planning to return to Canada and who have been living abroad for less than five years will be able to register on a permanent voters' list. So Canadians who are listening tonight, when the law is changed if you happen to be leaving the country, you would be able to register. If an election occurs in your absence you will receive a ballot and have the opportunity to cast that ballot, return it to this country and have it counted. It is a system similar to ones in most western nations that allow their citizens living abroad temporarily to vote.
This may or may not work with practice. It may require some modification in the future, but it is a bold new step recommended first of all by the commission, endorsed by the committee and presented to the House, picked up by cabinet and is now before us in the form of legislation.
The five-year limit will not apply to Canadian military personnel and dependants serving abroad. It will not apply to our diplomatic corps, those who serve Canada abroad at a civilian level and their dependants. It will not apply to provincial civil servants who serve their province abroad and to their dependants as well. This is the first time provincial civil servants have had this opportunity. There has been a system for military personnel and diplomatic personnel in the past. The system has changed somewhat but we think it will be every bit as efficient.
If you read the election law that sits on bookshelves today, Mr. Speaker, you will find a lot of exclusions of people who cannot vote for one reason or another. One that comes immediately to mind is judges. Under Canadian election law it has been struck down so judges are really allowed to vote but the law says they cannot.
When this new law is in place it will be restricted to two categories of people who will not be able to vote. All Canadians 18 years of age and over will be able to vote with the exception of two categories of persons. The first category will be those sentenced to a prison term of two years or longer, in other words those who have committed a crime serious enough to warrant that length of

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
sentence and who are still in prison at the time of voting. The second category will be those Canadians who are living abroad, have lived abroad continuously for five years or longer, or have no intention of returning. Those are the only two excluded categories.
That is a grand simplification. It opens the door to an unknown number of new voters. There have been estimates of between one million and two million more votes being cast in the next federal general election because of the sum total of these changes. They go back to enumeration, getting one's name on the list, being able to swear in on election day, living abroad, being in another part of Canada, and proxy voting being replaced by voting in one's own home for those who are physically handicapped. All those measures taken together produce some unknown quantity of voters. Our predictions would be that the next federal election would produce more voters than at any previous time in Canadian history and that the difference would be substantial. Our democracy will work a bit better because of that.
I want to deal with the future work of the committee and to implore the House on a couple of issues. Bill C-114 needs quick passage. We intend to move it quickly to committee to commence clause-by-clause consideration, to go through it and to be able to make amendments members propose to make the law better. It must be in place as quickly as possible or the Chief Electoral Officer will not have the administrative time necessary to put the new systems in place.
I ask the House to bring forward whatever solid ideas it has for positive change, but let us not unduly delay the passage of Bill C-114 because the nation will benefit from it and the nation needs it.
Some people are worried about a lot of items that are not in Bill C-114. Committee members have absolutely no difficulty in understanding those worries which belong for the most part in what we refer to as phase two or phase three. The committee began over two weeks ago considering a draft report on phase two. Phase two will deal with all the communication issues, all the expenditure issues, and all the enforcement issues.
If we can report to the House on those issues by the end of March, if we can see legislation by the first part of
May and pass it into law by the end of May, all those phase two issues can be in place in law and implemented well before the next federal general election.


Mr. Milliken:: It should be this May.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It should be this May.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The election should be this May.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: "The election should be this May". It is unlikely. I would predict the election will probably commence some time this summer with voting in late summer or early fall.
For those members and people in the community worried about the communication issues, worried about the expenditure limits, rebates and definition of election expenses, and worried about enforcement issues, the committee's work is well advanced. I see no difficulty in the committee reporting before the end of March. That leaves sufficient time for the House to act and for us to have changes in place in plenty of time before the next federal general election.
The third part of our work, phase three, will deal with a number of issues such as redistribution, nomination meetings, registration of local associations, aboriginal constituencies, leadership contests and a number of other items in the Lortie commission report, none of which can come into force before the next election because we are too close to an election for them to be put in place and for them to be acted upon.
In terms of our timetable in phase three, if the committee can report by the end of April, if we have the month of May for the presentation of a piece of cabinet legislation and pass it in June, the entire remaniement, the entire change to the Canada Elections Act, the entire overhaul, can be accomplished by this Parliament in a truly positive fashion.
After one year of hard work by the committee we have eight members of Parliament whose expertise in these matters grows almost daily and whose efficiency and relationship to these matters get a bit better.
There are a few other changes in this legislation I would like to touch on briefly, to spend perhaps two minutes on. There are some items in here which will
March 8, 1993

save Canadian taxpayers money. One of those which is key is the clause that allows elections to be conducted without a full enumeration when they are close enough to a previous electoral event such as the recent referendum.
There is another provision which will allow, where circumstances warrant, the creation of a voters' list by a single individual rather than a pair. These things will save the system some money.
There is another set of clauses which puts the responsibility on political parties to be more involved with local returning officers and to provide them with sufficient people skilled in electoral matters to conduct a good election.
There is a provision which makes sure that at every ballot box and at every step of the process we are represented by competing political interests. It is the principle of competing political interests which is our best protection against fraud. Those are expressed in these amendments more clearly than they have ever been expressed in Canadian election law before. I think it is a very positive step forward.
To keep people from being frivolous about their candidacy, or to aid in that regard while still encouraging people to run for public office, is a bit of a moving target. It is difficult sometimes to decide and the committee has recommended basically the process which the Lortie commission brought to our attention. Part of that process will involve a few more signatures on nomination papers, 100 in the cities and less in more rural areas.
We have also taken the idea of the deposit in a couple of directions. There has been for 20 years now a $200 deposit. That is basically raised to $500. An additional $500 deposit is required which is refundable solely on completion of the necessary paperwork for Elections Canada.
Elections Canada told us that a lot of candidates never did the paper work and it cost taxpayers many thousands of dollars to chase them down to get the necessary forms completed so the election was brought to a close. We are putting out a little bit of a carrot: Put up $500. You forfeit it if you do not do the paper work; you get it back if you do the paper work. It is just a deposit on paper work.
Government Orders
There is another section which proposes some limits on direct spending. Canadian election law today puts limits on direct spending for the purpose of opposing and promoting a candidate or a party, puts limits on candidates and puts limits on parties. The law itself says that no one else can spend any money.
The courts have struck that down and the Chief Electoral Officer has struck it down in one province. The Chief Electoral Officer has informed us that it is not his intention to enforce that provision. The committee has acted to put forward a few paragraphs, half a page, which would put a $1,000 limit on people other than parties and candidates who choose to be involved in the election by promoting or opposing directly a candidate or a party.
The reason for that at this time is simply to square the deck, to make sure that the principle which applies to candidates of parties applies to other than candidates or parties. The committee is seized of the over-all expenditure limit issue in phase two of its work and there will be a more extensive report on those matters at the conclusion of our second report.
I hope that will provide people with at least a brief summary of what is involved. I commend the bill to the House. It has the endorsation, in almost every instance, of every member of the committee. There is a slight variation on a few matters but over all we are enthusiastic about the thrust of the bill. It indicates clearly that the work done by the Lortie commission has been helpful in our achieving consensus about some very fundamental changes.
It is a user friendly system that at the same time protects Canadians against fraud. That is why it took so many words; that is why it took so many clauses. I commend it to the House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague, the chairman of the special committee of this House on electoral reform. He said very interesting things, as usual, but he did not really explain what the problems are with this bill. In addition, it is obvious-so it seems anyway-that his speech was intended at least in part for the leader of the government in the House of Commons who is not here today to discuss this bill. That is too bad, because I would also like to know what the hon. minister

Government Orders
thinks about it. I regret that he cannot be with us, considering he is always veiy partisan in his remarks and this would have been an opportunity for me to reply. At any rate, my point is that this bill has finally been introduced in this House, after a four-year wait.

The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing was established in 1989 or 1990-a very long time ago, as my colleague from Saint-Denis says-as an excuse for the government to do nothing in respect of electoral reform.
We regret very much the government was unable to act more expeditiously on this particular dossier. Instead, as my colleagues on the other side know, the government dragged its heels and shilly-shallied and dilly-dallied until now when we must scramble to try to get through some changes to Canada's electoral law.
It is fair to say that members on all sides have been pressing for changes to bring the law up to date at least. Instead we have had inaction. The government sat and did nothing. We have made offers before to expedite the matter to get election law on the floor of the House, discussed and referred to committee, but the government said no, that we had to wait for the report of the royal commission.
We in this party participated actively in the affairs of the royal commission from the very beginning. The royal commission had public hearings. The parties were invited to attend and make presentations, and we did so. We recommended to the royal commission that an interim report be presented to the House dealing with routine changes to the act that would update the Canada Elections Act so that it could be in place and workable in time for a general election.
Unfortunately the royal commission ignored that advice. The royal commission went on and on, as the hon. member for Saint-Denis says, and presented its final report a year ago now. Once that report came to the House it was referred to the special committee on electoral reform. That is what we have been working on since that time.
As everyone knows the referendum intervened and the Chief Electoral Officer indicated in no uncertain terms and quite understandably that as long as he had a referendum campaign to conduct he would be unable to deal with any changes to Canada's electoral system. We
had to sit back and wait until the Chief Electoral Officer had completed the referendum campaign and its immediate aftermath. There was a very lengthy delay in our committee's work. Although we had started off ambitiously things got held up.
Here we are finally, over four years after the last election. One is due. If the government was not so contemptuous of democracy in this country it would have called an election. We are now debating changes to the electoral law to try to bring it up to date and make it something that will work in the forthcoming election.
Hopefully the law will survive court challenges that the current law is subject to under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government has elected to allow the committee to do its study on this bill. Indeed, it has given the committee a great deal of freedom.
The committee has seen fit to work through the royal commission's report, adopting provisions that it can accept to propose in its own report to the House. I may say that the report of the royal commission took the form of four volumes. There has been some criticism that our committee did not adopt volume three, which was a draft bill prepared by the royal commission as the basis for proceeding in this House.
As members of Parliament who are charged with making the law of the country we looked at the new draft bill that the royal commission submitted. Large pieces of the royal commission's report could not be in place for an election since it was so late. It was not late according to its own schedule. It was just that the government should have introduced something like this back in 1989 instead of waiting. I do not intend to criticize the commission in that respect.
Given that we could not implement the bill, it hardly seemed reasonable for us to embark on a study of a whole new act where we would have to pull chunks out, put in pieces of the old legislation and redraft them in form that fitted with the bill that the royal commission had prepared.
Rather than do that, we decided that the best policy was to seek to amend the existing Elections Act in order to make changes that would adopt those parts of the royal commission report that we could proceed with and make other necessary changes in order to make the act one that complied, at least for the most part, with the
March 8, 1993

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as far as we reasonably could.
We could also make any small and necessary changes in wording to correct past errors and past problems in the act, many of which had been pin-pointed by the Chief Electoral Officer in his reports to Parliament following the general elections in 1984 and 1988.
We had our work cut out for us. The committee embarked on this detailed study of the act. The chairman has indicated how many hours we have spent in this committee toiling through draft bills. It is very tedious work. I hope this debate is a little more lively than some of the committee proceedings have been, although there have been moments of interest and excitement there.
What are the problems with the bill? I want to state, and it will become clear in the course of my remarks, that while the committee made a series of recommendations in the form of a draft bill to the House the government took the draft bill away and doctored it up a bit.
As a member of the opposition and as a member who believed we were working on full consensus I naturally have some concerns about the doctoring that has gone on. Our party supports this bill in principle. We are attempting to assist in its passage at the second reading stage. We will seek amendments in the course of the committee work on the bill and at report stage.
We hope that the government will see fit to agree to some of the amendments that we are going to propose. I want to talk about the problems that I have with the bill first, and then I will mention a few of the more positive aspects later. The principle of this bill is reasonably sound but we have problems with specifics.
The royal commission cost the Canadian taxpayers $20 million. That money has been paid out, but the advice of the royal commission is being ignored by the government in many cases.
I want to start with the issue of the representation of women in the House of Commons, which is one that the royal commission considered very directly. It occurred early in the first volume of its report. In the course of its many detailed studies on this issue the commission
Government Orders
determined that there were systemic and structural barriers to the entry of women to this House.
I quote from page 107 of the report: "Among the structural barriers identified, however, two are paramount. The first is the cost of the nomination process. The second is the lack of concerted efforts by political parties to support women seeking nominations".
Those were the two principal problem areas that the royal commission identified as barriers to women entering this House. So that everyone is aware, out of the 295 members of this House 13 per cent are women.
On page 110 the royal commission said: "Another troubling question is why so many fewer women than men seek nomination. Several factors appear to be at work here. Based on the socio-economic analysis presented earlier, it is clear that family responsibilities, still shouldered largely and as a prime responsibility by women, deter many competent and interested women from seeking office at least until their children are older.
A second factor is that women tend to have less employment security and thus face a greater potential impact if they lose their bid for public office at the nomination stage, as a candidate, or following one term in office. As the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women noted, one of the most obvious financial costs associated with running for elected office is the risk to employment. Many women cannot afford to gamble their jobs on the chance of winning an election.
Finally, it is clear that some women are deterred by the differential media treatment they receive as political contenders. Our research showed that although the coverage of women in politics has improved over the last two decades it remains stereotyped, focusing much more often on women's appearance, personal life and opinions about specific issues such as abortion".
Clearly the commission did not feel it could do much to affect the media's coverage of women candidates but it did feel it could do something to make the nomination process more accessible and open for women candidates. It made a series of recommendations in its report. First, it recommended that spending limits be put in place for

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
persons seeking nominations. Understandably we are not proceeding with that recommendation at this stage because some nominations have already taken place and had taken place before we received the report.
In order to avoid controversy on that one during this particular election it was deferred to what we are calling phase three of our committee work. We hope to have it in place in time for the election after the 1993 election.
Second, it recommended that child care expenses be deductible by the primary caregiver when that person is seeking nomination for elected office as a candidate for a party and also during the period of the election itself.
Both these recommendations found favour with the committee and were included in the committee's report to this House, which was tabled in December of last year, but both have been ignored by the government. They were taken out of the draft bill and ignored by the government.
Unfortunately it will be difficult for us as members to try to get those amendments back in because both being changes in the taxation law, subject to advice we will get in due course from parliamentary counsel they may require royal recommendation. If that is so we may have difficulty, although it is taking tax off and we may be able to move them. We will do our utmost to see that those changes are put back in place. Apparently, the government has expressed an unwillingness to deal with them and we are surprised at that unwillingness.
In addition, there was a major recommendation to provide an incentive to political parties to actively recruit women candidates. That recommendation was that if after the next election fewer than 20 per cent of the members of this House were women then in the following election any registered political party that managed to elect women as 20 per cent of its caucus would receive an additional reimbursement from Elections Canada. All the political parties are entitled to reimbursement of their expenses from Elections Canada to a certain degree after the electoral event is concluded.
The proposal the royal commission made was that a party could get up to 50 per cent additional money back depending on the percentage of women in its caucus.
For example, if the caucus was 25 per cent women the reimbursement would be 125 per cent of what it would otherwise be. It was a financial incentive of some significance that was offered to political parties.
We in this party have favoured and consistently pressed for this change in the law. We could not get agreement in the committee to bring forward this recommendation to this House. Again, we believe it is one that should be in this bill and we will continue to press for its inclusion in this bill. It could be included in phase two but so far we have not got agreement in the committee to put it in there.
We are concerned that the important and far-reaching recommendations of the royal commission, which will admittedly not solve the problem entirely but will at least assist in solving the problem of under-representation of women in this House, are being ignored.
We feel that the recommendations are not ones that are overly demanding or onerous, but they will make it easier for women to access the electoral system. We feel it is important for the system and for the obligation members of this House have to represent the country. We believe the House should be more representative and we support these limited recommendations that the royal commission has put forward. We are surprised that the members of the Conservative Party are not supporting these recommendations.
On the last one, the major recommendation about extra payment to the parties, even the women's group in the Conservative Party showed a complete lack of support for it. It indicated that it did not feel that such a change was necessary. I am frankly shocked. I would have at least expected support from that quarter but even those women, at least those who are running that organization, did not feel it was necessary in spite of the very poor showing of their party in having women as members of the caucus. I realize the Prime Minister talks
March 8, 1993

a different tune, but the fact is there are not very many in that caucus and in percentage terms it is quite low.
The second aspect concerns third party advertising. There has been a lot of criticism in the press of the provisions dealing with third party advertising that were contained in the committee report in December. This criticism has particularly come from the National Citizens' Coalition. It has run advertisements, which I would call scare tactic advertisements, designed to make people think that somehow their rights are being trampled on as a result of the third party advertising provisions in this bill. I am pleased that the government has at least agreed with the very limited restrictions that have been proposed in the law that is before this House. I suspect that the reason we have not seen any National Citizens' Coalition ads since is because it realizes what a weak law the government has proposed in this case.
Let us look in detail at the restriction that is proposed. The law says no person or organization may engage in advertising during an election campaign where that organization or person spends more than $1,000, and where the ad is either in favour of or opposed to a candidate or a political party. It must be a direct ad in support of or in opposition to. In other words, indirect advertisements that deal with issues other than candidates and parties, that deal with policy questions, for example, are still able to be advertised by anybody and in unlimited amounts. In other words, all the advertising that went on in the last campaign on free trade, which was such an abuse of our electoral system, would be allowed as long as no reference was made to a party or candidate.
This is not what the royal commission on electoral reform and party financing recommended. The $20 million study that the government established, which is the basis of the work that we are doing, recommended a very severe restriction on third party advertising. It recommended a ban on third party advertising and a ban on expenditures by a third party of any campaign expense during an election campaign, except for $1,000. The ban would apply to everything, not just advertising. It would apply to polling and every other kind of expense because it clearly intended that there be restrictions in place on electoral expenses.
The parties are subject to limits, both nationally and on a constituency basis. Those limits are in place and
Government Orders
they are designed to ensure that the electoral process in Canada is fair. I think they are reasonable restrictions. I attended a seminar hosted by the royal commission at which some American congressmen and an American senator were in attendance. They were extremely jealous of the Canadian system of expenditure control in election campaigns. They do not have these controls in place in the United States. They told stories of how they had to spend their time, easily half their time, between elections raising money for the next campaign. It is a completely different system and it is not one that serves the public well.
Our system serves the public well. Politicians are restricted in what they can spend and the parties are restricted in what they can spend. As a result of that our campaigns are not easily bought by one party because no one can spend that much more than anyone else. That is a big help. Also, the level of expenditure ensures that you do not have to be a multimillionaire in order to be a candidate for political office in Canada. It is becoming increasingly difficult for someone who is not very well to do to seek elected office in the House of Representatives or in the Senate of the United States. That is not the difficulty in Canada.
The amazing thing is when reading these advertisements from the National Citizens' Coalition you never see mention of the fact that there are restrictions on Canada's political parties. You do not see any criticism of the fact that there are restrictions on the expenditures of Canadian political parties and there have been for many years in this country. It has not run full-page ads denouncing that part of the law. It is only when it sees the possibility of restrictions on its own advertising campaign that the National Citizens' Coalition chooses to take issue and run its national ads.
I want to say that the National Citizens' Coalition uses these ads and these scare tactics as a fund-raising gesture. It runs these ads and there is always a little blurb down at the bottom-some of my constituents send this material to me-saying if you would like to support the National Citizens' Coalition in its work, cut out the coupon and send in money. You have probably seen them, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to pose some questions to the National Citizens' Coalition to find out where the money goes. It makes a great issue of members of Parliament and the

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
benefits that members of Parliament receive and so on. All of us have seen advertisements on that issue.
The chairman or whatever his position is with the National Citizens' Coalition was asked by one of my colleagues how much he was paid. Of course salaries of members of Parliament are a public matter. Well he said that was private, that it was not the business of the member of Parliament. The member of Parliament asked who decided how much he got paid. That too was private. It was not the business of the member of Parliament. Then the member asked who was on the board of directors. That was private too. It was not the business of the member of Parliament.
One has to wonder what goes on with the National Citizens' Coalition. Its argument is that its rules of public disclosure, its rules of freedom to advertise during campaigns apply only to it. The rest of us, the political parties, the people in public life who have to debate the issues, who are standing for public office and who have to stand again and seek re-election and so on, are all subject to rules. But according to the National Citizens' Coalition we should be and it should not. It wants everything on the politician but it does not want anything on itself.
I suggest that the advertising campaign that has been conducted by that coalition has not served the Canadian public well and has distorted this issue. The proposed restriction is very slight and will hardly affect the issue in terms of the ability of Canadians to advertise at all.
The third area I want to deal with is the question of homeless electors. The royal commission recommended that Canadians who do not have a fixed place of abode are being left off the voters' list and ought to be included on the list so that they, like everyone else, get to exercise their franchise.
The committee considered the proposals put forward by the royal commission and accepted them. We recommended that there be a specific requirement in the law that the Chief Electoral Officer ensure that homeless electors were enumerated where that could possibly be done.
Specifically we provided that a homeless elector could register as an address the place where that person obtained food on a regular basis. However, the government saw fit in its bill to delete those provisions. It took all of those out and said the existing law was satisfactory.
The excuse given by the government House leader was that if we changed the law it might allow for fraud.
I suggest that really what this government is doing is saying that the homeless are not likely to vote Conservative so you might as well leave them out. I can understand why when the former Minister of State for Housing said that the homeless enjoyed being homeless. I think my colleague from Churchill will remember his statement some years ago. He is a member from Toronto and he made the statement that the homeless enjoyed being homeless. Therefore there was indifference and a clear lack of care on the part of the government for the plight of the homeless in this country shown by the minister. I suspect that statement cost him a lot of votes in that group.
The government is leaving a provision in the law that requires the homeless to show residence for at least 10 days in a place in order to have that place shown as his residence and therefore get on the electors' list. Most homeless people do not stay in the same place for 10 days. It is an unreasonable provision. The purpose of the royal commission's report and the purpose of the committee's report was to change that law and make it easier for the homeless to get on the list and the government has not seen fit to do that. We believe that provision in this bill should be changed.
Another issue is the length of an election campaign. [Translation]
The recommendation the committee had made to this House was that the maximum length of an election campaign be 56 days. We also recommended a minimum length of 47 days. The government approved this latter recommendation, by the way, but not the one regarding the maximum length. We regret that the government chose to ignore that recommendation. We also regret, as a party, that the government and the Chief Electoral Officer decided not to approve the recommendation of the royal commission which was for the minimum length of an election campaign to be 40 days.

Forty-seven days is still too long. Canadians are tired of very lengthy election campaigns. Provincial campaigns are much shorter. I noticed that just last week there was a dissolution of the legislature in Prince Edward Island. That election is to be on March 29. I know my former colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, who is
March 8, 1993

running to be premier of that province, will do extremely well in the election campaign. I wish her very well as I am sure all members of the House do. That is a short campaign. It is going to be in one month. There is no earthly reason why the Canadian election campaign cannot be shortened to that length of time.
We are told by the Chief Electoral Officer that 47 days is the minimum he can do. The government did not press the issue and accepted it. However it has refused to put a maximum on it. The government House leader mumbled something about constitutional rights of the Prime Minister, that it would require a constitutional change to somehow alter that. What rubbish. There is no evidence of that at all. I would have liked to have questioned him on it but unfortunately I did not get the chance when he was before our committee.
We support a further change to this act that would restrict the length of campaigns to 40 days which even then is long but it is a lot shorter than what we are now dealing with. Canadians deserve a shorter election. It would reduce costs. It would ensure that the Canadian taxpayer gets a little better bang for the buck. The parties would not have to raise so much money in order to operate the campaign. Limits could be reduced.
Those are the points in the bill that I think are negative.
I should mention in a brief passing the issue of prisoners' voting rights. People say: "Well in Kingston of course you are interested in prisoners' voting rights". I am interested in prisoners' voting rights. There are a lot of prisons in Kingston. There are a lot of inmates in prisons in Kingston that is for sure. In fairness also the issue was dealt with by the royal commission which made certain recommendations concerning inmate voting rights.
The committee considered the matter and made another recommendation more restrictive than that proposed by the royal commission. We know that prisoners won the right to vote in court decisions in this countiy and exercised that right in the referendum campaign. I want to make it very clear that the voting rights exercised by inmates during the referendum were exercised in the
Government Orders
riding from which the inmate came, not in Kingston nor in the riding in which the prison was located.
I think my friend from Churchill may remember the figures better than I do, but my recollection is that only 119 inmates voted in Kingston and the Islands during the referendum campaign. That was a relatively high number but it is not veiy many out of about 12,000 federal inmates who are in prison across this country.
Given that, my own preference would be for a longer period than this two-year restriction that the government has proposed. What the government has suggested to the House in this bill is that any person incarcerated in a federal institution would be deprived of his or her right to vote. I think that is unduly restrictive. I do not believe it is in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees to every citizen the right to vote.
Inmates in penitentiaries do not lose their citizenship because they have been convicted of a crime. We do not take citizenship away for that. If we want to make that one of the punishments, let us change the Criminal Code. The charter provides that every citizen has a right to vote. It is on that basis that the courts ruled that the law taking away an inmate's right to vote was unfair and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The new law will have to be tested in the courts, but I think the government's approach has been: "We do not want to take any criticism on this, so we will propose a Draconian law and let the courts strike it down and then we will have another free for all".
That is not the view of the Liberal Party. We suggest that the matter be taken on and dealt with in a forthright and open way in this House. I hope to move an amendment to that provision of the bill at a later stage.
I want to turn to the special ballots. As the member for Calgary West said in his speech, the provisions relating to special ballots really are fundamental changes in the law. They are going to allow all kinds of Canadians who for a host of reasons were previously unable to vote to exercise their franchise.

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
I particularly think it will help those who are unable to get to the polls on election day for one reason or another, who are shut in and who know that they will be unable to go. They may apply for and obtain a special ballot and mark it by some arrangement from their house and mail it in. I believe people will be able to take special ballots to people under this arrangement. The details have not been worked out. If that happens, again it will make voting easier.
Canadians who know they will be away from their constituency on the day of the election will be able to do this. Indeed, people who have been left off the list may be able to get on the list and vote by way of special ballot.
There are a series of changes that this law will make which will make it easier for Canadians to vote no matter where they are.
We have already heard from the member for Calgary West about the additional voting rights granted to non-resident Canadians. There is a restriction there of no more than five years absence from Canada and if the voter stays out longer than that, the right to vote is lost. We will survive that. I think that will work.
Certain members of this House have expressed concern about the issue. The hon. member for Saint-Denis certainly did. One of the concerns is the enforcement of the provisions of this act outside the country. It will be difficult to charge an elector outside of Canada with fraud for example. It will be difficult to enforce the provisions respecting expenditure by political parties and candidates outside the country.
Aside from that certainly if the parties or candidates are spending and are caught spending money outside the country, that can be used as grounds for a prosecution here if in so doing they exceed the limits imposed by the act. All in all I believe the new provisions respecting special ballots will help Canadians and will improve the way the act is applied throughout the country.
Generally, the changes that are proposed to this act are reasonable ones. Many are very technical, as the hon. member for Calgary West stated in his remarks and I do not propose to go through them in detail. As I have indicated, we support the bill in principle and will continue to try to make the changes in the areas that I have mentioned in committee and at the report stage.
As the hon. member said, the committee is continuing its work in reviewing the royal commission's report. We are working on the rules relating to enforcement of the act, the financial limits and the reimbursement procedures for candidates and for the political parties and finally the rules in respect of broadcasting dealing with the number of minutes, for example, allocated to each of the political parties.
We believe those changes are important. We believe they need to be in place in time for the election. We in this party will continue to work with the members of the committee from the government and from the New Democratic Party to see that those changes to the law are brought to this House in a timely manner so that they can be incorporated in a bill and adopted before the election.
Third is phase three. I recognize the government feels that somehow phase three is likely to take place before the next election. That could happen but frankly, I have doubts. There are many relatively controversial items in phase three. It is so close to an election. It is hard to start talking about redistribution of seats for example in the weeks or months immediately preceding an election when we know we are going to have to make changes after it.
My guess is phase three is not going to happen until after the next election. One suspects the composition of the House which could be quite different after that election might make a difference in the approach that is taken to phase three.
Phase three might even become something bigger and might result in some changes to phases one and two. After an electoral experience we may be better able to point out the shortcomings that we have suggested are present in phase one and which are not dealt with at the amendment stage in this House. We may find that some of the ideas we have put forward do not work and we may have to make changes in them as a result of that experience.
We think on the whole the measures contained in Bill C-114 represent a significant advance in improving the electoral law of Canada. We are glad to be able to assist
March 8, 1993

this evening in expediting adoption of this bill by the House so that it can be considered in the committee.
As always we will continue to work with the member for Calgary West and the member for Churchill. The member for Saint-Denis and I who are on this committee will continue to work with the other members to make all the improvements we can in this law. We recognize that time is pressing and the complexity and enormity of the task. We have been working on this for many months now and are pleased this has finally come to the House. We will continue to work in future with a view to getting this bill adopted at the earliest opportunity-
I do have an amendment I would like to move. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill:
That the question be now put.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.
This bill, as previous members have indicated, is the result of a year's long work. The special committee on electoral reform spent part of that year dealing with the regulations that resulted from the referendum legislation but most of the work we had done in this one-year period has been a review of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. The legislation we have in front of us tonight is basically the first of three different phases which we will have on changes to the Canada Elections Act.
Let me start out by saying that this legislation standing by itself would not be sufficient reform. We have called for a number of other changes that must be made to the Canada Elections Act in order to make elections not only be fair but seem to be fair.
Among the changes the New Democratic Party have demanded are clear and comprehensive definitions of election expenses, affirmative action measures that would enable women and other unrepresented Canadians to have a better opportunity at being nominated. Considering that today is International Women's Day I think it is appropriate that be part of the debate taking place this evening. We have also called for clear requirements on both leadership and nomination contests, including limits on expenses for nomination meetings and public reporting of donations to leadership campaigns.
Government Orders
I can say that we made that particular recommendation before we knew about the Prime Minister's resignation. We have been consistent in calling for public disclosure and limits of funds that go out to various leadership campaigns. As the person responsible for drafting most of the rules that we used when our present leader was elected, when I chaired that committee we insisted on very clear limits and on complete disclosure of all donations. We went even further. We put a limit on the amount that any one source could give to a leadership candidate.
I would suggest that those people on the other side of the aisle who have been scurrying around today talking to other members of the Conservative caucus that perhaps they should follow our example when they start their own leadership campaigns, whenever those officially get going.
I could spend a lot of time talking about what should be in this legislation. I hope that the things we believe should be in this legislation will be in phase two. We do not want to see changes to the election act which, although they are important, are basically restricted to the area of allowing more Canadians to vote.
We recognize it is important to people who are at university, who are away from their homes for short vacations or whose work takes them away from their regular residences, to be given the opportunity to vote. We also agree that those people who serve Canada indirectly by working offshore for various charities, human rights groups, environmental concerns, and what have you, should be able to vote. Canadians who might be offshore for a period of two or three years, maybe taking a holiday or what have you, anything less than five years, and who have an intention to return to this country, should be able to vote. Hopefully the changes we have made in the legislation before us today will allow that to happen.
As the previous speaker indicated, there is some danger of fraud. If you allow people, even though they may be Canadian subjects but not living in this country to vote, it is very hard for political parties or the normal monitoring process to ensure that there is no fraud or there is not undue harassment of those voters. Those are

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
concerns that the committee shared and it will be of special concern for us in the future.
Recognizing that concern related to potential fraud, harassment, undue influence, et cetera, we said that we should basically put that opinion aside and say that the greater good is served if more Canadians who are away for short periods of time are able to vote. That was the basic criteria we used.
Unfortunately when the bill came back from the Privy Council, from the government, other clauses that would enable other Canadians to vote had been changed. As a result of the royal commission's recommendations and the committee study, we had recommended that Elections Canada and returning officers proactively go out and help the homeless register to vote. It is not a new concept, but it does require more than the normal method of enumeration in order for that to happen.
The government has denied that request to date, even though it was the recommendation of the royal commission, a recommendation of an all-party committee. Of course, as you would expect, the majority on that committee were Conservative members. An all-party royal commission, again with the majority Conservatives, an all-party committee of the House of Commons, all recommended that Elections Canada take a proactive approach and help the homeless to register to vote. That has not been accepted.
We have just talked about the arguments that this could create fraud. There is more danger, more risk, of letting what may be in excess of a million people, maybe in excess of two million people, who do not happen to have residences at the present time in Canada to vote. If we are going to let that happen, certainly we should let those people who are living in this country and are Canadian citizens, but unfortunately without regular homes or accommodations, vote and we should make those changes in the elections act that would help to ensure that.
In the same vein I do not believe that the government should have restricted the right of prisoners to vote to the extent that it has. Again, previous court decisions, charter challenges basically, the royal commission and the committee that was set up to look into this recommended that more prisoners be allowed to vote. We did not say that mass murderers be allowed to vote; we did not say that people who are accused of terrible crimes be allowed to vote; we put some restrictions on it. The restriction that the government allowed of only people
who are serving less than two years means that only people who are in provincial institutions will be allowed to vote. It is too restrictive. Certainly in court cases that have been held in the past, the courts have ruled that other prisoners be allowed to vote.
That does not prevent Parliament from passing whatever restrictions it may wish. I believe that having prisoners vote in the referendum or in a number of elections until now without any hardship to society, it will be very hard for the courts to interpret a restriction of the magnitude that the federal government has suggested and say that it is acceptable under our charter.
There is another element to this which I think we should consider. A large number of the people who will be prevented from voting under the government's proposal will be native Canadians. Their crimes do not tend to be white collar crimes. Their crimes do not tend to be the ones for which you can use a hot-shot lawyer to get you off or to have your sentence restricted to less than two years.
Native Canadians tend to be the poor in our society. Many of their crimes unfortunately tend to be violence related against members of their own society, their own race. Many of those people are interested in voting. Many of those people are capable of voting. I would like to suggest that the government should go back to the recommendation of the royal commission or of the special committee on electoral reform.
A number of other changes were made to Bill C-114 that were not in the royal commission's report or in the report of the electoral reform committee. One of the changes I find offensive is that the federal government has recommended that only people who are covered by the Canada Labour Code be granted leave in order to seek election.
The royal commission and the all-party committee recommended that all employees be allowed that right. It does not matter whether you come under the Canada Labour Code or under provincial legislation, that right should be guaranteed to you.
When the minister responsible was before the committee about three weeks ago and tried to explain this, he said: "A lot of the businesses covered under provincial legislation are small businesses". If the government is in power long enough, that would be true. The businesses get smaller and smaller and smaller.
March 8, 1993

The reality is that a large number of employees work for Inco, Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting-pardon me, take back Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting. It does fall under federal legislation. Many large industries fall under provincial legislation.
If we are going to guarantee people who work under the Canada Labour Code the right to run for election, then surely we should say that all employees across this land must be given the same right. That is only equitable.
How do you explain the situation where you have two people working in the same hallway? Perhaps one works for a corporation that comes under federal regulation. That person is allowed to run. Somebody else working for a larger corporation but one that comes under provincial legislation does not have that same right.
The royal commission spent $16 million to $20 million of Canadian taxpayers' money. One of its recommendations was that all Canadians be granted leave for the purpose of seeking election.
In a similar matter, for the federal government's own employees we believe it is not only important that they have the right to run for election and be granted leave to run but the present rules are restrictive. It means that once they are nominated they must immediately take a leave of absence, even if that election is not held for another year or a year and a half. That is completely ludicrous.
Right now someone who is the janitor in a federal government building and received a nomination now would immediately have to go on a leave of absence. That person is not in a policy-making position. That person is not representing the federal government in such a way that his position is incompatible with that of being a candidate for a political party. We should certainly change our own laws to make sure that candidates can maintain their present positions until the election is finally called.
There are a number of other changes that we would like to see made. When we go into committee on this over the next couple of days the New Democratic Party caucus will be making a number of amendments and
Government Orders
hopefully the government and the government backbenchers will support us on them.
The important thing is that this is just the first stage. We know that the most controversial issues are still yet to come from committee. We saw the reaction when we put a very small limit on third party advertising and restricted groups and individuals to spending $1,000 if they are promoting or opposing a particular party or a candidate.
I recognize my time is running out. I will try to get through all these items quickly but they are very important items.
We saw the reaction. We saw the reaction from the newspapers, the broadcasters, and the National Citizens' Coalition. We had people in front of the House of Commons committee saying this is a restriction on their freedom of expression.
It was quite ironic that the spokesperson from the daily newspapers and the spokesperson from the weeklies were both from the province of Quebec. They were ranting and raving and said that even this limit is too much and we are really restricting freedom of expression.
They had to be reminded that in the province in which they live, in which they have lived for many years, there is a complete prohibition on third parties, special interests or others advertising in any way, shape or form. This great threat to freedom of expression is something they have lived with for 20 years, something they had not complained about and had forgotten about.
They were asked a subsequent question. I asked them: Was there a great public outcry in Quebec? Were they saying that their rights, their freedoms, and their right to express themselves were being completely hampered by Quebec law? They both had to admit that does not seem to be the problem in Quebec. There is not a great outcry. The publishers had forgotten the rules they were living under and obviously the public itself did not feel that it was unduly restricted.
Some people will say that people cannot buy an election. That might be true to a degree. However if we take a look, as the royal commission did and others have done, at the various referendums that have been held in

Government Orders
the various states in the United States by and large the groups that spent the most money won the day.
As well, in the American tradition incumbents tend to spend the most money and they also tend to win. Incumbents in the U.S. tend to stay on for a very long time even though at the congressional level they only serve two-year terms. Money does make a difference.
We have accepted in this country since the 1973 legislation that there be severe limits on candidates and severe limits on parties. That is part of the Canadian way.
We also say that we must have disclosure of our sources of income. Those are the things that we have accepted for 20 years in this country. For the most part it has helped to balance out and make Canadians feel that they have a fair and honest balance in terms of what the parties can spend and do during election campaigns.
For anybody to suggest that non-party groups can spend whatever they want, in some cases more than candidates and in some cases more than parties, on what might be only one issue means that we have created a complete imbalance in the whole political spending process.
Canadians by and large would reject a system of no limits whatsoever. They believe in a balanced approach. However part of that balance has to mean that there are restrictions on what others can spend during an election campaign. If I am limited to $50,000 for all the things I have to do in an election campaign then it would be completely unreasonable if one, two, three or four businesses in my riding could spend more than that on a single issue. The same thing would apply on the federal level.
We cannot have a situation in which the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats as political parties may each spend on the order of $9 million on a national campaign-and that is for the leader's tour, polling, advertising, organizational work, literature and all the things that we do in a campaign-and then find out that some group that supports NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement, decides it is going to spend not the $4.5 million it spent last time but two, three or four times that amount. In other words, it could spend more than
the political parties on only one issue and would not have the same responsibilities of political parties.
As others in the House who have spoken before me have said, it is ironic that some of the very groups that speak out against politicians and against restrictions on third party advertising are the same groups, the National Citizens' Coalition being the most obvious, that will not provide any public disclosure whatsoever as to how they are spending their money, who is raising their money and who is profiting from their campaigns.
Canadians want a fair, honest and up-to-date election act. We have moved a long way in that direction with C-114. Let us move the rest of the way. Let us make sure that we do more to bring in women, natives, people of colour and handicapped Canadians. Let us make sure that we bring in and cover a lot of the other issues that are not covered by our present election act. Leadership campaigns are one of the most obvious areas that we have to work on. Let us also make those other reforms on election expenses and financing that are really necessary to improve our democratic system.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I saw my colleague on the other side rising and I thank you for recognizing me first.
I would just like to make a couple of comments and start with the closing comments of my colleague opposite. I am in complete agreement that the examination of expenditures, rebates, limits and in particular the inclusion of the notion of indirect is a phase two activity. I would hope that within the next week or two the committee can reach its conclusions and present them to the House. The sooner we get them into the public domain so others can have a look at them and question or applaud our wisdom, whichever way it turns out, the better. I think we are both looking forward to that public examination. I am in complete agreement with him on that.
I would say to my colleague from the Liberal Party, in passing, that the issue of reimbursement for women or men or candidates of any persuasion is also part of the phase two package. We have not dealt in phase one with any of the reimbursement issues and we intend to deal with them all in phase two. I may have misheard him in terms of thinking that it would be a phase one issue. I think it is a phase two.
March 8, 1993

The information available to me may not be available to my colleague on the opposite side, but it is my understanding that for the last few elections the homeless have been enumerated by Elections Canada. It is a matter of policy and there is nothing in current law to argue against it.
With the other changes it does become easier to do; with swearing in at the poll and with the list being open until five days before voting day. That whole process would include a longer period to appeal original decisions, that would also be there. That may be a piece of different information. Maybe when we go to clause by clause and we have Elections Canada before us it would certainly be a question well worth asking and getting on the public record. Does it or does it not, can it or can it not enumerate the homeless at this time? I think it can and has.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Just a short response, Mr. Speaker.
When this issue was brought before committee a couple of weeks ago after the government brought down its legislation we asked Elections Canada those very same questions. Certainly my interpretation of the response that we received is that yes, it does make some attempt if someone is already at a shelter or something of that nature. Even then it is basically ignoring the present law which requires that those people must have been at that shelter for the previous 10 days. That is a situation in which Elections Canada is probably ignoring the present law. What happens if someone was to challenge that in the future?
Also, there are a number of other homeless Canadians who would not even fit that category who under the recommendations of the royal commission and with a proactive approach-and it is very important that we look at that proactive approach-we know that within certain ridings in Toronto, Winnipeg and elsewhere across this country-


An hon. member:: Thunder Bay.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -Thunder Bay, as my colleague says- there are certain areas where the homeless tend to congregate. Maybe it is a kitchen. It is not a residence but it is a place that they come for a meal, once, twice, three times a week or maybe every day. We can pick them up if we go down there. It is that type of approach which the royal commission was recommending. I not-
Government Orders
iced in their last census the Americans had to use the same approach in order to get an accurate census of their population.
We should take a look at those positive approaches to make sure that any Canadians, regardless of their present economic situation and hardships, be able to vote.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment at the outset to pay tribute to all of the members of the special committee for the work they have done. It is not easy, given the number of hours they must put in not just at the table but in terms of consideration of the royal commission's report, other interventions they may get during the formal process of the hearings or the correspondence they get.
No matter which side of the House the members are on they have done an excellent job in terms of reviewing the issues, reviewing the documents, reviewing the concepts and in phase one coming up with a bill that has been translated reasonably well by cabinet. I am not suggesting that we are totally in agreement with the final wording but they all deserve our thanks and the thanks of the public of Canada for the work they have done.
I also want to, while I have the opportunity, pay tribute to my former colleague, the former Whip of the government whom I have worked with for a number of years. He did an excellent job as chief government Whip and we miss him. We also wish him well in his new role as "speechifier" in the House of Commons.
I do have a question for my colleague and it comes out of some of the remarks he made earlier. He was talking about the need for controls on leadership campaigns of political parties. As I understand it, I may be inaccurate and I stand to be corrected, the Prime Minister this past weekend announced there would be a ceiling of about $900,000 per candidate on the Progressive Conservative leadership candidates. Such a ceiling did not include staff costs or transportation costs.
I am wondering if my colleague from Churchill would like to reflect on what that really means in terms of expenditure controls, given his role in my party in preparing the groundwork for our controls for the leadership convention which actually I guess was kicked off four years ago yesterday when Ed Broadbent indicated his intention to step down as leader and when, as

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
we know, the member for Yukon succeeded him. I wonder if he would like to respond to that quickly.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am not sure how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker, but if my colleague wants me to give a lesson to Conservative colleagues in the House I am certainly willing to do so. If I do not have enough time in this intervention I am willing to hold a little seminar in any of the rooms on the Hill. I will not charge leadership candidates any more than I will charge other members.
It is true that we set up a very restrictive program for the selection of our leader. We did not allow some of the exemptions the Prime Minister talks about. I have not had a chance to check on the actual wording of the clause that passed the Conservative Party executive just last weekend, but I recognize that travel and staff costs can be two of the major components of any campaign, whether it is a leadership campaign or an election campaign.
To exclude travel, especially in a country as wide as ours with as many groups that exist in society, can be a real problem. Obviously someone with a much larger war chest or someone with friends in the airline industry, because that does make a difference, can travel to a lot more places and meet a lot more potential delegates. There are some built-in biases if we exclude travel.
Similarly we were very careful to make sure our candidates did not use House of Commons staff or House of Commons facilities during working hours. I must admit that it got to the point where people became very nervous. I was the Whip of the party at that particular time. They did not know why I was coming to their offices but they were always nervous when I came by. It was ensuring that there was enforcement of those rules for our staff and our members.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, but first, I would like to make
a comment for the benefit of my NDP colleague. It is good that our party wants to set a spending ceiling. It is a turning point in Canadian political history and politics, because a few years ago we would have discussed this issue and it would have been almost unthinkable, because we could spend as much as we wanted to elect a party leader, regardless of the party. I believe it is a step in the right direction and I urge all the other parties to do the same.
I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague from Kingston and the Islands when he discussed this issue earlier. He said that our government took a very long time to come up with this bill. Despite what my Liberal colleague said, I think that the minister responsible for this legislation did a remarkable job in the period between the tabling of the committee report and the first reading of this bill. When the minister was asked to come before the committee, he did so very diligently. When we discussed some problems in this bill with the House leader, who was the minister responsible, he listened to us very attentively on every occasion, I think. The general impression we have with this bill is that it reflects quite accurately the work done by the committee. And this is interesting, considering that sometimes with other bills the committee would work for months, almost years, only to see its report shelved.
I believe the government had the political will to amend the Canada Elections Act. That has been the case since 1988, since the second time this government was elected, when in the Speech from the Throne in April 1989 the Prime Minister indicated the government's intention to appoint a royal commission that would be responsible for making recommendations for changes in the Canada Elections Act.
On April 3, 1989 the government appointed the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, chaired by Mr. Pierre Lortie. The commission was established on November 15, 1989 to inquire into and report on the appropriate principles and procedure that should govern the election of members of the House of Commons and the financing of political parties and of candidates' campaigns.
March 8, 1993

To show how diligently the government pursued this matter, after the commission, which started its work on November 15, 1989, had tabled its report in February 1992 the government immediately established a special committee on electoral reform, which included members of all three main political parties in this House. Committee members worked with tremendous dedication and their patience, in some cases, was exemplary.
Hon. members will also recall that the committee's proceedings were somewhat disrupted by the tabling of the referendum bill. Most members switched committees to be able to examine that legislation. And subsequently, we had our Canada-wide referendum. Finally, after lengthy discussion, the special committee was able to table a report in the House of Commons in December 1992, while the bill on electoral reform was tabled, if I am not mistaken, on February 22, 1993.
So it cannot be said that the government has dragged its feet on this legislation, considering that the last major electoral reform took place in 1974. We therefore felt, and I think rightly so-a position that is shared by the other parties represented on this committee-that we had to do something to make the Canada Elections Act even more efficient and more accessible for all Canadians who wish to exercise their right to vote at least once every four or five years, depending on the dispositions of the government in power.
I think it is important to point out that this bill introduces many improvements. Some people will say the government did not go far enough. Others may complain about the government's approach to the issues. They would have preferred to see this, that and the other. Finally, I think what is important about Bill C-114 is that the government is meeting a commitment it made and that the bill improves the electoral process for the benefit of Canadians whom this process is intended to serve.
We must also remember that the bill is largely based on the first report of the special committee, which intends to produce more reports on electoral reform. To us this is extremely important, and of course I say this as a member of the committee. As I mentioned earlier, the Lortie commission spent almost two years-my hon. friend said it cost about $20 million-conducting hearings across the country and listening to people expound on the positive and negative aspects of the present legislation, to consider the amendments that would be
Government Orders
necessary to deal with party financing, broadcasting, public opinion polls and candidates, to name a few.
Had we decided to put everything in one single bill-the fact of the matter is we would still be working as a committee on a proposal to table before this House-chances are that the bill before us today could unfortunately not be read the first time, let alone adopted. I think it was extremely wise to divide up our huge task in three stages-phases one, two and three, as we did to provide some very important answers, at least for the short term.
As a second stage, the special committee intends to deal with broadcasting, financing and enforcement issues as I said earlier. In phase three, as mentioned in the report tabled before this House, we will deal with and tackle such issues as the assignment of seats to provinces, drawing constituency boundaries and establishing native constituencies. As far as the drawing of constituency boundaries is concerned, we know that some ridings cover a very small area but are very densely populated, while others cover huge areas, but are very sparsely populated. It is a real nightmare for our officials in Elections Canada and it requires nearly exemplary dedication on their part. When you see how well and how fast-in the case of the last referendum for instance-they completed the enumeration, I think we cannot ask much more from these people. They are already doing their very best and they are doing so not out of self-interest but in the interest of all Canadians, to enable them to exercise their right to vote.
It is easy to register when you live in downtown Quebec City or Montreal, but it is not so easy for those who live in remote areas, when the office of the Chief Electoral Officer is 50, 60 or 100 kilometres away. We have to take that into account and make sure that the proposed legislation as well as the proposed amendments will take into account such factors as distance, remoteness, population density and all those things that could be improved to facilitate the conduct of the vote.
I also wish to thank the committee members for their first comprehensive report which, I assume in good faith, is supported by all of them. It certainly is a good example, as my colleague from Saint-Denis, whose comments are always judicious, said of the parties' ability to work together in reaching a common goal, that is a more accessible and equitable electoral system. The committee's first report is the result of a lot of work in a

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
complex area, of many consultations and of close co-operation with Elections Canada.
In this bill, the government follows up on many of the committee's recommendations. It is important to say it again because these last few years, and I would even say that it is almost a tradition with this government, it has had committees table reports which have never been acted upon. In the case of the special committee on electoral reform, diligence was in order. I believe all Canadians will benefit from that.
The main thrust of this bill is to guarantee that the Canadian electoral system is more equitable and accessible. To this effect, the bill provides for a voting process by special ballot, an improved enumeration and revision process and the possibility for voters of urban polling divisions to register and vote on election day.
The bill also contains fairness provisions. For example, it limits spending by third parties. Speaking just for myself, I believe it was extremely important to set such a limit. I always believed that we must have relatively strict rules to make sure that the electoral process is fair for everyone.
We cannot afford to have a double standard, one for candidates and parties and another for third parties.
I have always thought that as a responsible Canadian, a responsible candidate, a responsible party, if we force ourselves to respect a law which stipulates we must not spend more than a certain amount or conduct polls or advertising outside certain periods, the same restrictions should apply to all taxpayers and all those who are interested in the electoral process.
It would be too easy at this stage to use as an excuse freedom of speech and some court decisions and to say that this could violate the freedom of speech. I think that in a system like ours in which Elections Canada, our electoral system has proved its effectiveness not only here but abroad, it is important to adopt stricter regulations, at least as far as advertising by third parties is concerned. I know what the committee has undertaken, with a direct limit of $1,000 for third parties by the way. We know very well, since the chairman told us, that in a second stage, we will come back with the whole indirect issue, the whole matter of advertising and expenses.
It is true, as the chairman pointed out, that some deficiencies were detected following court decisions. But that does not mean that in its work the committee will find magical solutions. However, we will tiy in the next few weeks to put in place a proposal which will allow the government to improve the current legislation and once again to make it fairer.
Other examples of improvements to the electoral system that will make it more accessible and fairer is the possibility for Canadians who have been living outside Canada for less than five years, but who intend to come back home, to vote by mail in the federal election. Canadians who live in Canada but who, for one reason or another, will not be in their riding on election day, will now be able to vote by mail.
My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, was talking about the duration of an election, that is 47 days. It is true that 47 days is still long. In committee, we mentioned the possibility of 40 days. We also talked about a maximum of 56 days or an open-ended period. I would like to remind our viewers and our colleagues who did not have the opportunity to sit on that committee that when the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before us and explained to us how it works, he told us that, ultimately, in order to work well, the electoral process must allow each and every Canadian to be able to vote, but there were a few things that we, as voters or candidates, did not know.
I think, among other things, of having a returning officer for every riding, of providing different polling stations on election day and advance polling stations. There are also the training of the election personnel, and the finding of enumerators, poll clerks and electoral
March 8, 1993

officers. There is the list of electors to prepare and to forward to candidates. There is the enumeration to do.
We asked the Chief Electoral Officer what the minimum amount of time required to do all those things was under the present system, and he said at least 47 days. This is precisely what the committee decided to recommend to the government and this is the reason why Bill C-114 proposed a period of 47 days.
Clearly, I would like the election period to be even shorter, but for that we would have to find other means, other ways to accelerate the various administrative aspects without compromising the right of every Canadian to his or her vote on election day, and guaranteeing that this vote could be cast on election day.
Another element of these changes to the act provides for the continuation of the possibility for members of the Armed Forces or the federal Public Service posted abroad to vote by mail, but these provisions are now extended to provincial public servants. Electors in urban polling divisions will now be able to register on election day and then vote. This option is already available to rural voters. This addition is a clear example of the greater accessibility of the electoral system.
Under the present rules, electors in urban polling divisions cannot register on election day and then vote. The registration system in urban polling divisions is such that it will be done at a revision office. Registered voters must go to their polling station. This system was devised to reduce undue delays at the polling station and to prevent possible frauds.
The provisions prohibiting judges and handicapped people from voting have been struck down by the courts and are repealed by this bill. The bill also deals with the voting rights of inmates. Anyone serving a sentence of two years or more cannot vote.
The bill on electoral reform will also improve the administration of the election process. For example, enumeration of electors will be modified so that as many voters as possible can be registered. Furthermore, the revision period will be extended up to the fifth day before polling. All those measures will improve access to the electoral system.
Thanks to those amendments, our electoral procedure will be one of the most sophisticated in the world. For example, requirements concerning candidate nomination and filing of papers have been re-examined and will now take into account the increase in population and the
Government Orders
value of the dollar. These new requirements should not hamper any serious candidate. The already existing embargo period imposed on parties and candidates during the first three weeks of the campaign, on election day and on the day before will also apply to third parties, in fairness to all participants in the electoral process.
And finally I would not want to take up too much House time, but I think the main purpose of our committee was first and foremost to allow the government to initiate this new elections act. I believe the work done by the committee, and by all the members of this House without exception, was such that all the ideas submitted to the government were the result of a consensus. We hope that the government will be as prompt in proposing a bill at the second and third stages as it was at the first. In doing so, it will allow our committee to complete the great task it was entrusted with, that is to amend the Canada Elections Act, to make it more efficient and, most of all, more in tune with the expectations of all Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Champlain. As he no doubt has noted, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing proposed to limit the expenses of a candidate in a leadership race. We have heard these last few days that the Prime Minister had proposed such a limit for his own party. If his party had had a real limit during the leadership campaigns of 1976 and 1983, the Prime Minister himself would have been disqualified since he had not informed his party of his expenses and gifts he had received and so on. Canadians would undoubtedly have been spared the problems this government has created under this Prime Minister.
My question to the hon. member for Champlain is this: Would he want us now to adopt the royal commission's recommendations on the expenses of leadership candidates or is he satisfied with the system that has allowed the Prime Minister to become his party leader and that has led to the destruction of the Canadian government?


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by my colleague's question; he is not usually partisan, at least in committee. Apparently, you are never too old to learn. I would like to remind him of this: If we had imposed on his own leader the limits we are about to impose on the next, he himself would have been disqualified. That is why one really has to be extremely careful with what one says. I think I know that my colleague is just as eager as I and the other commit-

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
tee members to deal with the issue. I would ask my colleague, who does it very honourably anyhow, to speed up the process in phase two so that we can get to phase three and deal with the financing of political parties.
In closing, I will remind my friend that since 1988 the Prime Minister has always been in favour of cleaning up the way political parties are financed, and he has proven it many times. I think that imposing for the first time a spending limit on candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada below $1 million per candidate, shows the commitment of this government and of the Prime Minister to clean up political parties' financing as we will see with our chairman and the committees during the third phase of the report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate-I have given the hon. member extra time. I have been watching the clock.


Marcel Prud'homme: So you
turned him down, Mr. Speaker. I would have liked to have listened to his speech.

If there is an issue I have always been interested in, since my teen-age years as a matter of fact, it is the reform of electoral mores. I remember that when I was president of the young Liberals in the Laurier riding, when I was about to enter the provincial race after having been chosen as a candidate in the provincial election during the Jean Lesage era, we were already discussing the issue of electoral reform and of party financing. Throughout my career-as is known I did not run provincially for all kinds of reasons I have already explained in this House; at the request of Jean Lesage, I gave up my seat in favour of Rene Levesque-I was elected in 1964 and I have always had a keen interest in the issues of electoral spending and election reform.
So, to put the debate in context and for the benefit of our listeners, let me say that what we are doing right now is revamping the Canada Elections Act so that it becomes a better instrument than it was yesterday, but certainly not as good as what we would like to have tomorrow.

I wish to thank very publicly our chairman-I like to call people by their name, but the rules say that I should call them by their district-the member for Calgary West.

I would also like to thank our vice-chairmen, the hon. member for Champlain and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the committee members. We have been working together for a year, and I want to thank them because in Parliament often those who make the greatest fuss are not the ones who work the hardest. It is now 9 p.m., Monday but as early as 9 a.m. today, we were already getting ready to debate this legislation all day long and to continue discussing it, as we will keep on doing tomorrow and the rest of the week. That we do in parliamentary committee, or commission parlementaire. as they say in Quebec. It is tedious work. This committee managed to find a modus vivendi, if the Chair who rather likes those expressions allows me to say so, to come up with draft reform legislation which I generally support. But I wanted more, as our chairman would tell you. I will say again that I am very conservative about change. That is what I always say. Being a member of the Liberal Party, that remark makes my colleagues smile. I want to thank the pages who are working late tonight to allow us to dispose of this bill, and I also want to thank the university students who are listening carefully, because they are, in fact, more directly concerned by this debate than we are, since we are older.
We have been waiting a long time for this bill. People must know that it took a lot of time to come up with this 114 pages bill before the House tonight. One can get discouraged just by trying to read it, but it is a beginning. As my colleagues said earlier, it results from the famous report submitted by the Lortie commission which sat for more than two years and probably sounded out opinion and picked the brains of all academics in Canada, to such an extent that it has not finished publishing its findings yet. We, on the other hand, must act. We must modernize the legislation.
March 8, 1993

Some time ago, another piece of legislation, Bill C-79, was introduced. As an opposition member, I had the honour to be chosen as chairman of the legislative committee. It did not work. We never even sat. We are trying again, and this time, we are determined to see it through. I see that our chairman is still here. Even if it is
9.05	p.m. and we were scheduled to sit only until 7 p.m., we will be back here tomorrow morning. Our chairman is still here and he knows we are determined to see it through.
Phase one is the modernization of the electoral system, that is who does what, who can vote, how to exercise the right to vote. As I said before, when it comes to election matters, as well as legislative and parliamentary issues, I am very conservative. You have to prove that what we have has to be updated. You have to prove it to me. So, I always play the devil's advocate in committee. I know it can be tiresome for my colleagues and I apologize. I always take a completely opposite stand and say, "Try to convince me that we need this change". Once I am convinced, I am better prepared, mentally and intellectually, to explain my new position, because some people always want to change things for the sake of change. That is all right, because we do need change sometimes. But I said: "No, wait a minute. Let us not get excited". Canadians can be unhappy with the unemployment level. They can be unhappy with all the scandals. They may be unhappy about the bankruptcies. They may be unhappy about the failure of family life, of religious life, of intercultural relations. They may be unhappy about all that. They often look for a scapegoat, and that scapegoat is Parliament and the legislation it makes. Then all the good we try to do seems is made to look bad.
I would like to use the few moments you are granting me, Mr. Speaker, to try and demonstrate that what we are doing is good. It could be better. I would like to see more done, because I am very careful. Who has the right to vote? We have extended the right to vote to people who never had it until now, that is Canadians abroad. We have come a long way. Some of my colleagues are furious because we do not even know whether there are 500,000 or two million of these people, Canadians who still claim to be Canadians, who probably do not pay any taxes in Canada but who, under the Charter, might be entitled to vote.
Government Orders
Some people advocated an absolute right to vote for all Canadians wherever they live. We said: "Not so fast", but others said "Never". We went for a middle-of-the-road solution and settled on five years. Perhaps the next Parliament will make reforms on voting rights. My colleagues often go door to door. There are people who travel to the United States on holidays during the winter. Someone from British Columbia could be in Montreal. Someone from Montreal could easily be in B.C. and would lose the right to vote. We have accommodated that.
Canada has a charter of human rights. We could be attacked right in the middle of an election because prisoners have no right to vote. Therefore we had to do it. Some said all prisoners should vote; some said no prisoners should vote. We came to a middle ground that would be highly satisfactory if the elections act was to be attacked. It was not what I wanted. It was not what others wanted and some people refused to accept it.
However there is something in it and that is why I am ready to fight to the very end. My committee colleagues, the hon. member for Champlain, the chairman of the committee, the hon. members for Gaspe and Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia know how strongly I feel for it. I clearly said what I do not want even toward the end of my political life. After all, after 30 years young members will come after us, but I will keep fighting inside this House or any other place until the end of my days to impede the Americanization of the Canadian way of doing elections. It is unique. It is the envy of the world. A lot of people around Canada attack us. Maybe they do not realize it but if we listen to them we will end up in what I call the Americanization of our electoral system. I am talking about election expenses.
It is very strange that it works extremely well. I say it in both English and French. It is the same message: I wish that what was going on in Quebec was going on in Ontario so that in this way people would not say: "Ah, Quebec again". It works very well in Quebec. There is an element of fairness and control where people can be different from the citizens of the United States of America who would like to be involved in the political process. This is capital to me, if we really believe in the kind of country that we are building together. That is because Canada is not yet like the old countries in Europe. It is a country in the making. If we do not want

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
this country to be sabotaged we have to have rules for the electoral system, rules that are willingly accepted across Canada and are well understood.
It is not a question of depriving Canadians of their right to speak. It is a fundamental question of being different from our colleagues in the United States of America are. Do you know what they are doing there? After being here for 30 years I have friends in the Congress and Senate in the United States of America. Some are perpetually raising money in order to get re-elected. They are elected for only two years. There is a time limit for members of the lower house. For senators it is six years and for congressmen two years. Imagine, some have just been elected with President Clinton. Already I have proof.

I can prove that I have new colleagues who were elected and are constantly looking for that darn money that seems so necessary to get elected. Those of us who tried this system in Quebec know that it is not perfect yet, but when we always ask for more and more money, we end up with our hands tied, and I do not like it. That is what I would like people to understand.
Those who want to keep their independence should be able to belong to the party of their choice and still say: "I do not have any money, but I can raise a bit".
When I meet people on the street or at Dunkin' Donuts and they complain about anything and everything, I take the time to explain the facts to them. I explain the system to the people I meet in flea markets or churches. If only people could believe in our system.
The pages who are with us tonight can become members of any political party, contribute to that party and have a say. They give $10 to the political party of their choice and get back $7.50 when they file their income tax return. In that way, for a real expense of $2.50, they earn the right to speak, to be active and present in political parties. We are talking about women today. My God, political parties are open in Canada. It is unique! You could not get involved in the political process in Europe as fast as you can in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and you know it. That is what is nice about
Canada and Quebec. If someone wants to take part in it, all he or she has to do is to join a political party whose philosophy he or she likes best and where he or she feels more at ease, and say: "I am doing it and not only that, I am going to contribute".
What is a $25 contribution for someone who pays taxes and will get back $19.75? The spirit of the elections act is a bit about all that. And it costs this person $6.75 to say: "I am not only speaking or criticizing, I am taking part in it". Canadians by the thousands, by the millions, should set out to join political parties. But if it is not millions, it should be hundreds of thousands.
Well, this bill is very simple. It is the beginning of the reform. After listening to Lortie, after reading his report, after analyzing it, after digesting it, we produced a first update. We will continue very actively this week, I am going to tell those who have been very involved with the Lortie commission and those who have followed it closely that we have not put aside the Lortie report. We will carry on. It is called phase two. I have committed myself.

And I say that in English. My chairman is here. He knows that we would have never given our consent to phase number one. I know that the hon. member for Champlain and all colleagues feel the same, if we did not have the good conscience of knowing that we are going to come back with another report before the election which will be made on time. I see my chairman acknowledging. He is the hon. member for Calgary West who has been attacked unfairly by some people. I know that he is as determined as I am.
It is a public commitment. I am not going to fool around. I do not make a public commitment that I cannot hold. My public commitments are like my private commitments. When I say I do something, I do it. I would never have given my consent to this if I was not sure that we will proceed immediately and try to convince our colleagues to go further and further until the end of this parliament in order to modernize the institution.
March 8, 1993



What I want to say to our fellow Canadian citizens is that it is an honest effort to modernize our election act. But there is a point which I would like to emphasize. I know that if the Lord is willing to keep me in good health and if voters are willing to re-elect me or to appoint me somewhere else, I would still want to participate very actively in the election process, since I have been talking about it for 30 years or 35 years. At university, in college, I was very active in those issues. The next thing I would like to see is a permanent voters' list. A big project. I will try to describe it in some detail before I close.
What is a permanent electoral list in Canada? It means that instead of taking 55, 50, 47 days for an election- that costs a lot of money. The more money we need, the higher the risk of seeing what is happening right now all over the world: scandals in Japan, in Italy, everywhere, in France, in England, but less in England. If we shorten the election period to 30 days, I cannot conceive such a modem country as Canada-

Canada is such a modern country, the envy of the rest of world. We do not repeat that enough.

Canada is the envy of the rest of the world. People come here to see how we hold elections.
Our electoral officers are in demand abroad as trainers. Only Canadians seem unable to see that we have a good electoral system, an excellent system, one that we are constantly improving. We should not be afraid to say that it is not perfect, but at least we are improving it and it is so good that others come and imitate our system.
I am now coming to the permanent list of electors. Why? Because thanks to all this modem technology that I do not understand much-but be warned, I started to learn how computers work-it could be possible, one day, to have only one registration, which could be made available free of charge to school-boards for their elections.
Government Orders
If you would allow me a few moments-I know you can show great patience-I would like to finish my speech. So, to conclude logically, imagine that in my area, at a given time, there are three registrations: school-board, municipal and provincial. You can imagine that it would be possible to reduce costs. If we had good co-operation at all levels, national, provincial, municipal and school boards, the same list of electors could be used by all, as it seems that with computers we can feed data to the computer and it produces the lists we ask for. This way we could save huge amounts of money and at the same time shorten the electoral period.
This is about all there is now to talk about. Many amendments are being considered, and my colleagues mentioned some of them. But, I am abusing your goodwill and I would like to conclude by stating my admiration, shared by my colleagues I am sure, for our system.

I am sure all my colleagues will join with me in thanking the Elections Canada people. The retired returning officer, Mr. Hamel, did a marvellous job. The new Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of the House of Commons, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley.
I know all my colleagues would like to thank the many people who work with them anonymously who are making Canada a country that many people are envious of. Elections Canada has been invited to teach other countries of the world how to manage an election.
I think it is to their credit and to the credit of people who are involved in the election process. I have no hesitation to commend my colleagues. It is not perfection, but we are on our way to making it better and better. There is no doubt in my mind we will come back soon with this law so we can proceed with the other phases.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his contribution this evening and all members who have contributed. I think it has been the right kind of debate and the right kind of atmosphere.

March 8, 1993
Government Orders
The member indicated I was nodding my head. I want to repeat on the public record it is my view that phase two can probably be reported to the House in the next couple of weeks, three weeks at the outside. We will deal with communications expenses, rebates and enforcement. The committee is well advanced in its work on those three major issues. We look forward to the passage by the House before adjournment so they can come into play.
All the phase one and phase two issues will be in place by the next federal general election. The committee had that as a goal and I think it is entrained to be able to meet that.
Almost every member has spent some time on the issue of election expenses. I would like to comment on the one aspect that has not been put on the record. Gallup polls and polls of that kind show that Canadians' confidence in their institutions and leadership, not just political leadership but leadership in general, is going down, not up. People are losing confidence in those kinds of institutions.
When it comes to electoral financing, there is some suspicion about how parties are funded and whether or not they end up owing debts to people. That is part of the concern out there. What is open, in a sense, but less well understood and noticed is the number of groups in Canadian society that make a living for their shareholders and employees by saying negative things about the Parliament of Canada or the politicians. The common characteristic is they ask people for donations. They send them dunning letters and raise money. We and the general public do not know how much they have raised. We do not know who they raised it from. We do not know how they spent it, therefore we do not know whose pocket it ended up in.
We know they are not institutions that are not for profit. We know we have no laws that force disclosure. I began to think about this more seriously since the committee started to meet. I will give two examples.
The first group that phoned me about election expenses is a group called Canadian Taxpayers Federation and it sent me a tabloid newspaper. Most of its newspaper was comprised of wire stories, some of it was created
for the newspaper, but it indicated it had a membership of 41,000 people. To be a member one had to give the owner of the newspaper $80. When we multiply $80 times 41,000 it comes to $3.28 million a year to produce six tabloid newspapers. Who gets the profit from that?
Then it moves on to conferences and so on. Who gets the profit? Whose pocket?
The National Citizens' Coalition was on the air the other day. The representative admitted to raising over $2 million last year. However, there is information in my possession which indicates it raised a lot more than that in 1988 and in years before that. It could declare a profit, never a loss. I ask myself whose pocket does the profit go into? What is the size of the pension of the people who work for these organizations? What is the salary they are paid? What does their expense account look like?
The common characteristic is: "Send me a donation and I will complain". This one organization says: "I will defend your freedom of speech", and it went to court and struck down a part of the election law as it now stands.
Did it strike down the part that puts limits on candidates and parties? Not on your life. If it was really an advocate of free speech it would have struck down the limits on everyone. That would have been its argument: candidates, parties and others. No, Mr. Speaker.
These organizations are in a better fund-raising position if there are limits on candidates and parties and not on them. Then they can complain about politicians. They can raise money. They have no obligation to tell people how much they raised, how they spent it and whose pocket it ended up in.
Those days are coming to an end. This Parliament must do all it can to make funding during election periods transparent so we know how much it is, where it comes from and how it is spent. If we can put that in with some kind of reasonable limitation, we will have made Canadian election law a lot better than it has been historically.
I thank all the colleagues on the committee for raising the issue. It has a level of complexity that had not been dealt with at great length. I just wanted to make sure it was dealt with on the record this evening. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make comments.
March 8, 1993


Marcel Prud'homme: I thank my colleague for raising this last point. Often, when we make a speech, we get away from the points that we wanted to discuss. I thank him for his comments because I fully agree with him and with several other parliamentarians. Indeed, I would hope that when we table an amendment, a free vote will take place.

I hope we will have a free vote on this issue when we introduce amendments. We believe we should limit indirect expenses as well as direct expenses.
I know my colleague from the New Democratic Party who is still here, the hon. member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan, has been very devoted to this question as have many Conservatives. It is not a question of partisanship.
I would not like people to say they cannot vote for the amendment because the government could be defeated. It is easy to say on this particular item, vote as you see fit, not according to your conscience because some feel this way or some feel that way. You must not say everything is a question of conscience. If you talk too much about that you end up having none, but I passionately believe.
When I said I did not want the Americanization of our Canadian political system, that is exactly what I had in mind. I do not only agree that we should limit, as Lortie said, the direct expenses to $1,000 so nobody would dare attack us in court according to the charter, but what is not allowed directly should not be allowed indirectly.
I am sure many colleagues and many friends will fight until the very last minute. If we do not get it this time we will have it some day because the Canadian people will understand their political system. They will understand what the member said. They will understand what the NDP and some Conservatives said.

I would say: Free us, free us from these occult forces that want to control politicians.
If you really want to democratize Canadian life, free us from those who, behind the scenes imagine that with big
Government Orders
contributions they might eventually get indirectly and secretly what they cannot get directly, openly and publicly. That is the spirit behind this bill, and that spirit will shine through when it is understood, because it is in the best interests of Canadians to support it. Therefore, a maximum of $1,000 should be allowed for direct advertising since we had to recognize that the Supreme Court would probably decide one day that people have a right to something. We suggest it should be $1,000. Personally,
I would have said zero, but if we settle for $1,000 worth of direct advertising, I submit that anything that cannot be done directly should not end up being done indirectly.
I know of a proverb, but I seem unable to recall it tonight and I would like our learned Speaker, who is a great linguist and a great Latin scholar, to tell us what it is exactly. I refer to the inscriptions on the wall in the Senate that are all in Latin and all from great Romans. That is why they are so long. There is a proverb by Seneca that says that nothing is well ordered that is hasty and precipitated.

There has to be prudence.

These are good living guidelines, these are the very words of Orestes. And Cicero, to close with him, said-and that was probably what motivated Mr.Tru-deau-that one had to be guided by reason, not by public opinion. We did an honest job or rather, we tried to do an honest job and we will keep on improving on it. I thank my colleague for his comments.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Milliken. 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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 8, 1993
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 61(2), the next question is on the motion of Mr. Andre. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill is referred to the special committee on electoral reform.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on electoral reform. [English]
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Manicouagan:
That the House do now adjourn.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Therefore the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 9, 1993